Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/638

 IN RE MONa ÏUNO QUÏ. 631 �vising their disinterment and due preparation for passing Uirough the territory of the state, and through the streets of populous oities, either to other parts of the state or elsewhere, without endangering the health of the people. �For similar reasons the provision in question does not vio- late subdivision 2 of section 10, article 1, of the constitution, which provides that "no state shall, without the consent of congress, levy any imposts or duties on imports or exports, exeept whatis absolutely necessaryfor Us inspection laws." The case also seems to be within the terras of this exception. Besides, the remains of deceased persons are not "exports" within the meaning of the term as used in the constitution. The tenu refers only to those thinga which are property. There is no property in any just sense in the dead body of a humanbeing. 18 Alb.L.Jour.487; 17 Alb. L. Jour. 258 ;Pierce V. Pro. of Swan Point Cemetery, 14 Am. Eep. 667 ; 10 E. I. 227, and cases cited. There is no impost or duty on exports in any proper sense, or in the sense of the constitution. Thîs provision of the constitution was intended to prevent discrim- ination in matters of trade. �There is no violation of the fourteenth amendment to the national constitution. There is no discrimination against or in favor of any class of residents. It operates upon aliens of ail nationalities and upon ail citizens alike. It applies to ail cases of remains to be removed beyond the boundaries of the county, whether to foreign countries, to other states, or to other parts of this state. And there are no restrictions upon disinterments and removals of Chinese dead to other places within the same county for burial not applicable to citizens and ail other aliens. It may be that the large num- ber of Chinese removals suggested the neeessity for stringent supervision; but we see no reason to suppose that the act was not intended to operate upon ail within its terms ; and the testimony shows — if it is admissible to look at the testi- tnony — that it is, in fact, enforced against ail alike. But, whether enforced or not, the subject-matter, as we have seen, is a proper one for regulation; and if the act is not enforced upon ail alike, there is a gross negleot of duty on the part of ����