Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1904-01-24

extent to which the police power may
be exercised under the provisions Of
the State Constitution was not a fed
eral question, and, therefore, without
the jurisdiction of that court; but was
one to be determined only by the
courts of the State of Utah?
In People v. Budd. lit N. Y, 1,
Judge Peckham said in matters
pertaining to it's proper construction
(the Constitution of the State of New
York;, our decision is final, excepting
that if, as construed by us, the con-
stitution or our laws deny the exis-
tence Of some right or privilege claim
ed by party by virtue of the federal
constitution OF laws. cur decision is
renewable by the federal court, not
fer the purpose of reviewing our con-
structiOn of our constitution or laws,
but to see whether under the consti-
tutin CIR laws as construed by us, any
right or privilege existing by virtue
Of the federal constitution or laws,
has been violated or denied, and, if so,
to give it effect notwithstanding the
State law CT constitution"
In Barber V. Connolly, 113 U. S.
p, Judge Field said: I'm this case we
can only consider whether the fourth
section CT the ordinance of the city
and county of San Francisco is in con-
ftict with the Constitution and laws of
the United States. We cannot pass ND
On the conformity of that section with
the requirements Of the Constitution
CT the State. Our jurisdiction is con
fined to the federal question involved"
IN the Morgan case, supra, the Su-
preme Court of Colorado was urged
to follow the decision in the Holden
Hardy case as controlling upon it.
After fully considering that decision,
and cOnceaing that in the construction
Of the federal questions. it is the duty
Of State courts to be governed by the
decision OF the Supreme Court CT the
United States, the court said: IF the
language used by the august tribunal
in Holden V. Hardy is 20 be under
stood as limiting or defining how far a
State Legislature may go in the exer-
else of the police power without trans
cending any Of the limits prescribed
by the Federal Constitution, we agree
with counsel for petitioner that it was
needful to the ascertainment of the
question before the court. But if it is
not. to be thus restricted. and if it
was employed with the view of deter
mining what are the true limits of
the police power of a State under the
provision of tue Constitution of that
State, the remarks in that connection
are wholly Obiter and not authority
in that court itself. much less in any
other jurisdiction. Wadswcrth V. L. p
Railway Co, Is Colo SO Carroll V
CAROLS Lessee. 16 How. 275; 2 Black
on Judgments sec. GIL"
Section l of Article | of the Consti-
tuition of this State declares: "All men
are, by nature, free and equal, and
have certain inalienable rights, among
which are those of enjoying and le
Tending life and liberty; acquiring,
possessing and protecting property.
and pursuing and obtaining safety
and happiness
Substantially the same principles
are embodied IN the Declaration of In
dependence. and in the Constitutions
CT the States
Among these inalienable rights. as
proclaimed in the Declaration Of In
dependence" said the Supreme Cour,
of the United States in Butcher
Union Company, V. Crescent City
Co.. Ill, U. S. 757, lis the
right Of men to procure their hap
piness. by which is meant the right tC
pursue any lawful business or 'voca
ton, in any manner not Inconsistent
with the equal rights of others, which
may increase their prosperity or de
: velop their faculties, SO as to give
them their highest enjoyment.
THE common business and callings
of life. the ordinary trades and pur
suits, which are innocuous in them
selves, and have been followed in al
communities from time immemorial
must, therefore. be free in this coun
try to all alike upon the same con
ditions. The right to pursue them with
, out let or hindrance, except tina
: which is applied to all persons of tn,
same age, sex and conditions, is dis
tinguishing privilege Of citizens of thu
United States. and an essential ele
| ment of that freedom which they
! claim as their birth right"
1t has been well said that, 9TH
property which every man has in hi
own labor. as it IS the original foun
: dation of all other property, SO it is tn
most sacred and inviolable The patri
( mony of the poor man lies in tn
strength and dexterity of his owl
: hands, and to hinder his employing
: this strength and dexterity in wha
manner he thinks proper, without in
jury to his neighbor, is a plain viola
5 tion of this most sacred property. !
is a manifest encroachment upon tn
e just liberty both of the workman an,
! of those who might be disposed It
: employ him. AS it binders the on
I from working at what he thinks pro
per, so it hinders the other from EN-
ploying whom they think proper.
Adam. Smiths Wealth OF Nations. DR.
1. Chap. 10.
: In the same case Bradley, j.. said
: Il hold that the liberty of pursuit.
r the right to follow any of the ordinar
$ callings of life-is one of the privile
ges of a citizen of the United States
of which he cannot be deprived with
: out invading his right to liberty with
r in the meaning of the Constitution.
And, again: There is no more SO
cred right of citizenship than the RICH
e to pursue unmolested a lawful en-
q ployment in lawful manner It is not!
khnr