It is contended on the part of the petitioners, that the ordinances for violations of which they are severally sentenced to imprisonment, are void on their face, as being within the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, in the alternative, if not so, that they are void by reason of their administration, operating unequally, so as to punish in the present petitioners what is permitted to others as lawful, without any distinction of circumstances an unjust and illegal discrimination, it is claimed, which, though not made expressly by the ordinances is made possible by them. When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men. For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself. A similar question, very pertinent to the one in the present cases, was decided by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, in the case of the City of Baltimore v. Radecke, 49 Maryland 217. In that case the defendant had erected and used a steam engine, in the prosecution of his business as a carpenter and box-maker in the city of Baltimore, under a permit from the mayor and eity council, which contained a condition that the engine was "to be removed after six months' notice to that effect from the mayor." After such notice and refusal to conform to it, a suit was instituted to recover the penalty provided by the ordinance, to restrain the prosecution of which a bill in equity was filed. The court, holding the opinion that "there may be a case in which an ordinance, passed under grants of power like those we have cited, is so clearly unreasonable, so arbitrary, oppressive, or partial, as to raise the presumption that the legislature never intended to confer the power to pass it, and to justify the courts in interfering and setting it aside as a plain abuse of authority," it proceeds to speak, with regard to the ordinance in question, in relation to the use of steam engines, as follows: "It does not profess to prescribe regulations for their construction, location, or use, nor require such precautions and safeguards to be provided by those who own and use them as are best calculated to render them less dangerous to life and property, nor does it restrain their use in box factories and other similar establishments within certain defined limits, nor in any other way attempt to promote their safety and security without destroying their usefulness. But it commits to the unrestrained will of a single public officer the power to notify every person who now employs a steam engine in the prosecution of any business in the city of Baltimore, to cease to do so, and, by providing compulsory fines for every day's disobedience of such notice and order of removal, renders his power over the use of steam in that city practically absolute, so that he may prohibit its use altogether. But if he should not choose to do this, but only to act in particular cases, there is nothing in the ordinance to guide or control his action. It lays down no rules by which its impartial execution can be secured or partiality and oppression prevented. It is clear that giving and enforcing these notices may, and quite likely will, bring ruin to the business of those against whom they are directed, while others, from whom they are withheld, may be actually benefited by what is thus done to their neighbors; and, when we remember that this action or non-action may proceed from enmity or prejudice, from partisan zeal or animosity, from favoritism and other improper influences and motives easy of concealment and difficult to be detected and exposed, it becomes unnecessary to suggest or to comment upon the injustice capable of being brought under cover of such a power, for that becomes apparent to every one who gives to the subject a moment's consideration. In fact, an ordinance which clothes a single individual with such power hardly falls within the domain of law, and we are constrained to pronounce it inoperative and void.' This conclusion, and the reasoning on which it is based, are deductions from the face of the ordinance, as to its necessary tendency and ultimate actual operation. In the present cases we are not obliged to reason from the probable to the actual, and pass upon the validity of the ordinances complained of, as tried merely by the opportunities which their terms afford, of unequal and unjust discrimination in their administration. For the cases present the ordinances in actual operation, and the facts shown establish an administration directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons as to warrant and require the conclusion, that, whatever may have been the intent of the ordinances as adopted, they are applied by the public authorities charged with their administration, and thus representing the State itself, with a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the State of that equal protection of the laws which is secured to the petitioners, as to all other persons, by the broad and benign provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370; and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703. The present cases, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, are within this class. It appears that both petitioners have complied with every requisite, deemed by the law or by the public officers charged with its administration, necessary for the protection of neighboring property from fire, or as a precaution against injury to the public health. No reason whatever, except the will of the supervisors, is assigned why they should not be permitted. to carry on, in the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood. And while this consent of the supervisors is withheld from them and from two hundred others who have also petitioned, all of whom happen to be Chinese subjects, eighty others, not Chinese subjects, are per mitted to carry on the same business under similar conditions. The fact of this discrimination is admitted. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusion cannot be resisted, that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which in the eye of the law is not justified. The discrimination is, therefore, illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is, therefore, illegal, and they must be discharged. To this end, The judgment of the Supreme Court of California in the case of Yick Wo, and that of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California in the case of Wo Lee, are severally reversed, and the cases remanded, each to the proper court, with directions to discharge the petitioners from custody and imprisonment. 4. Construction of Powers. PEOPLE V. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. CO. New York Court of Appeals. January, 1887. DANFORTH, J. Upon motion on notice by the attorney-general for a mandamus requiring the defendant to construct and maintain on the line of its road at the village of Hamburgh, a building of sufficient capacity to accommodate its passengers arriving at that place, or departing therefrom, or in waiting to depart, and such freight as is usually received at or shipped from that point, it appeared that the village of New Hamburgh contains twelve hundred inhabitants and furnishes to the defendant at a station established by it, a large freight and passenger business; that its depot building is entirely inadequate for these purposes, and the absence of a depot building and warehouse sufficient for the accommodation of passengers and freight has been and continues to be a matter of serious damage to large numbers of persons doing business at that station. These facts were conceded by the defendant. It also appeared that upon complaint made to the railroad commissioners after notice to the defendant, that body adjudged and recom mended that the railroad company should construct a suitable building at that station within a time named, but although informed of this determination, the defendant failed to comply or do anything towards complying with it, not for want of means or ability to do so, but because "its directors decided that the interests of the defendant required it to postpone, for the present, the erection or enlargement of the station house or depot at the village of Hamburgh." The Supreme Court at Special Term granted the motion, and, adopting the language of the railroad commissioners, ordered that the defendant "forthwith construct and maintain a suitable depot building, of sufficient size and capacity to accommodate passengers arriving and departing on said road at the village of Hamburgh, as well as such passengers as may be in waiting on ordinary occasions to depart from the said village, on the line and by the way of said defendant's road, and of sufficient capacity to accommodate such quantities of freight as are usually received at said village, or that may be shipped therefrom, by the way of said New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad." Upon appeal to the General Term the order, after very careful consideration, was affirmed. railroad company appeals. The We agree with the court below that at common law the defendant, as a carrier, is under no obligation to provide warehouses for freight offered, or depots for passengers waiting transportation. But that court has found such duty to be imposed by statute. To this we are unable to assent. The question arises upon the construction of the General Railroad Act (Laws of 1850, chap. 140), and its amendments. The court below does not find, nor does the respondent claim, that the legislature has at any time, in express and specific terms, imposed upon a railroad company the duty of erecting or maintaining a depot or warehouse. It is sought to be implied. The company is empowered to erect and maintain all necessary and convenient buildings, stations, etc., for the accommodation and use of their passengers, freight and business" (id. § 28, subd. 8), and may acquire and hold real estate and other property for these purposes, "as may be necessary to accomplish the object of its incorporation." There are some other provisions in the same direction; none go further than those cited. But from these, and from the circumstances first referred to, that the company is exercising a public trust, and to that cause owes its existence and capacity to enjoy and profit by the franchise it has accepted, it is argued by |