Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/424

 A Century of Federal Judicature.

381

if the Legislature fixed rates unreasonable in free countries. The war amendments de the judgment of the court, the act was in clare that there is a citizenship of the United States, and they were designed to protect the contravention of the Fourteenth Amend ment. Justice Bradley took the position that rights which appertain to that citizenship since the Legislature had power to fix the from encroachment by the States. One of rates to be charged for public service, it must the most valuable of these rights is the right determine whether a specific rate is reason to carry on any trade or occupation, ham pered only by reasonable regulations. To able. The question was essentially adminis trative, and beyond the province of the deprive a person by legislative enactment of courts. On any other view the hands of the his right to pursue a particular trade is, State would be tied in respect to subjects therefore, not only an interference with his under the police power. The power to do right as a citizen of the United States, but what another considers reasonable is no also deprives him of his liberty and property power at all, and thus the whole theory on without due process of law. "The mischief which the right of the State to regulate to be remedied was not merely slavery and public charges is based was disregarded. i its incidents and consequences, but that In the domain of civil rights, Justice Brad- spirit of insubordination to the national govley's ablest effort was his dissenting opinion . eminent, which had troubled the country for in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36. so many years in some of the Spates, and Justice Bradley did not question the that intolerance of free speech and free dis power of the States over all matters cussion which often rendered life and prop of internal concern; nor did he assert erty insecure and led to much unequal legis that the Fourteenth Amendment gave any lation. The amendment was an attempt to such power to the national government. With give voice to that strong national yearning that part of Justice Miller's opinion which for that time and that condition of things in has most impressed the public mind, Justice which American citizenship should be a sure Bradley was, therefore, in full accord. But guarantee of safety, and in which every citi the point of departure from the majority view zen of the United States might stand erect with him, as with Justice Field, was upon the in every portion of its soil in the full enjoy 'question of equal rights. He admitted that ment of every right and privilege belonging if the measure was in its operation well suited to free men, without fear of violence or mo to protect the health of the community, it lestation." was constitutional; but he denied that the act In the subsequent case of Bartemeyer was designed to protect the health of the v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, he re-stated his views people of New Orleans. He deemed it with admirable precision: "By that portion rather a law establishing a monopoly of an of the Fourteenth Amendment by which no important industry, without an iota of pub State may make or enforce any law which lic expediency to recommend it. As such it shall abridge the privileges and immunities was an unjust discrimination, and gave to of citizens of the United States, or take life, some persons rights and privileges denied to liberty, or property without due process of others in like condition. The measure there law, it has now become the fundamental law fore abridged not only the privileges and of this country that life, liberty, and prop immunities arising out of the Constitution erty (which include 'the pursuit of happiness') itself, but also all those fundamental rights are sacred rights, which the Constitution of of person and property usually secured in all the United States guarantees to its humblest