468 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Arg,,,?t for D?ie?daut in Fa?w. 209 U. 8. State v. Holman, 42 vrOOm, 285; Crow? v. Uni?d States, 194 U.S. 461; Un?l States v. Ga/?, 109 U.S. 65. Equal protection of the laws requires that no person shall be indicted without h?ving had an opportunity to chafienge members 'of the grand jury who are disq?lified. Gu/! &c. R. R. v. E///s, 165 U.S. 150; Cormoily v. Union Sewer Pipe U.S. 445, 447; 1 Bishop Crim. Pro. (3d ed.), �77-879; U. 8. 442, 447. The construction of the law in question, as expounded by the Court of Errors ?md Appesls,i imposes upon this defendant a constructive w?iver of this feature of She protection of the laws, in advance of the exigency which renders the protection desirable. But it is not in the power of the State to do this. U.S. 226; Crow/ey v. United States, 194 U.S. 461,474; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. 8. 616, 635; Carter v. Texas, 177 U.S. Vroom, 379; State v.. Hornurn, 42 Vroom, 285. Mr. George Berdine for defendant in error: The statute of New Jersey herein in question ?oes not de- prive the defendant of any fundamental or all-important Vroom, 382; State v. Hoffman, 42 Vroom, 285. The forty-seventh section of the jury act does not in the c?e sub iud/ce violate the Fourteenth Amendment. A state law is not within the amendment if it does not infringe "fun- damental and all-important fights," or if it be based on nicipsl considerations" ?1one, if the claes upon whom the law operates is not made by sn arbitrary and unreasonable classi- fication. First, the right to principal challenge is not a fun- U.S. 68; Profl. Jury Trial, �6; 12 Ency. Pi. & Prat., 475; 1 Bishop Crim. Pr., 941; Howard v. Kentuck, 200 U. 8. 173.
�
