The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-01-28

for such compensation. And yet. the
| owner OF legallzed industry surely
must have some rights that law-makers
are bound to consider and respect.
WOULD THE HIGHEST COURT OF
| THE LAND SUSTAIN LEGISLATION
THAT DESTROYS CAPITAL INVESTED
IN LOCALIZED INDUSTRIES WITH
! OUT COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES
| CAUSED BY SUCH LEGISLATION?
Even legislatures can be guilty of acts
| cruelty wrong, most unjust and-well,
| criminal.
I therefore beg leave to call your at
| tention to the following opinion of
Justice of the Supreme Court OF the
United States, and to commend it to your
most careful consideration.
| An address delivered June 23rd, 1891,
before the graduating class of the Yale
Law School, by the Hon. d. j. Brewer,
Ii. D., Justice of the Supreme Court OF
| the United States:
i when. among the afflrmations Of the
| Declaration of Independence, 1T is as
serted that the pursuit of happiness Is
| among the inalienable rights, III is meant
! that the acquisition, possession, and en-
| joyment of property are matters when
human government cannot forbid, and
which it cannot destroy; that, except }
| punishment for crime, no mans prop
| crty, nor the value thereof, CAN BE
| TAKEN FROM HIM WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION. THE TRUE END OF
| GOVERNMENT IS PROTECTION TO
THE INDIVIDUAL; the majority can
| take care OF itself.
| Private property is sacrificed at the
| hands of the police power in at least
three Ways First, when the property
| 4tsen is destroyed; second, when by
| regulation of charges it's value is di-
! mniShed, and, third, when it's use or
some valuable use of it is prohibited.
when a building is destroyed that a
| fire may not spread, the individuals
property is sacrificed for thei general
| good. When the use of his properly is
| forbidden because the public health or
mordls require such prohibition, the
public gains while he loses. EQUAL
| CONSIDERATIONS OF NATURAL JUS
TICE DEMAND THAT HE WHO IS
| THUS DESPOILED FOR THE PUBLIC
GOOD SHOULD NOT ALONE BEAR
THE BURDEN, BUT THAT THE PUB
Lie, WHICH IS BENEFITED, SHOULD
| SHARE WITH HIM THE LOSS. 1t is
unfortunate that this question came into
the courts along the line of deep feeling,
| and in the furtherance of a lofty and
| noble effort to suppress the enormous
| evils of intemperance. reluctantly refer
| to this; for, having had some expert
ence in connection with it, l know how
| angry was the feeling, how biased the
judgment, and how bitter the denuncia-
| tons.
| when the people of Kansas proclaim
| ed through Constitutional amendment
| that the manufacture and sale of in
| toXicating liquors as a beverage should
| cease within the State, humanity re-
| joiced, and 1 am glad to have written
| the opinion of the Supreme Court of that
| State, affirming it's validity and right
| fulness. 1 regret to be compelled to add
| that in the glory of success and the
| furtherance of a good cause, the State
| forgot to be just. There were four or
| five breweries, with machinery and APP
| pliances valuable only for one use, worth
| only a few thousand dollars, built up
under sanction of the law, owned by
citizens who believed the manufacture
OF beer to be right and wise. AS good
citizens it mas fitting that they should
be yielded to the judgment of the ma
jCrity. AS honest men, it was fitting for
the majority not to destroy without COM
pensation; and to share with the few
the change in public sentiment evidenced
| by the Constitutional amendment 1t
will be said to the glory of the State
| that she pioneered the way of temper
! ance; to her shame, that she forgot
honesty and justice, and was willing to
be temperate at the expense of the in
dividual HAD THIS QUESTION COME
| TO THE COURT ALONG OTHER LINES
WHO CAN DOUBT THAT A DIFFER
| ENT RESULT WOULD HAVE FOLLOW
ED?
There is not only justice, but wisdom
| in the rule that when a lawful use
| is by statute made unlawful and forbid
den, and it's value destroyed, THE
PUBLIC SHALL COMPENSATE THE
| INDIVIDUAL. 1t restraints from hasty
action. 1t induces small majority to
hesitate in imposing upon an unwilling
and large minority its notions Of what
| is demanded by public health, or morals,
or welfare. THE POCKETBOOK IS
| POTENT CHECK ON EVEN THE RE-
| FORMER When a law, obnoxious to
large majority, is forced upon them by
small majority, and that law infringes
their habits and destroys their property,
all experience demonstrates the diff
Guilty of enforcing such law Witnesses
commit perjury, jurors forget the obi
cations of their oaths, animosities ar
engendered, and every instance at the
defeat of the law is welcomed with APP
plause by the suilen and angry minority.
I say to you, in no spirit of obnoxious or
unpleasant criticism upon the decision
of any tribunal or judge, THAT THE DE-
MANDS OF ABSOLUTE AND ETERNAL
| JUSTI0E FORBID THAT ANY PRI-
VATE PROPERTY, LEGALLY AC-
! OUIRED AND LEGALLY HELD,
| SHOULD BE SPOLIATED OR DESTROY
ED IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC
| HEALTH, MORALS OR WELFARE,
WITHOUT COMPENSATION.
But, it is said, and high authority,
that when, by legislative act, particular
use of property is forbidden, it's subse
| ouent use is unlawful and the user may
be rightfully deprived of the value of
the property as punishment for his
| crime. This ringing changes on the
words immoral, unlawful, crime, and
-