construed to apply to this case it would be contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court of the State and judgment was entered on the verdict. 93 Minnesota 63. The case was then brought here.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota construed the act to apply to this case and held it constitutional when so construed. Of course, if the statute as interpreted is not within the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment we do not interfere with the construction adopted by the state court. The state court held that the act was confined to the dangers peculiar to railroads and did not discriminate against railroad companies merely as such. It read the proviso as only exempting incomplete roads, marking the time when the statute should take effect, and not as confining it to roads intended for public travel. Before us it was argued that when the statute was passed there were no private railroads in the State, and that, if the proviso is taken to mean what the court said, the discrimination is senseless and unjustified, whereas if it be taken to confine the statute to public roads after public travel has begun, the distinction may be maintained. We are of a different opinion. Some time must be fixed when the law shall begin to operate and the time when the road is finished is a natural and proper time. There may be unavoidable and exceptional dangers before the track is finished and while cars are being run over it for construction purposes, and the legislature might think it proper that the servant should take the risk of these even if the negligence of a fellow servant coöperated, just as he takes the risk of the known peculiar dangers when he sets about repairing the effects of an accident. The fact that there may be also dangers like those on the finished road does not prevent the legislature from considering the situation as a whole and keeping the old rule on practical grounds until the exceptional risks come to an end. It was assumed in argument that the statute would not apply to a road like the present if it were built in aid of the construction of a public railroad which was not yet

completed. We see nothing in the decision or the statute tu warrant the assumption, and therefore need not discuss what the effect of such an exception would be. Of course there is no objection to legislation being confined to a peculiar and welldefined class of perils, and it is not necessary that they should be perils which are shared by the public, if they concern the body of citizens engaged in a particular work. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366.

It was not argued that the statute was bad as interfering unduly with freedom of contract. There is no doubt that that freedom may be limited where there are visible reasons of public policy for the limitation. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 391. The constitutionality of the law, so far as it merely does away with the exception as to the negligence of fellow servants from the general law of master and servant in the case of railroads, is not disputed. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 205. The whole case is put on the proviso, and the argument with regard to that is merely one of the many attempts to impart an overmathematical nicety to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Judgment affirmed.

199 U. S.

Opinions Per Curiam, Etc.

OPINIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM OCTOBER 9, TO DECEMBER 11, 1905:

No., Original. Ex parte: IN THE MATTER OF LEONIDAS M. LAWSON ET AL. Submitted October 10, 1905. Decided October 16, 1905. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus denied. Mr. Charles C. Dey, Mr. Ogden Hiles and Mr. Charles J. Hughes, Jr., for the petitioners.

No. 259. SAMUEL W. WATKINS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF DENVER. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted October 10, 1905. Petition for certiorari and to postpone motions to hearing on merits submitted October 10, 1905. Decided October 16, 1905. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Ex parte Jones, 164 U. S. 691; Press Publishing Company v. Monroe, 164 U. S. 105; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 U. S. 405; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Company, 191 U. S. 526; Wabash Railroad Company v. Flannigan, 192 U. S. 29. Petition for writ of certiorari denied. Mr. George H. Noyes for plaintiff in error. Mr. T. J. O'Donnell and Mr. R. T. McNeal for defendant in error.

No. 163. E. A. WIMBISH, SUPERINTENDENT, ETC., APPELLANT, v. HENRY JAMISON. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia. Argued October 12, 1905. Decided October 16, 1905. Per Curiam. Final order reversed with costs, and cause remanded with a direction to quash the writ and dismiss the petition. Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U. S. 499; Davis v. Burke, 179 U. S. 399; New York v. Eno, 155 U. S. 89; Pepke

Opinions Per Curiam, Etc.

199 U. S.

v. Cronan, 155 U. S. 100. Mr. Minter Wimberly for appellant. Mr. Alexander Akerman for appellee.

No. 3. THE CEDAR RAPIDS WATER COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. THE CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa.. Argued October 17, 1905. Decided October 23, 1905. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Kimball v. Kimball, 174 U. S. 158; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651; California v. San Pablo and Tulare Railroad Company, 149 U. S. 308; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547. Mr. Charles A. Clark for plaintiff in error. Mr. John N. Hughes for defendants in error.

No. 15. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL. FRANK O. ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM VREDENBURGH, INSURANCE SUPERINTENDENT, ETC. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. Submitted for defendant in error October 19, 1905. Decided October 23,. 1905. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173. Mr. George W. Wall for defendant in error. No brief filed for plaintiff in error.

No. 16. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM VREDENBURGH, INSURANCE SUPERINTENDENT, ETC. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. Submitted for defendant in error October 19, 1905. Decided October 23, 1905. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173. Mr. George W. Wall for defendant in error. No brief filed for plaintiff in error.

No. 17. NICHOLAS BOWDEN, EXECUTOR, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the North

199 U. S.

Opinions Per Curiam, Etc.

ern District of California. Argued October 19, 1905. Decided October 23, 1905. Per Curiam. Decree affirmed with costs. Hoadly v. San Francisco, 124 U. S. 639, 645; S. C., 94 U. S. 4; S C., 50 California, 265, 273; S. C., 70 California, 320; Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall. 326; Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363, 379; Halladay v. San Francisco, 124 California, 352; Board of Education v. Martin, 92 California, 209; Trenouth v. San Francisco, 100 U. S. 251. Mr. E. B. Holladay and Mr. S. W. Holladay for appellants. Mr. W. I. Brobeck and Mr. Percy V. Long for appellees.

Nos. 250, 251 and 252. GEORGE E. GREEN, APPELLANT, v. CLINTON D. MACDOUGALL, UNITED STATES MARSHAL, ETC. Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. Argued October 16, 1905. Decided October 23, 1905. Per Curiam. Final orders affirmed with costs. Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73; Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1; Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 63, 84; Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. 249. Mr. John G. Johnson for appellant. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Purdy and Mr. Solicitor General Hoyt for the appellee.

No. 296. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS ET AL. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted October 16, 1905. Petition for writ of certiorari submitted October 16, 1905. Decided October 23, 1905. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 U. S. 405; Newburyport Water Company v. Newburyport, 193 U. S. 561; Underground Railroad v. New York, 193 U. S. 416; Skaneateles Water Works Company v. Skaneateles, 184 U. S. 354; McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168. Petition for writ of certiorari denied. Mr. D. T. Watson, Mr. Bartlett Tripp, Mr. Park Davis and Mr. Charles O. Bailey for appellants. Mr. Hosmer H. Keith and Mr. R. H. Warren for appellees.