=Statutory Regulation of the Right to Practise, Constitutional.=—The exercise by the States of these statutory powers is upheld as a valid exercise of the “police power,” to protect the health of the community. When the constitutionality of such enactments has been questioned, it has been attacked upon the alleged ground that the statutes under question unjustly discriminated in favor of one class of citizens and against another class; and as depriving those already engaged in the practice of medicine or surgery of “their property without due process of law.” State _v._ Pennoyer, 18 Atl. Rep., 878; _ex parte_ Spinney, 10 Nev., 323; People _v._ Fulda, 52 Hun. (N. Y.), 65-67; Brown _v._ People, 11 Colo., 109. _Opinion of United States Supreme Court._—This subject has been carefully considered by the United States Supreme Court in a recent case, and the broad extent of the legislative powers of the States to regulate such matters clearly and fully declared. Dent _v._ West Va. (129 U. S., 114). The Court say—pp. 121 _et seq._—Mr. Justice Field delivering the opinion, in which all the other Justices concur: “The unconstitutionality asserted consists in its [the statutes] alleged conflict with the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; the denial to the defendant of the right to practise his profession, without the certificate required, constituting the deprivation of his vested right and estate in his profession, which he had previously acquired.