for the construction of public works, that it is not an unreasonable construction of the words in the Judiciary Act of 1887– 88, "or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners," to hold that the United States is a real and not a mere nominal plaintiff in the present action, and therefore that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction.

This interpretation of the statute finds some support in the above act of 1894, c. 282, passed the same day as the act, c. 280, for the protection of materialmen and laborers, and which provides that suits against a fidelity or guaranty corporation, accepted as surety in any recognizance, stipulation, bond or undertaking given to the United States, may be sued in any court of the United States having jurisdiction of suits upon such instrument. There is in that act no express limitation as to the amount involved in suits of that character in either of the acts passed in 1894. Taking the two acts together, there is reason to say that Congress intended to bring all suits, embraced by either act, when brought in the name of the United States, within the original cognizance of the Circuit Courts of the United States, without regard to the amount in dispute. And this view as to the intention of Congress is strengthened by an examination of the act of February 24, 1905, 33 Stat. 811, c. 778, which amends the above statute of 1904, c. 280. After providing that persons supplying labor and materials for the construction of a public work shall have the right to intervene in any suit brought by the United States against the contractor, that act declares that if no such suit is brought by the United States within six months after completion of the contract then the person supplying labor or material to the contractor "shall have a right of action and shall be and are hereby authorized to bring suit in the name of the United States in the Circuit Court of the United States in the district in which said contract was to be performed and executed, irrespective of the amount in controversy in such suit, and not elsewhere, for his or their use and benefit, against said contractor and his sure

ties, and to prosecute the same to final judgment and execution."

It is true that this statute can have no direct application here, because the present action was instituted long prior to its passage and after the trial court had decided the question of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. As the act of 1905 does not refer to cases pending at its passage, the question of jurisdiction depends upon the law as it was when the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was invoked in this action. Nevertheless, that act throws some light on the meaning of the act of 1894, c. 280, for the protection of materialmen and laborers, and tends to sustain the view based on the latter act, namely, that in suits brought in the name of the Government for their benefit the United States is a real litigant, not a mere nominal party, and that of such suits, the Government being plaintiff therein, and having the legal right, the Circuit Court may take original cognizance without regard to the value of the matter in dispute. There are cases which take the opposite view, but the better view we think is the one expressed herein. The judgment is

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER dissents.

WESTERN TURF ASSOCIATION v. GREENBERG.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 189. Submitted January 29, 1907.-Decided February 25, 1907.

Where defendant corporation in the court below questions the constitutionality of a state statute as an abridgment of its rights and immunities and as depriving it of its property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the judgment sustains the validity of the statute, this court has jurisdiction to review the judgment on writ of error under § 709, Rev. Stat.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

204 U. S.

A corporation is not deemed a citizen within the clause of the Constitution of the United States protecting the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States from being abridged or impaired by the law of a State; and the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against deprivation without due process of law is that of natural, not artificial, persons.

A State may in the exercise of its police power regulate the admission of persons to places of amusement, and, upon terms of equal and exact justice, provide that persons holding tickets thereto shall be admitted if not under the influence of liquor, boisterous, or of lewd character, and such a statute does not deprive the owners of such places of their property without due process of law; so held as to California statute. 148 California, 126, affirmed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. William S. Goodfellow, for plaintiff in error, submitted: The reason for excluding the defendant in error from the grounds was that he insisted upon publishing a newspaper called a racing chart or form chart, whereas the association had sold the exclusive privilege so to do to other persons. The association had the right to make such a contract, perhaps for the protection of the public, and for the reputation of its own grounds; as also for the profits to be directly derived from the contract.

Apart from this special statute, a ticket of admission to a place of amusement is, and always has been, merely a license. The authorities to this effect were cited in the former case, and the Supreme Court of California held in conformity with them. But if this statute be valid it is no longer possible for two persons to contract for the issuance of a license to a place of amusement. This statute also makes it a penal offense, 140 California, 364, for a person who has made a civil contract to violate it. It is understood that every person has that right, of course holding himself responsible in damages.

The plaintiff in error is a private corporation, conducting a private business, upon its own private premises. There is no suggestion that it was in anywise exercising a public use, or that it had ever received aid or special privileges from the

State, or even a license to transact business. District of Columbia v. Saville, 1 McArthur, 581; S. C., 29 Am. Rep. 616; Sharpe v. Whiteside, 19 Fed. Rep. 156; Gibbs v. Tally, 133 California, 373; State v. Associated Press, 60 S. W. Rep. 191; Leep v. St. Louis, 25 S. W. Rep. 575.

Mr. William G. Burke, for defendant in error, submitted: The statute attacked in this case is applicable only to places of public amusement or entertainment and was within the power of the legislature to enact. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Grannan v. Westchester Racing Assn., 16 App. Div. 8; S. C., 44 N. Y. Supp. 790; Baylies v. Curry, 128 Illinois, 287; People v. King, 110 N. Y. 418.

The constitutionality of the statute under consideration has been twice upheld by the Supreme Court of California. Greenberg v. Western Turf Assn., 82 Pac. Rep. 684.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error is a corporation of California, and the lessee, in possession, of a race-course kept as a place of public entertainment and amusement, and to which it was accustomed to issue tickets of admission. The defendant Greenberg purchased one of such tickets, and was admitted to the race-course. After being admitted he was ejected from the premises against his will by police officers, acting, it was alleged in the complaint, by the direction of the plaintiff. The defendant denied responsibility for the acts of those officers. It was sued by Greenberg in one of the courts of California, and there was a verdict and judgment against the Association for the sum of one thousand dollars. The case was taken to the Supreme Court of the State and the judgment was affirmed. 148 California, 126.

At the trial a question was raised as to the applicability to this case of a statute of California relating to the admission of persons holding tickets of admission to places of public

entertainment and amusement. That statute is as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any corporation, person or association, or the proprietor, lessee, or the agents of either, of any opera house, theatre, melodeon, museum, circus, caravan, race-course, fair, or other place of public amusement or entertainment, to refuse admittance to any person over the age of twenty-one years who presents a ticket of admission acquired by purchase, and who demands admission to such place, provided that any person under the influence of liquor, or who is guilty of boisterous conduct, or any person of lewd or immoral character, may be excluded from any such place of amusement. Sec. 2. Any person who is refused admission to any place of amusement, contrary to the provisions of this act, is entitled to recover from the proprietors, lessees or their agents, or from any person, association, corporation, or the directors thereof, his actual damage and $100 in addition thereto."

1. The record sufficiently shows that in the Supreme Court of the State the defendant questioned the validity of the statute in question under the Fourteenth Amendment, in that it "seeks to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and to deprive them of liberty and property without due process of law, and to deny to them, being within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws." By the judgment below the validity of the statute was sustained, the court holding that it was a legitimate exertion of the police power of the State. The contention that this court is without jurisdiction to review that judgment is, therefore, overruled.

2. The Supreme Court of the State in a previous decision between the same parties-Greenberg v. Western Turf Association, 140 California, 357, 360-held the statute to be constitutional as a valid regulation imposed by the State in its exercise of police power. That decision, we assume, from the opinion of the court, had reference only to the constitution of California. But this court can only pass upon the validity of