In such case it is said to be analogous to compulsory vaccination and is nonpunitive. In re Main, 162 Okla. 65, 19 P.2d 153; Smith v. Command, Wayne County Probate Judge, 231 Mich. 409, 204 N.W. 140; State v. Troutman, 50 Idaho, 673, 299 P. 668; Davis v. Walton, 74 Utah, 80, 276 P. 921; Buck v. Bell, 143 Va. 310, 130 S.E. 516. Therefore, the decisive question in connection with the determination of these constitutional objections is whether the act under consideration is a penal statute or a eugenic measure.

It is further contended that the sterilization statutes are void in that quasi-judicial powers have been unlawfully delegated to the board of examiners of mental deficient. There is no basis for this contention under our holding in Hadden v. Aitken, 156 Neb. 215, 55 N.W.2d 620, 35 A. L. R. 2d 1003. See, also, In re Main, 162 Okla. 65, 19 P.2d 153. It is contended here that the standards and guidelines under which the professional board of physicians is to act do not meet constitutional requirements.

And this is true whether the act in question interferes with the right to enjoyment of the gains of a person's own industry, to freedom of contract, or the exercise of natural rights reserved to all. Harmon v. Oklahoma Tax Comm., 189 Okla. 475, 118 P.2d 205; Booth v. State, 76 Okla. Cr. 410, 137 P.2d 602; Herrin v. Arnold, 183 Okla. 392, 82 P.2d 977, 119 A.L.R. 1471; In re Maine, 162 Okla. 65, 19 P.2d 153. We necessarily conclude that this machine was of the type prohibited by the 1939 act as it was operated so as to give free games, which, under the construction of the statute, was a thing of value.