In re Considine

Decision Date20 October 1897
Citation83 F. 157
CourtUnited States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Northern Division
PartiesIn re CONSIDINE.

Harrison Bostwick, for petitioner.

Patrick Henry Winston, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

HANFORD District Judge.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus in this case presents for decision the question whether the following statute of the state of Washington is repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

'No female person shall be employed in any capacity in any saloon, beer hall, bar room, theatre, or place of amusement where intoxicating liquors are sold as a beverage, and any person or corporation convicted of so employing, or of participating in so employing, any such female person shall be fined not less than five hundred dollars; and any person so convicted may be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of not less than six months. ' Laws Wash. 1895, p 177.

The petitioner was convicted in the superior court for Spokane county of a violation of this statute, and the judgment against him has been affirmed by the supreme court of the state of Washington. State v. Considine, 16 Wash 358-365, 47 P. 755. After the judgment of the supreme court had been rendered, and the petition for a rehearing denied he filed his petition herein for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was unlawfully imprisoned under said judgment for nonpayment of the fine imposed. This court has no jurisdiction to review decisions of the supreme court of the state, upon questions of procedure in the state courts under state laws, or questions involving the interpretation or application of the provisions of the state constitution. Therefore I will only say, in answer to the argument of counsel for the petitioner, as to those questions, that the decision of the supreme court of the state is final and conclusive.

The contention of the petitioner is that, in contravention of the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, the statute under which he was convicted does abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; and does deny to persons within the jurisdiction of this state the equal protection of the laws, in this, that it deprives persons lawfully engaged in the liquor business of the privilege or right of employing women who are competent to contract with reference to their own services; and in this, that it deprives women of freedom in their choice of vocations, and makes it unlawful for them to engage in employment which is lawful for men.

In the opinion of the supreme court of the United States by Chief Justice Fuller in the case of Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657-662, 13 Sup.Ct. 723, it is declared that:

'The amendment does not take from the states those powers of police that were reserved at the time the original constitution was adopted. Undoubtedly it forbids any arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property, and secures equal protection to all, under like circumstances, in the enjoyment of their rights; but it was not designed to interfere with the power of the state to protect the

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Anderson v. City of St. Paul
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1948
    ...of the laws in violation of the equal protection clause thereof. Cronin v. Adams, 192 U.S. 108, 24 S.Ct. 219, 48 L.Ed. 365; In re Considine, C.C., 83 F. 157; Ex parte Felchlin, 96 Cal. 360, 31 P. 224, 31 Am.St.Rep. 223; Foster v. Board of Police Com'rs, 102 Cal. 483, 37 P. 763, 41 Am.St.Rep......
  • Hibbs v. Dept. of Human Resouces
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 11, 2001
    ...485 P.2d at 531 (California statute); Ex parte Hayes, 98 Cal. 555 (Cal. 1893); State v. Considine, 47 P. 755 (Wash), aff'd, In re Considine, 83 F. 157 (D. Wash. 1897). 21. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Summary of State Laws for Women 17 (1969) (in 1969, seventeen states had laws prohibiting the empl......
  • McLean v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1906
    ...but only in the sense of the nature or extent of the private business being affected with public interests. 190 U.S. 169; 183 U.S. 13; 83 F. 157; 157 U.S. 160; 113 U.S. 703; 169 U.S. 366; 94 U.S. 113; 9 Me. 54; 10 S.E. 143. Neither is the law invalid because it is made to apply only to coal......
  • Hargens v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 28, 1968
    ...When these two propositions are established, as we believe they are in this case, the force of the argument vanishes. (See In re Considine (1897), 83 F. 157; People v. Case (1908), 153 Mich. 98, 116 N.W. 558, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 657); City of Hoboken v. Goodman (1902), 68 N.J.L. 217, 51 'Furth......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT