A state statute regarding employment of laborers otherwise valid
is not unconstitutional under the equal provision clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment because it makes distinctions between aliens
and citizens. There is a basis for such a classification. Otherwise
decided on the authority of
Heim v. McCall, ante, p.
239 U. S. 175.
214 N.Y. 154, affirmed.
The facts, which involve the constitutionality of § 14 of the
Labor Law of New York, are stated in the opinion.
Page 239 U. S. 197
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case was argued and submitted with
Heim v. McCall,
ante, p.
239 U. S. 175. It
involves the criminal feature of § 14 of the Labor Law of the
state, which was the subject of the opinion in
Heim v. McCall,
ante, p.
239 U. S. 175. It
provided that a violation of the section should constitute a
misdemeanor and be punished by fine or imprisonment, or by
both.
The case was commenced by information which accused Crane,
plaintiff in error, while engaged as a contractor with the city in
the construction of a public work of such city, by virtue of a
contract entered into with the city, of having employed three
persons not then citizens of the United States.
The public work was the construction of catch or sewer
basins.
The defense was the unconstitutionality of the law, and that it
was in violation of the treaties of the United States with foreign
countries.
The treaties were put in evidence over the objection of the
prosecuting officer, and a motion was made to dismiss the
information on the grounds above stated. The motion was denied, and
plaintiff in error found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $50,
or, in default thereof, to be committed to the city prison for the
term of ten days.
Page 239 U. S. 198
The case was then appealed to the appellate division of the
supreme court, and there heard with
Heim v. McCall, ante,
p.
239 U. S. 175.
The judgment was reversed. This action was not sustained by the
Court of Appeals. In that court and in the appellate division, the
cases were heard together and decided by the same opinions, they
being rendered in the present case and the judgment of the trial
court (special term) affirmed.
It appeared from the testimony that one of the laborers employed
was a subject of the King of Italy (the nationality of the others
was not shown), and a treaty between the United States and that
country, signed February 25, 1913, was received in evidence over
the objection of the district attorney on the ground that "none of
the parties to the proceeding is a subject of the King of Italy."
Treaties with other countries were also received in evidence. To
them the district attorney objected on the ground that none of the
parties to the proceedings and "nobody who was connected in any way
with the subject matter of the contract or employed in the
performance of the work" was "a subject or citizen of any of the
countries referred to."
The provisions of the treaty with Italy are set out in the
opinion in the
Heim case, and the provisions of the other
treaties are not, so far as their application is concerned,
materially different.
The contentions of plaintiff in error are based on the treaties
and on the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States. The specifications of error are the same, though varying in
expression, as those in the
Heim case, and there
considered and declared untenable. There is added the view that a
distinction made between aliens and citizens violates the principle
of classification. We think this view is also without
foundation.
Judgment affirmed.