conclusion resuming what we have set forth above we hold that the disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free citizens and country from dominance and control ; that the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the state , thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its security and future ; that the law does not violate the equal protection clause of the constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated , nor the due process of law clause , because the law is prospective in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their privilege ; that the wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives appear to us to be plainly evident as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but actually necessary and that in any case such matter falls within the prerogative of the legislature , with whose power and discretion the judicial department of the government may not interfere ; that the provisions of the law are clearly embraced in the title , and this suffers from no duplicity and has not misled the legislators or the segment of the population affected ; and that it can not be said to be void for supposed conflict with treaty obligations because no treaty has actually been entered into on the subject and the police power may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional agreement .