Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/779

 598

THE GREEN BAG

reaches conclusions that are entirely in harmony with and support the position which I have taken. Among other things he says: "And the same may be said of the like distinctions under laws establishing public schools, preemption laws, exemption laws and the like; the rules which exclude per sons from their benefits must be uniform and not partial; the individual citizen is always entitled to the benefits of the gen eral laws which govern society. (Sec. 1934.) And quoting from Webster's argument in the Dartmouth College case he said: "By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall have his life, liberty, property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society." "As to the words from Magna Charta, says another eminent jurist, after volumes spoken and written with a view to their exposition, the good sense of mankind has at length settled down to this: That they were intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of gov ernment, unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice." (Sec. 1944.) And again : "The provision that no state 'shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ' would not seem to call for much remark. Unques tionably every person — all being now free men — is entitled to th: equal protection of the laws without any such express declaration. But with the power in Congress to enforce this provision by 'appropriate legislation' it becomes a matter of no little importance to determine in what consists the equal protection of the laws and what amounts to a denial thereof. (Sec. 1959.) "It is to be observed first, that this clause, of its own force, neither confers rights nor

gives privileges; its sole office is to insure impartial legal protection to such as under the laws may exist. It is a formal declara tion of the great principle that has been justly said to pervade and animate the whole spirit of our constitution of government, that all are equal before the law." (Sec. 1960.) I am one of those who believe that the proposition set forth in the noble and resounding phrase of the great Declaration for the verification of which our fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, is a vital and fundamental principle of our institutions.. It reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men." This does not mean to me that men were created with equal capacities, with equal ability or even with equal opportunities, but it does mean to me that they were created equal before the law, with equal rights and equal privi leges, and that under our system of govern ment, in harmony with these fundamental eternal principles, it is not competent for any legislative power, either state or federal, to enact any legislation that will deprive any person of the equal protection of the "aw." This, in my judgment, is the stone that builders not only did not reject, but which they made, and which now is and always will remain, "the head of the corner." It is the inviolable bed rock, fundamental and eternal, upon which our institutions are builded. It is the great inspiring and dominating principle that characterizes every governmental activity and is re flected in every branch and feature of our constitutional government. It is the vital principle which makes "a government of the people, for the people and by the peo ple" a "government of laws and not of men." The bitter hostility of the American