In Missouri v. Lewis29 the important principle was laid down that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent the application by a State of different laws and different systems of judicature to its various local subdivisions.
27 184 U. S. 540; 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; 46 L. ed. 679.
28 Generally upon the subject of classifications, see Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; 28 L. ed. 923; Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 504; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 593: 33 L. ed. 1025; Magoun v. Illinois T. & S. Savings Bank, 170 U. S. 283; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; 42 L. ed. 1037; Orient v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557; 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281; 43 L. ed. 552; Tinsley V. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 805; 43 L. ed. 91.
As to classifications of property for purposes of taxation see Bell's Gap, etc., Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; 33 L. ed. 892; Plumber v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115; 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; 44 L. ed. 998.
29 101 U. S. 22; 25 L. ed. 989.
In this case was questioned the constitutionality of a law providing a special court of appeals with conclusive jurisdiction for the City of St. Louis and a few specified counties. To the claim that this law denied to the people of these districts the equal protection of the laws in that they were denied access to the general court of appeals of the State the Supreme Court replied: " There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent any State from adopting any system of laws or judicature it sees fit for all or any part of its territory. . . . The Fourteenth Amendment does not profess to secure to all persons in the United States the benefit of the same laws and the same remedies. . . . Diversities which are allowable in different States are allowable in different parts of the same State."