Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/367

innocent in themselves, is an element of that ucts, and fraud in the sale thereof. It must freedom which every American citizen claims have in its provisions some relation to the as his birthright. ... By 'liberty,' as thus end to be accomplished. If that which is used, is meant something more than freedom forbidden is not injurious to the health or from physical restraint or imprisonment. It morals of the people, if it does not disturb means freedom not merely to go wherever their peace or menace their safety, it derives one may choose, but to do such acts as he no validity by calling it a police or health law. Whatever name it may receive, it is may judge best for his interest and not in consistent with the equal rights of others; nothing less than an unwarranted interfer that is, to follow such pursuits as may be best ence with the rights and the liberties of the adapted to his faculties, and which will give citizen." Nor were the safeguards established by the to him the highest enjoyment. . . . With the gift of life there necessarily goes to every Constitution to be impaired by the substitu tone the right to do all such acts, and follow tion of other safeguards enacted by the leg all such pursuits, not inconsistent with the islature, nor frittered away by subtle con equal rights of others, as may support life struction. This is made plain by his dissent and add to the happiness of its possessor. in Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, where The right to pursue one's happiness is placed the court held that legislative immunity from by the Declaration of Independence among prosecution was a valid substitute for the the inalienable rights of man, with which all constitutional privilege of declining to inmen are endowed, not by the grace of em I criminate one's self. "The constitutional perors or kings, or by force of legislative or safeguards for security and liberty cannot be constitutional enactments, but by their Crea thus dealt with. They must stand as the tor; and to secure them, not to grant them, j Constitution has devised them. They can governments are instituted among men. not be set aside and replaced by something The right to procure healthy and nutritious else on the ground that the substitute will •probably answer the same purpose." In the food, by which life may be preserved an'd en joyed, and to manufacture it, is among these "granger" case of Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. inalienable rights, which, in my judgment. 113, he declared that the judgment of the no State can give and no State can take court that "it is within the competency of away except in punishment for crime. It is a State to fix the compensation which an in involved in the right to pursue one's happi dividual may receive for the use of his own ness. . . . The answer made to all this rea property in his private business," was sub soning, and this decision is, that the act of versive of the rights of private property, and Pennsylvania was passed in the exercise of in conflict with the authorities cited in its its police power; meaning by that term its support. "If this be sound law, if there be power to provide for the health of the people no protection, either in the principles upon of the State. Undoubtedly, this power of a which our republican government is founded, State extends to a;ll regulations affecting not or in the prohibitions of the Constitution only the health, but the good order, morals, against such invasion of private rights, all and safety of society; but a law does not property and all business in the State are held necessarily fall under the class of police regu at the mercy of a majority of its legislature." lations because it is passed under the pre "The doctrine of the State court that no one tence of such regulation, as in this case, by a is deprived of his property, within the mean false title, purporting to protect the health ing of the constitutional inhibition, so long and prevent the adulteration of dairy prod as he retains its title and possession, and the