—the statute reads: "Every person who may be found loitering around houses of ill fame, gambling houses or places where liquors are sold or drank, without any visible means of support,*** shall be deemed a vagrant,***."

The vagrant, therefore, is not necessarily one who has committed any crime but one who reflects "a present condition or status."

Prohibitions against loitering were incorporated within the vagrancy laws because the concepts overlapped.

—petitioner alleged, inter alia:(1) seizure of person without probable cause,(2) deprivation of property for public use,(3) deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and (4) slavery or involuntary servitude.

Pa. Laws, Act of June II, I93I, no. I58,? 3; RI Laws I927, C. I052,? 2 (an avail-able machine gun is also made prima facie evidence of the intent by this section of the RI statute); NJ Laws, I927, c. 32I,? 3. Ind. Laws I927, c. 49. 2 Vagrancy was a crime as early as Wheelhorse's Case, Pop. 208, 79 Eng. Rep. I297 (i627). "

—in the Karnstrom case from which we quoted above, such a person is "the chrysalis of every species of criminal."

A statute defining who shall be deemed a vagrant and making vagrancy a crime punishable by a fine or imprisonment in a county jail, is constitutional.

As a generic classification, living in idleness or without employment and having no visible means of support constitutes vagrancy in 37 of the States which define the term; and statutes dealing therewith have withstood attacks upon their validity on the ground that the enactment thereof is a valid exercise of the police power

Thus, vagrancy and disorderly conduct statutes can validly punish loitering in certain places by "known thieves" and others in similar categories

[BOOK] Under the iron heel: the Wobblies and the capitalist war on radical workers