1900.] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 499 
of drainage to the Supreme Court of the state, which on reasonable 
notice should appoint three commissioners to carry it out, unless a 
majority of the owners should object. The expense and descrip- 
tion of the land which ought to contribute to it were reported and 
notice given again with four weeks to object ; and if objection was 
made, it should be summarily decided by the court, and the com- 
missioners proceed to make assessment of the due proportion of 
each parcel in the expense, which assessment was to be published 
for six weeks, and any objections then made to be summarily de- 
cided by the court ; and if assessment was set aside it should again 
be referred to the commissioners, and like proceedings had till a 
valid assessment was obtained. If not paid by a certain time the 
lands were to be sold to satisfy the assessment. 
Under this statute Mrs, Wurtz’ land was assessed to pay the sum 
of $13,347.84, and over her objections this was confirmed by the 
state court and a writ of error procured from the federal Supreme 
Court because the decree 
*‘ violated the constitution of the United States in’ this, that it deprives 
plaintiffs in error of their property without due process of law, denies to 
them the equal protection of the law and violates the first section of the 
fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States.”’ 
The court, in an opinion by Judge Gray affirming the action of the 
state court, says : 
“ Laws for the draining and embanking of low grounds and to provide 
for the expense, for the mere benefit of the proprietor and without refer- 
ence to the public good, are to be classed not with the taxing, but to the 
police powers of the government.” 
Chancellor Zabriskie’s opinion in Tide Water Co. vs. Coster and 
Barbier vs. Connolly are cited. 
In the session of 1885 and 1886 the number of cases brought 
into the court relating to property rights under the fourteenth 
amendment must have made Judge Miller wonder how he came to 
say he did not believe there would ever be a case brought in that 
court claiming denial of equal protection of the laws, except on be- 
half of some member of the African race. In *Missouri Pac. Rail- 
way Co. vs. Humes, the railway company had been sued for killing 
a mule. By law of the state of Missouri if a railway company 
failed to fence its lines, double the amount of damages sustained 
1715 U. S., 512 (1885). 
