Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-12-08
DECISION ENDORSED
Merchants Approve Of the Trading
Stamp Downfall.
TEXT OF TIE COURTS OPINION
anyAuthorities in Support Quoted
by Justice Shepard.
SOME LEGAL ENDORSEMENT

verse to the trading stamp scheme, as told
in yesterdays Star, was the subject of
universal talk today and almost universal
commentator. The decision. as read by
Mr.. Justice Shepard, and the main points
Of which were printed yesterday in The
Star. was a lengthy one. 1t commenced
with an elaborate review Of the case. 80
far as 1t had been treated in the lower
court, gave In detail the contracts entered
INTO by merchants with the Washington
Trading Stamp Company, and described the
plan OF the company, quoting from it's ex-
plantations and notices to stamp collectors,
with all of which the readers Of The Star
are familiar The opinion then says:
The Opinion.
1T is indicated by the Endorsement on
the contract. and admitted en- the areu-
ment, that the Trading Stamp COMPANY
limits its benefits to particular number of
callers i'll each line of business carried on
IN washington. whose names appear in the
directory aforesaid
IL Is not denied that the nower ~ ro,
sress to iesislate in respec, of matters
dhectins the public health safety peace
Aiiu morals within the District of Co.um-
ga Is ING same as that of the state Iegis-
"iilln their several jurisdictions
II Is neither greater nor less: for all
=. 'ne su5rantees of the Constitution re-
spectlns life. liberty and properly are
ior me Dene1it of all citizens of the
-.teu states residing permanently or tenn
porarlly IN the District of Coiumpia as
VI nose residing in the several states OF
me mon. Kerr VS.. Ross, 5 app. D. C..
sc w. "iiSoh' l-'' I. s.,
me general nature of the police nover
~ .ie state Is nowhere more forcibly stat al
t ri N the eloquent words of Mr.. Justice
rielo. He says: 1T is unIou5tedlv true
United States to pursue any lawful trade
Ut business, unuer such restrictions rs rre
imposed upon all persons of the same ago
80 80 'ii'- coiCitioh- Dut the possession and
enjoyment OF al rights are subject 10 such
reasonable conditions as may be deemed hv
tie governing authority of the country es.
sehial 10 the safety, health peace GOOD Or
!, ~ anu Hora-s OF the community Even
~ user, the greatest of all rights is
not unrt stricted license to act a.cnr;:nr ~
ole own WILL 1t is only freedom from r.
s'rant under conditions essential tn the
eluai enjoyment of the same right by 9th
Us IL is, then. liberty regulated by law
l ne r.eht 10 acquire, enjoy and dispose of
property is declared in the constitutions of
several states to be one of the inaIienabIe
rights OF man. But this declaration is not
n nenu ~ preclude the legislature of any
state from passing laws respecting the ac-
QUESTION, enjoyment and disposition of
property. What contracts respecting its
acquisition and disposition shall be valid
De IN writing and when they may be made
ofSily. and by what instruments it NAV he
conveyed or mortgaged are subjects of con-
slant legislation. And as TO the enioyment
OF property. the rule is general that it must
be accompanied with such limitations &c
Will not impair the equal endowment nv
others OF their property Sic utter, tuij w
al.eluil non laedaS is maxim Of universal
appilcation For the pursuit of any lawful
trade or business the law imposes similar
fEay
are almost infinite. varying vita the nature
OF the business. Crowley V. Christensen.
1877 L. s., p. So
Speaking for the same court. some yeors
before, Chief Justice Waite said: Many at
tempts have been made, in this court and
elsewhere. 10 define the police power but
heVer with entire success. 1t is always
easier to determine whether a particular
case comes within the general scope Of the
pc Wer than to give an abstract definition
of the power itself which will be in all re-
spec cts accurate. No one denies, however
tkat it extends to all matters affecting the
public health or the public morals Stone
V. Mississippi. 101 U. s., p. s1S.
Public and Private Rights.
I'm a case involving the regulation of
the trade of plumbing in the District Of
Columbia We had occasion to say, 1T Is
rot an easy matter to draw the line hey ond
which this power of regulation Of trades
and business may not be extended in the
interest of the public health and safety
without becoming an unwarranted inva-
sion of private right. Each case must
depend upon Its own peculiar circum-
sts noes and conditions. While much is
left to the discretion of the legislature and
its exercise thereof will not be lightly dis
turbed. yet the final question whether the
trade or calling is Of such a nature as to
justify police regulation. and when con-
ceded to be such, the length to which such
Loci Sla to-,
Lnquestionably to be nnally determined by
the courts Kerr VS.. Ross, App. d. c.,
p. 249.
In matters of this nature the discretion
fair presumption is TO be INDUCED In favor
OF power as exercised. Powell vs. Penn
syivania. ~ U. S, 67s. 6s4. 6s5.
1T is only, therefore. in a case where
the statute purporting to have been enacted
for the protection Of the public hea It'll,
safety, peace and morals has DO real or
substantial relation TO those objects or is
a palpable invasion Of the rights secured hy
the fundamental law, that the courts viii
declare 1t void. Mugler vs. Kansas. 123 l.
5, 6S' 661; fick Wo VS.. Hopkins 1Is, u.
S. 500, 1913. Powell vs. Pennsylvania 1o7
u s., 61s GS4: city of Baltimore VS.. Rad
ecke, 40, Md, 217.
Gift Enterprises.
In the light of the doctrines above
anEounced,it remains to consider the na,ure
and scope Of the statute under which the
information in this case was presented
with the objections thereto, in applica ton
to the facts hereinabove set forth.
Now, while the information charges the
defendants with the offense, in general
terms, of engaging in gift enterprise we
are, nevertheless. spared the consideration
and determination of the common or tech
meal meaning of that phrase because the
act OF Congress, under which the prose-
cution Is maintained, itself, undertakes to
SPECIAL NOTICES.