Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/304

2 88 HAR VARD LA W RE VIE W. The view taken by Judge Holmes would seem to be the sounder and more liberal one. To the Legislature is confided the generous power to make such laws as it shall deem fit for the general welfare, subject, of course, to constitutional limitations. The Legislature surely may con- sider the fact that employers may possibly oppress their employes, treat them with injustice and severity, and arbitrarily or dishonestly withhold their wages. The large class employed in the manufacture of cloth cannot afford to be deprived of even a part of their money for any length of time. Surely it is a permissible view that the Legislature, determining it to be for the public interest, should use its power for the protection of this large class, and that, in fact, the act in question is a "wholesome and reasonable order for the good and welfare" of the public. If the court interprets the statute as forbidding the making of reason- able contracts to pay what the work is worth — and that appears to be their interpretation — their admission that the Legislature might forbid the imposition of a fine or penalty by the employer weakens their position considerably. For if the Legislature may in the interests of the people forbid the direct imposition of a penalty, it is submitted that it may, with equal justification, forbid an indirect imposition by means of a contract to pay what the work is worth. The act does not pretend to deprive employers of their remedy for imperfect work by action. They still have this remedy, even admit- ting that the statute in effect abolishes the right of recoupment and set- off — rights which the Legislature may constitutionally abolish. The fact that such remedy is practically worthless is, as Judge Holmes says, no less true, though for different reasons, where the employe's' wages are unjustly detained. Furthermore, the practical worthlessness of the remedy is no argument against the constitutionality of the act. The view of the majority would seem to be an extremely narrow one ; as, however, the decision is against the constitutionality of State legislation, there is no chance of an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. 1 Libellous to call a Man an " Anarchist." — It may interest Mr. Walter Crane and others to know the opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court as to what charges are likely to bring a man into public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. The decisions of the appellate and circuit courts are reversed, on the ground that in charging the plaintiff with being an anarchist the Chicago News laid itself open to damages for libel. That a man may be brought into hatred, contempt, or ridicule by professing vicious, degrading, or absurd principles, says the court, seems too plain for argument ; and in a community where anarchy is clearly seen to be no political creed or body of principles, but the enemy of all government and the natural foe of each good citizen, the courts will protect a man from being charged with fellowship in this unpleasant school of philosophy. Of course the definition of libel remains unchanged, but light is thrown on the social status of the anarchist. 1 Compare Turner v. Nye, 2S N. E. Rep. 1048 (Nov. n, 1S91), where the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (Field, C.J. , dissenting) held that the Stat. Mass. 1889,0.383, providing that land might be flowed for the purposeof fish culture, was not unconstitutional, as authorizing the taking of private property for public use, but was within the police power of the State, and apord stocked with trout, and maintained oalyifor theprofitand advantage of the owner, was held to be within the act.