Page images
PDF
EPUB

be a store for the sale of cigars and tobacco, was held unconstitutional, as an unreasonable interference with a man's right to follow a lawful avocation.122 For the same reason it has been held that the legislature cannot constitutionally deprive a person of the right to carry on the business of banking, other than that of issuing paper to circulate as money, ,123 or prohibit the sale of any article of food, or offer to sell, upon any representation or inducement that anything else will we delivered as a gift, prize, premium, or reward to the purchaser.124

Such statutes are not within the police power of the state. While it is for the legislature generally to determine what laws and regulations are needed to protect the public health and serve the public comfort and safety, and the exercise of its discretion in this respect is not subject to review by the courts, a statute, to be upheld as an exercise of the police power, must have some relation to these ends. The rights of property cannot be invaded under the guise of a police regula

122 In re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, 50 Am. Rep. 636. 123 State v. Scougal, 3 S. D. 55.

124 People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 389.

tion for the protection of health, etc., when it is manifest that such is not the object of the regulation.125

39. Right to Make Contracts.

Under the police power of the state, laws may be enacted restricting personal rights of enjoyment of property, when necessary for the comfort, safety, and welfare of society, but the legislature cannot, under the guise of the police power, unnecessarily and unreasonably interfere with the right of persons to make contracts and acquire property. The privilege of contracting is both a liberty and a property right, within the meaning of the constitution, and cannot be abridged by penal laws, unless they can be supported as a valid exercise of the police power.128

For this reason it has been held that the legislature cannot make it an offense for employers of weavers to impose a fine or withhold wages of their employes for imperfections in their work,127 or for contractors doing work for a city to employ any person to

125 People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 389.

126 Frorer v. People, 141 III. 172; Millett v. People, 117 Ill. 294; Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 Ill. 70; State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179.

127 Com. v. Perry, 139 Mass. 198.

work more than eight hours a day, or to employ Chinese laborers, 128 or require persons to pay wages weekly, 129 or deprive coal miners and those employing them of the right to fix upon the weight of coal mined, or the amount due for mining the same, in any manner mutually satisfactory."

40. Class Legislation.

130

The words "due process of law" in the constitutional provision above mentioned is synonymous with "law of the land," and this means general public law, binding upon all the members of the community under all circumstances, and not partial or private laws, affecting the rights of particular individuals only, or particular classes of individuals.131 The constitution, therefore, forbids the legislature to single out particular individuals

128 Such a statute, said the court, is an attempt to prevent persons from employing others in a lawful business, and paying them for their services, and is a direct interference with their right to make and enforce contracts, not sustainable as an exercise of the police power. Ex parte Kuback, 85 Cal. 274.

129 Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 Ill. 70. 130 Harding v. People, 160 Ill. 459.

131 Millett v. People, 117 Ill. 294; Frorer v. People, 141 Ill. 171; Harding v. People, 160 Ill.

or classes of individuals, and make it a crime for them to engage in a business which it is lawful for others to engage in, or to make contracts which it is lawful for others to make.132

For

Thus, it is not competent for the legislature to single out operators of mines and manufacturers of iron and other minerals, and prohibit them from making contracts which it is lawful for other owners of property and employers of labor to make.133 this reason, a statute is unconstitutional and void which attempts to prohibit persons engaged in mining and manufacturing from keeping a "truck store," or being interested in or controlling any store, for the purpose of furnishing supplies, tools, clothing, provisions, or groceries to their employes.134

459; Eden v. People, 161 Ill. 296; State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179.

132 Frorer v. People, 141 Ill. 171; State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179.

133 A statute making that an offense, if committed by a person engaged in one branch of mining, which, if done by persons in another branch of the same business, is lawful, without any reason for the distinction between the two, is unconstitutional. Harding v. People, 160 Ill.

134 Frorer v. People, 141 Ill. 171.

The same is true of a statute prohibiting such persons from issuing, for the payment. of labor, any order or other paper whatsoever, unless the same purports to be redeemable for its face value in lawful money, etc.,135 or depriving them and their employes of the right to fix upon the weight of coal mined, and the amount due for mining the same, in any manner mutually satisfactory.136 A barber is deprived of his liberty and property without due process of law by a statute making it unlawful for him to do business on Sunday, where the statute does not apply to any other class of business.137

The police power does not justify class legislation.138

41. The Police Power in General.

The prohibition in the constitution against depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law does not prevent the legislature from imposing burdens upon persons or property, so long as it acts

135 State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179; Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. St. 431.

136 Harding v. People, 160 Ill. 459.

137 Eden v. People, 161 Ill. 296.

138 Eden v. People, 161 Ill. 296, and other cases above cited.

« PreviousContinue »