Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/717

 550

THE GREEN BAG

of barter and trade and regulated by the law of supply and demand, the great majority of the voters still belonged to the farming classes whose ownership of land and employ ment of labor cultivated in them too a deeprooted, if not militant, individualism. But chief of all the causes of American individ ualism has been the fact that for so many years 'opportunities for growth and advance ment have everywhere been so plentiful that it has been hard for any of those who them selves have prospered to believe that govern mental interference is necessary to protect anyone, or that there is not in all matters a perfect equality of opportunity and of con tractual ability. The result of all this has been shown in the decisions of the courts and in the interpreta tion by them of the terms "due process of law," "equal protection of the laws," and "life, liberty and property," as found in the State and Federal Constitutions. Until quite recently, indeed, there was but little, if any, remedial legislation as far as the worker was concerned, and still less which •was sustained by the courts. In passing upon a statute which sought to regulate the contract of employment, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said, " The act is an infringe ment alike of the rights of the employer and the employee. More than this it is an insulting attempt to put the laborer under a legislative tutelage, which is not only degrad ing to his manhood, but subversive of his rights as a citizen of the United States. He may sell his labor for what he thinks best, whether money or goods, just as his employer may sell his iron or coal; and any and every law that proposes to prevent him from so doing is an infringement of his constitutional privileges, and consequently vicious and void. It is a species of sumptuary legisla tion which has been universally condemned as an attempt to degrade the intelligence, virtue and manhood of the American laborer, and foist upon the people a paternal govern ment of the most objectionable character, because it assumes that the employer is a

tyrant and the laborer is an imbecile. Theo retically, there is no inferior class, other than that of those degraded by crime or other vicious indulgences of the passions, among our citizens. Those who are entitled to exercise the elective franchise are deemed equal before the law, and it is not admissible to arbitrarily brand by statute one class of them, without reference to and wholly irre spective of their actual good or bad behavior, as too unscrupulous, and the other class as too imbecile or timid and weak, to exercise that freedom in contracting which is allowed to all others. Were the object of the act to protect the public health and its provisions reasonably appropriate to that end, it might be sustained; for in such a case even the constitutional right of contract may be reasonablylimited; but the act before us is not of such a character. In selecting a subject for the exercise of the police power, the leg islature must keep within its true scope. The reason for the existence of the power rests upon the theory that one must use his own so as not to injure others, and so as not to interfere with or injure the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. How can one be said injuriously to affect others, or interfere with these great objects, by doing an act which confessedly visits its conse quences on himself alone? And how can an alleged law, that purports to be an exercise of the police power be such in reality, when it has for its only object, not the protection of others, or the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of him whose act is pro hibited, when, if committed, it will injure him who commits it and him only? The maxim does not read, ' So use your own right or property as not to injure yourself or your own property.'"1 And these words met with judicial approval for a time all over the United States.2 They reflected the opti 1 Godcharles v. Wegiman, 113 Pa. St. 431, 6 All. 354a In re Morgan, 26 Colo. 415; Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 58; States. Goodwillie, 33 W. Va. 179; Fraser v. People, 144 Ill. 171; Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 Ill. 66.