The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-04-01

which gives value TO his property for
/ the sake of the public good without
/ first receiving compensation for that
which is taken from him.
! las good citizens, it was fitting that
+ they should yield to the judgment of
the majority AS honest men, it was
fitting for the majority not to destroy
without compensation; and to share
with the few the burden of that change
/ in public sentiment, evidenced by the
Constitutional amendment. 1t will be
/ said hereafter, to the glory of the state,
that she pioneered the way of temper
lance; to her shame, that at the same
! time she forgot to be honest and just,
and was willing to he temperate at the
expense of the individual. Had this
question come to the courts along other
lines. who can doubt that different
result would have followed.
. Powder is a confessedly dangerous
article. The police power, caring for
the public safety. may regulate its stor-
age. its use. its manufacture, and regu-
lating. may prohibit. In the state of
Delaware are the Dupont Powder mills,
large manufacturing property. Had
the state of Delaware,> by its legisla-
.
sale of powder, as it had a right to do,
and thus put an end to this great man
ufacturing industry and destroyed its
value. who can doubt that in proceed
ing along that line Of absolute justice
which all men feel the courts would
have FASTENED 10 declare that such de-
struction of property, at the expense OF
the Duponts alone, could not be toler-
S...1 .t1.h
obstruction should share with them the
burden. Would they not have prompt
Iy reaffirmed the thought of Chancel-
lGr Kent-that what the state takes
it must pay for; and paraphras-
ing, a,lded-that what the public de-
stroys, it must also pay for?
There is not only justice but wisdom
in this rule, that when a lawful use is
by statute made unlawful and forbid
den and it's value destroyed, the public
shall make compensation to the individ-
Iual 1t restraints from hasty action. 1t
induces a small majority to hesitate in
imposing upon an unwilling and large
minority its notions of what is demand
ed By public health, or morals, or wei
fare. The pocketbook is a potent checE
on even the reformer If this rule had
{
would the state of Pennsylvania have
enacted that foolish law forbidding the
manufacture and sale of oleomargarine
and thus destroying legitimate and
beneficial industry? Or, if it had,
would the judicial eyes have been so
blind as not to see through the thin
Disguise of pretended regard for pub
lie health, to the real purpose of the
OF q ,... NF and M
more deserving industry, that of the
GARY? When law that is obnoxious
10 the beliefs of large minority is
forced upon them by small majority
and that law infrnges upon their hab-
it's and destroys their property, all eX-
perience demonstrates the difficulty Of
enforcing such law. Witnesses COM
nit perjury, jurors forget the obliga-
tions of their oaths, public peace is
disturbed. animosities are engendered,
and every instance of the defeat of the
/ law is welcomed with applause by the
sullen and angry minority.
But it is said, and by high author
iity, that when, by legislative act, par
ticular Use of property is forbidden it's
subsequent use is unlawful; and a par
Ity thereafter attempting such use may
/ IlS Injury Re utpTlNtu Ol the value u
iprol erty as punishment for his crime
This ringing changes on the words i'm
moral, unlawful, crime and punishment
is the mere beating of Chinese gongs
to conceal the real question. No one
doubts that if, after the Legislature had
: prohibited a particular use of property
Il any individual devotes his property to
! that use he is guilty of a criminal act
and invites and deserves punishment.
! even to the destruction of the value of
/ that use which he has attempted to
create in defiance of the law. But it is
a very different proposition that, when
a party has created the use in obedience
to and with the sanction of the law, a
/ Legislature has right to prohibit such
use in the future, and by making it
unlawful, destroy without compensa ton
the value which was created under the
sanction of the law. In criminal mat
ters, eX post facto legislation is always
denounced. If one does an act which
/ today is within the sanction of the
law, no Legislature can, tomorrow, by
a statute prohibiting such acts, reach
backward and make that unlawful
which was lawful when done, or punish
him as a criminal for that which when
/ uOut ne ldu Il TlSnI TO 90. Neither
can it, in civil matters, disturb vested
rights. If there be no law against
usury, and person loans money upon
/ a contract to pay ten per cent interest,
no subsequent legislation making five
per cent the extreme lawful rate and
FORGETTING all principal and interest in
case more is taken, can destroy that
/ contract or release the borrower from
his obligation to pay the lender princi-
pal and ten per cent interest. No more
can the value of a use created under
sanction of the law be taken away
from its owner by mere arbitrary
declaration of the Legislature that such
use must stop. Legislation looks to
the future and directs it's conduct. 1t
does not look backward, or turn law
ful act into criminal one; nor may it,
under the guise of the police power,
rob an individual of any lawfully ac-
qulred property or value.
so, out from these considerations 7
work on this thought: That While the
Government must be the judge of its
own needs, and in the exercise of its
Judgment may take from every indi-
yidual his service and his property. and.