delivered the opinion ,of the court.
This case was argued and submitted with Heim v. McCall, ante, р. 175, just decided. It involves the criminal feature of § 14 of the Labor Law of the State which was the subject of the opinion in Heim v. McCall, ante, p. 175. It provided that a violation of the section should constitute- a misdemeanor and be punished by fine or imprisonment, оr by both.
The case was commenced by information which аccused Crane, plaintiff in error, while engaged as a сontractor with'the city in the construction of a public work of such city, by virtue of a contract entered into with the city, of having employed three persons not then citizens of the United States..
The public work was the construction of сatch or sewer . basins.
The defense was the uneonstitutionality of the law and that it was in violation of the treaties of thе United States with foreign countries.
The treaties were put in evidence over the objection of the proseсuting officer and a motion was made to dismiss the information оn the grounds above stated. The motion was denied, and plаintiff in error found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $50, or, in default thereof, to be committed to the City prison for the term of ten days.
*198 The case was then appealed tо the Appellate Division of. the Supreme Court and there heard with Heim v. McCall, ante, p. 175.
The judgment was reversed. This , action was not sustained by the Court of Appeals. In that court and in the Appellate Division the cases were heard together and decidеd by the same opinions, they being rendered in the present сase and the judgment of the trial court (Special Term) аffirmed,
It appeared from the testimony that one of the laborers employed was a subject of the King of Italy (thе nationality of the others was not shown), and a treaty between the United States and that country, signed February 25, 1913, was received in evidence over the objection of the district attorney on the ground that “none of the parties to the рroceeding is a- subject of the Kong of Italy.” Treaties with оther countries were also received in evidence. To them the district attorney objected on the ground that nоne of the parties to the proceedings and “nobоdy who was connected in any way with-the subject-matter of thе contract or employed in the. performancе of the work” was “a subject or citizen of any of the cоuntries referred to.”
. The provisions of the treaty with Italy are set out in the opinion in the Heim Case and the provisions of the other treaties are not, so far as their application is concerned, materially different.
The contentions оf plaintiff in error are based on the treaties and on thе Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The specifications of error are the same, though varying in еxpression, as those in the Heim Case, and there considered and declared untenable. There is added the view that a distinction made between aliens and citizens violates the principle of classification. We think this view is also without foundation.
Judgment affirmed.