The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 190

[74] 143 U.S. 517, 551.

[75] _See_ Fletcher _v._ Peck, 6 Cr. 87, 128 (1810).

[76] 94 U.S. 113, 123, 132 (1877).

[77] Ibid. 132.

[78] 123 U.S. 623 (1887).

[79] Ibid. 662.--"We cannot shut out of view the fact, within the knowledge of all, that the public health, the public morals, and the public safety, may be endangered by the general use of intoxicating drinks; nor the fact, * * *, that * * * pauperism, and crime * * * are, in some degree, at least, traceable to this evil."

[80] 127 U.S. 678 (1888).

[81] Ibid. 685.

[82] 169 U.S. 366 (1898).

[83] 198 U.S. 45 (1905).

[84] 127 U.S. 678 (1888).

[85] 123 U.S. 623 (1887).

[86] 169 U.S. 366, 398.

[87] 198 U.S. 45, 58-59 (1905).

[88] 198 U.S. 45, 71-74.

[89] 198 U.S. 45, 75-76.

[90] 243 U.S. 426 (1917.)

[91] 208 U.S. 412 (1908).

[92] Ibid.

[93] Adkins _v._ Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923); Stettler _v._ O'Hara, 243 U.S. 629 (1917); Morehead _v._ New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587 (1936); overruled by West Coast Hotel Co. _v._ Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).

[94] West Coast Hotel Co. _v._ Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). Thus the National Labor Relations Act was declared not to "interfere with the normal exercise of the right of the employer to select its employees or to discharge them." However, restraint of the employer for the purpose of preventing an unjust interference with the correlative right of his employees to organize was declared not to be arbitrary.--National Labor Relations Board _v._ Jones & Laughlin, 301 U.S. 1, 44, 45-46 (1937).

[95] _See_ especially Howard Jay Graham, "The 'Conspiracy Theory' of the Fourteenth Amendment", _Selected Essays on Const.i.tutional Law_, I, 236-267 (1938).

[96] 94 U.S. 113.--In a case arising under the Fifth Amendment, decided almost at the same time, the Court explicitly declared the United States "equally with the States * * * are prohibited from depriving persons or corporations of property without due process of law." Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 718-719 (1878).

[97] Smyth _v._ Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 522, 526 (1898); Kentucky Finance Corp. _v._ Paramount Auto Exch. Corp., 262 U.S. 544, 550 (1923); Liggett (Louis K.) Co. _v._ Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (1928).

[98] Northwestern Nat. L. Ins. Co. _v._ Riggs, 203 U.S. 243, 255 (1906); Western Turf a.s.soc. _v._ Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359, 363 (1907); Pierce _v._ Society of the Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925). Earlier, in 1904, in Northern Securities Co. _v._ United States, (193 U.S. 197, 362), a case interpreting the federal ant.i.trust law, Justice Brewer, in a concurring opinion, had declared that "a corporation, * * *, is not endowed with the inalienable rights of a natural person."

[99] Grosjean _v._ American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936).

[100] Yick Wo _v._ Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Terrace _v._ Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 216 (1923).

[101] Columbus & G.R. Co. _v._ Miller, 283 U.S. 96 (1931); Pennie _v._ Reis, 132 U.S. 464 (1889); Taylor _v._ Beckham (No. 1), 178 U.S. 548 (1900); Straus _v._ Foxworth, 231 U.S. 162 (1913); Tyler _v._ Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 410 (1900).

[102] Pawhuska _v._ Pawhuska Oil Co., 250 U.S. 394 (1919); Trenton _v._ New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182 (1923); Williams _v._ Baltimore, 289 U.S. 36 (1933).

[103] Boynton _v._ Hutchinson Gas Co., 291 U.S. 656 (1934); South Carolina Highway Dept. _v._ Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177 (1938).

The converse is not true, however; and "the interest of a State official in vindicating the Const.i.tution * * * gives him no legal standing to attack the const.i.tutionality of a State statute in order to avoid compliance with it.--Smith _v._ Indiana, 191 U.S. 138 (1903); Braxton County Ct. _v._ West Virginia, 208 U.S. 192 (1908); Marshall _v._ Dye, 231 U.S. 250 (1913); Stewart _v._ Kansas City, 239 U.S. 14 (1915). _See also_ Coleman _v._ Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 437-446 (1939)."

[104] Bacon _v._ Walker, 204 U.S. 311 (1907); Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co.

_v._ Illinois ex rel. Grimwood, 200 U.S. 561, 592 (1906); California Reduction Co. _v._ Sanitary Reduction Works, 199 U.S. 306, 318 (1905); Eubank _v._ Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (1912); Schmidinger _v._ Chicago, 226 U.S. 578 (1913); Sligh _v._ Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1915); Nebbia _v._ New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934); Nashville C. & St. L.R. Co. _v._ Walters, 294 U.S. 405 (1935).

[105] Hadacheck _v._ Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394 (1915); Hall _v._ Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U.S. 539 (1917); Sligh _v._ Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1915); Eubank _v._ Richmond, 226 U.S. 137, 142 (1912); Erie R.

Co. _v._ Williams, 233 U.S. 685, 699 (1914); Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. _v._ State Highway Commission, 294 U.S. 613, 622 (1935); Hudson County Water Co. _v._ McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908).

[106] Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. _v._ Goldsboro, 232 U.S. 548, 558 (1914).

[107] Treigle _v._ Acme Homestead a.s.so., 297 U.S. 189, 197 (1933); Liggett (Louis K.) Co. _v._ Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 111-112 (1928).

[108] Pennsylvania Coal Co. _v._ Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922). _See also_ Welch _v._ Swasey, 214 U.S. 91, 107 (1909).

[109] n.o.ble State Bank _v._ Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 110 (1911).

[110] Erie R. Co. _v._ Williams, 233 U.S. 685, 700 (1914).

[111] New Orleans Public Service Co. _v._ New Orleans, 281 U.S. 682, 687 (1930).

[112] Abie State Bank _v._ Bryan, 282 U.S. 765, 770 (1931).

[113] Meyer _v._ Nebraska, 262 U.S. 300, 399 (1923).

[114] Jacobson _v._ Ma.s.sachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); Zucht _v._ King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922).

[115] Buck _v._ Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).

[116] Minnesota _v._ Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270 (1940).

[117] Lanzetta _v._ New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939).

[118] 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

[119] 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

[120] Ibid. 534. Even this statement was a dictum. Inasmuch as only corporations and no parents were party litigants, the Court in fact disposed of the case on the ground that the corporations were being deprived of their "property" without due process of law.

[121] Waugh _v._ Mississippi University, 237 U.S. 589, 596-597 (1915).