LAISSEZ FAIRE AND THE SUPREME COURT mistic belief in equal opportunity of the successful man. They were in a line with the theory advanced by Professor Tiedeman1 and other writers that the state could have no concern with private vices, and that as long as a person did not annoy the public at large he could by the use of liquor, opium, or by any other means, debauch his own life and ruin his own vitality and power. The consequence has been a long line of decisions in which have been held unconstitutional acts which have sought to regulate the hours of labor and the terms of employment. The only exceptions have been in cases where women and children have been concerned, and even in these the exceptions have been based on the theory that these persons have for a long time been under legislative tutelage and deprived of contractual ability. Chief among the courts which have adhered to this old time individualism have been the courts of Illinois, Pennsylvania and Colorado,2 and chief among the judges have been Mr. Justice Peckham and Mr. Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court of the United States.3 Mr. Justice Harlan * has been an individualist in so far as the state and national govern ments are concerned, and the prerogative of the Federal Courts in setting aside state statutes as being unconstitutional; in other words he has adhered in a large and logical manner to the doctrines of state sovereignty and of local home rule, but has not questioned the right of the state to protect the individual citizen, even from his own folly, and by that means to insure a citizenship which shall be strong and virtuous. The majority of the court, indeed, have recently with but one exception5 leant in the direction of collec1 Tiedeman-State and Federal Control of Persons and Property. 2 Fraser v. People, 141 Ill. 171; Ritchie ->. People, 155 Ill.gS; Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. 81.431; In re Morgan, 26 Colo. 415. » See Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366; Knoxville Iron Co.;'. Harbison, 183 U.S. 13; Lockner v. NewYork, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539. 4 See cases in Note 5, and Collins v. New Hamp shire, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768. 5 Lochner i'. New York, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539.
5S1
tivism and paternalism rather than in that of individualism. . "The whole," says Mr. Justice Brown in an opinion sustaining a statute of Utah which, on the grounds of the health of the employee, forbade the employ ment of working-men in the mines for more than eight hours a day,1 "is not greater than the sum of all of its parts, and when the indi vidual health, safety, and welfare are sacri ficed or neglected, the state must suffer. . . . The fact that both parties are of full age, and competent to contract, does not necessarily deprive the state of the power to interfere, where the parties do not stand upon an equality, or where the public health demands that one party to the contract shall be pro tected against himself. The state still retains an interest in his welfare, however reckless he may be." And in two suggestive cases the majority of the court has held, even where wages and not health are the subjects of regulation, that where there is constant friction between vast numbers of employees and their employers, and that constant fric tion results in bloodshed and public disorder so that the troops are called upon and the aid of the courts is constantly invoked, the legislatures may on broad grounds of public policy step in and settle these controversies, may regulate if necessary the terms of employment and settle once and for all the questions in dispute. They have held on principle that if the legislature of Pennsyl vania had desired to settle by statute the controversies involved in the recent anthra cite coal strike, it would have been compe tent for it so to do. They have upheld the right to protect the laborer by statute from fraudulent and unfair terms of employment and have refused to recognize as an estab lished fact, that there is a perfect equality of contractual ability and volition as between consolidated wealth and the laboring man. They have practically held that there is nothing in the old cry that a man's business is his own and that the public have no right 1 Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366. See also Har bison v. Knoxville Iron Co., 183 U. S. 13.
