1900. ] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. OAT 
Mines Company, the right of the state of Maryland to provide that 
in the city of Baltimore, only, cases should be tried by the court, 
unless the jury is demanded by a specified time, was upheld as not 
denying equal protection of the laws. 
In ? Orient Insurance Company vs. Daggs, the right to require all 
insurance companies to pay the full amount of insurance in the 
event of the total loss of the property, regardless of its value, is 
maintained on the ground of the general right to prescribe the 
terms on which corporations may do business. 
In * Wilson vs. Eureka City, an ordinance forbidding the mov- 
ing of a building across a city street without permission of the 
Mayor is found not to give any unconstitutional or arbitrary power 
to the Mayor, on the authority of Davis vs. Massachusetts, not- 
withstanding a long array of cases from state courts, based on 3 Zz 
ve Frazee, opposing arbitrary power in municipal officers. 
In* Loan and Trust Company vs. Campbell Commission Company, 
the allowance of attachments against non-resident debtors without 
bond while requiring one as against residents, was sustained as not 
denying equal protection of the laws. 
An Arkansas statute requiring immediate payment of all arrears 
in wages on discharge of an employee of a railroad company is up- 
held against a similar attack in St. L. & I. M. & S. Ry. Co. ws. 
Paul. 
In February, 1899, the question of the right of Ohio to require 
every railroad company in that state to stop at least three of its 
regular passenger trains in all towns of three thousand or more 
inhabitants through which so many trains of the road should run 
daily was held to be entirely within the police power of the state. 
The power is expressly held to extend not only to the public health, 
morals and safety, but to every thing that promotes public peace, 
comfort and convenience. 
It is true that this is done by a bare majority of a divided court. 
It is to be noted again that the contention in the matter is not as 
to any violation of property rights or individual or even corporate 
liberty. The question is not raised as to the right of a state to 
make such requirements of its own citizens or corporations, but 
simply whether the commerce clause is in the way. 
V7 2) Ce S 555 71° ULAINOG Shp. vt, 
AH (OG Sky es 5 Ti., 404. 
363 Mich., 390. 
