Opinion of the Court.

the case up intended to assert a Federal right. Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648; Levy v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 167 U. S. 175, 177. The averment in the answer, that the statute of Illinois was unconstitutional and void, must be taken as intended to apply to the constitution of that State, and not to the Constitution of the United States. In Miller v. Cornwall Railroad, 168 U. S. 131, 134, this court, speaking by the Chief Justice, said: "We have no jurisdiction on a writ of error to a state court to declare a state law void on account of its collision with a state constitution; and it was long ago held that where it was objected in the state courts that an act of the State was 'unconstitutional and void,' the objection was properly construed in those courts, as raising the question whether the state legislature had the power, under the state constitution, to pass the act, and not as having reference to any repugnance to the Constitution of the United States. Porter v. Foley, 24 How. 415."

It is manifest that, when the answer was drawn, neither the defendant Kipley nor the learned counsel representing him intended to raise any question of a Federal nature. We cannot suppose that it occurred to either of them at that time that the Civil Service Act of Illinois was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

Nor was any question of a Federal character raised or intended to be raised by the plea which brought before the court the city ordinance of June 28, 1897.

It is, however, said that the motion for leave to amend the answer did specially set up and claim that the Illinois Civil. Service Act violated certain rights, privileges and immunities belonging to the plaintiff in error under the Constitution of the United States. But as the Supreme Court of Illinois did not allow the proposed amendment of the answer the questions suggested by the amendment did not arise for determination. To the action of the court in disallowing the amendment, no exception was taken. The grounds upon which these motions were denied appear from the opinion of the court as follows: "By this motion respondent Kipley asks, first, for leave to withdraw his plea; second, to file an amended answer; and

Opinion of the Court.

third, to file a supplemental answer. Nothing more is before us than the bare motion. No showing has been made nor reasons filed in support of the motion, and we are unable to say whether the motion should be allowed or not, and it must therefore be overruled." People v. Kipley, 167 Illinois, 638. This action of the state court does not raise a Federal question which this court can examine. The suggestion that the Federal questions which would have been raised, if the answer had been amended as proposed, should be considered upon their merits precisely as they might have been if the motion to amend had been allowed, cannot be entertained for a moment. It was in the discretion of the court to deny the motion to amend, when no reasons were assigned for its allowance, and to hold the parties to the issues made by the original petition and answer; and there is nothing in the record justifying the conclusion that its discretion, in that regard, was exercised with the intent or so as to deprive the defendant either of any right or immunity to which he was entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the privilege of setting up or claiming in due time and in proper form any such right or immunity.

It may be observed that the opinion of the state court delivered upon final hearing contains nothing to show that any Federal question was considered or determined. The general subject to which the attention of the court was directed is shown by the following extract from its opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Magruder: "The evils sought to be remedied by legislation of this character are well known and well understood. These evils are such as grow out of what is generally called the 'spoils system.' The foundation principles of the act are that appointments to municipal offices or employments must be made according to merit and fitness, to be ascertained by competitive examinations, free to all; and that promotions from lower to higher grades in the public service must be made upon the basis of merit." People v. Kipley, 171 Illinois, 60. The validity of the enactment in question was considered by that court with reference only to the state constitution.

Statement of the Case.

In respect of the motion to discharge the rule and all proceedings against the respondents it need only be said that it could have been denied upon the ground that the questions sought to be raised by it might more properly arise upon demurrer, plea or answer. Its denial did not have the effect to bring any Federal question into the record to be determined. It may also be observed that no exception was taken to the action of the state court in relation to this motion.

This court having no jurisdiction to reexamine the final. judgments of the state court in these cases, the motion to dismiss the writs of error is sustained.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissented.

Dismissed.

HAWKER v. NEW YORK.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS OF THE PEACE FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK, STATE OF NEW YORK.

No. 415. Argued March 9, 1898. - Decided April 18, 1898.

The provision in the act of the legislature of New York of May 9, 1893, c. 661, relating to the public health, as amended by the act of April 25, 1895, c. 398, that " any person who, . . . after conviction of a felony, shall attempt to practise medicine, or shall so practise, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred and fifty dollars, or imprisonment for six months for the first offence, and on conviction of any subsequent offence, by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisonment for not less than one year, or by both fine and imprisonment," does not conflict with Article I, section 10, of the Constitution of the United States which provides that "No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law or law impairing the Obligation of Contracts," when applied to a person who had been convicted of a felony prior to its enactment.

IN 1878 the plaintiff in error, defendant below, was tried and convicted in the Court of Sessions of Kings County, New York, of the crime of abortion, and sentenced to imprison

Opinion of the Court.

ment in the penitentiary for the term of ten years. On May 9, 1893, the legislature of the State of New York passed an act entitled "The Public Health Law," Laws 1893, c. 661, which, as amended by the law of April 25, 1895, c. 398, provides, among other things, as follows: "SECTION 153. Any person who, .

after conviction of a felony, shall attempt to practise medicine, or shall so practise, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred and fifty dollars, or imprisonment for six months for the first offence, and on conviction of any subsequent offence, by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisonment for not less than one year, or by both fine and imprisonment." Under this statute defendant was indicted in April, 1896, in the Court of General Sessions of the Peace for the city and county of New York. The indictment alleged the conviction in 1878, and charged that, having been so convicted of the crime and felony of abortion, defendant did, on the 22d day of February, 1896, in the city of New York, unlawfully practise medicine" by then and there unlawfully examining, treating and prescribing for one Dora Hoenig." To this indictment he demurred. The demurrer was overruled, and, upon a plea of not guilty, he was tried, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $250. That conviction having been sustained by the Court of Appeals of the State, 152 New York, 234, and a remittitur sent down, a final judgment was entered in the Court of General Sessions, whereupon he sued out this writ of error.

Mr. Hugh O. Pentecost for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Robert C. Taylor and Mr. Asa Bird Gardiner for defendant in error. Mr. W. M. K. Olcott and Mr. John D. Lindsay were on the brief for the defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after making the above statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The single question presented is as to the constitutionality

Opinion of the Court.

of this statute when applied to one who had been convicted of a felony prior to its enactment. Its unconstitutionality is alleged on the ground of an alleged conflict with article I, section 10, of the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to pass "any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law or law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." The arguments for and against this contention may be thus briefly stated.

On the one hand it is said that defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence. He suffered the punishment pronounced. The legislature has no power to thereafter add to that punishment. The right to practise medicine is a valuable property right. To deprive a man of it is in the nature of punishment, and after the defendant has once fully atoned for his offence a statute imposing this additional penalty is one simply increasing the punishment for the offence, and is ex post facto.

On the other, it is insisted that within the acknowledged reach of the police power, a State may prescribe the qualifi cations of one engaged in any business so directly affecting the lives and health of the people as the practice of medicine. It may require both qualifications of learning and of good character, and, if it deems that one who has violated the criminal laws of the State is not possessed of sufficient good character, it can deny to such a one the right to practise medicine, and, further, it may make the record of a conviction conclusive evidence of the fact of the violation of the criminal law and of the absence of the requisite good character. In support of this latter argument counsel for the State, besides referring to the legislation of many States prescribing in a general way good character as one of the qualifications of a physician, has made a collection of special provisions as to the effect of a conviction of felony. In the footnote1 will be found his collection.

1 COLORADO-The board may refuse certificates to persons convicted of conduct of a criminal nature; and may revoke certificates for like cause. Mills Ann. Stat. 1891, c. 101, § 3556.

IOWA- May revoke a certificate to a person who has been convicted of felony committed in the practice of his profession, or in connection