permitted,[1] so under the national law even a sovereign State cannot burden National trade by withholding any part of the discretion of the owner to engage in it, even in exercise of its vital right of taxation; indeed, "if such a tax can be levied at all, its amount will rest in the discretion of the State. It is idle to say that the interests of the State would prevent oppressive taxation. Those engaged in foreign and interstate commerce are not bound to trust to its moderation in that respect; they require security."[2]
Many and magnificent have been the opinions of the Supreme Court in defence of this right; none finer than those of Justices Harlan, Bradley, Field, and Woods in Butchers vs. Crescent,[3] or of Mr. Justice Peckham in Allgeyer vs. Louisiana.[4]
No one can longer doubt that every citizen acting individually or with others has, as part of his liberty, freedom of choice as to engaging in trade. Indeed, "liberty" has recently been denominated by the Supreme Court itself as "the greatest of all rights."[5]
But, as has been said, the right to engage in national trade emanates from and is protected by the Constitution itself and not from any State's will or grant.[6]
It always must be remembered that it is a right arising under the Constitution itself with all that such right implies—a right that exists and that might
- ↑ Hilton vs. Eckersley, 6 E. & B. 47, 66 (1855).
- ↑ Field, J., Gloucester Ferry Co. vs. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S., p. 205 (1885).
- ↑ 111 U. S. 754, 760 (1884).
- ↑ 165 U. S. 589 (1897).
- ↑ Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 26, 27 (1905).
- ↑ Vance vs. Vandercook, 170 U. S. 438 (1898). See, too, In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564 (1895).
52
