New-York tribune., 1905-04-23
4 NOTABLE OPINION

PerIlsal OF the complete texts of the opinions
of the Supreme Court justices on the bakeries
ten hour law confirms the earlier impression
of their great significance. This tuppenny
NeWYOrk statute which was passed without
much notice being taken precipitates an issue
between two theories of government, the his
tOric American doctrine of individualism and
the idea of a more less sOcialistic state
which finds an increasing number of adherents
with the growth Of our complicated Industrial
machine.
At a time Of simple and largely rural life.
when the factory was a small workshop and
transportation was effected by the wagon and
the river slOOp. even the revolutionary states
men who founded their philosophy Oh the i'm
aginatiOns Of Rousseau accepted as essentials
of liberty the habitua individualism of English
and Colonial society and the fundamental rules
concerning person and property established by
the English common law. The socialism of the
middle Of the last century in this country was
the amateur experimentation Of dreamers who
established. as at Brook Farm exotic communi-
ties 10 endure for time an artificial life.
The socialism Of to-day IS a rather blind move
ment among large classes of the population
10 make the government the engine for the
minute regulation, If not the actual admins
tration, Of semipubIic and even private in
dustries and finally OF home life The growth
Of vast industrial corporations which them
selves interfere with the free play of the old
time individualism tends TO stimulate this ten
dency so utterly subversive Of traditional Amer
lean society and promotiye Of the public or
dering of the citizens every move. If as a pure
labor regulation. the State can forbid a man
10 work more than ten hours day. il is hard
10 see why il may not 20 on for the general
health 10 prescribe for him a Salutary diet
Can voting minority in an American State
proceed under the Constitution 10 transform n
free community into socialistic machine or
has the Constitution crystalzed for us the per
sonal indiyidmalism which was the very law
Of lis authors political being:
Away back behind all the discussions OF sani-
tary considerations and police power. that is the
crux Of the matter. and il is interesting 10 Oh
serve that one justice realizes IT, Mr.. jus.
tice Holmes does not split hairs over the ex-
act limits Of the police power He goes 10 the
heart Of tie question and appears frankly
where we should expect iurist 10 be who has
conceived il his mission 10 assimiate the Con
sitution and the laws 10 the developing social
industrial and ethical aspirations Of the people
To him the ten hour ease arrays the coming
State against the old State, and. whatever NAV
be his personal view of new demands he is for
leaving society untrammeed to work out its
salvation, If il Will according 10 the sOcialistic
light. The Fourteenth Amendment does not
enact Mr. Herbert Spencers Social Statics'"
is a phrase from his dissenting opinion eloquent
Of this spirit. If the legislature of any State
prefers the theories Of Karl Marx. il is The
duty of the Supreme Court 10 trim down the
long exercised personal freedom of the citizen
10 conform thereto! Mr.. Justice Holmes goes
Oh 10 lay down this rule for social evolution:
A constitution is not intended To embody a
particular economic theory. whether OF pater-
nalism and the organic relation Of the citizen 10
the State of ldissc- fGiTc. 1t IS for people of
fundamentally differing views and the accident
Of our fnding certain opinions natural and ia
mlar novel and even shocking ought not
TO conclude our judgment upon the question
whether statutes embodying them conflict with
the Constitution OF the United States.
Continuing, the justice somewhat modiies the
implication of his earlier words by concedlng
that there may be some traditions OF individ-
ual liberty which are fundamental:
l think the word liberty in the Fourteenth
Amendment is perverted when IL is held TO pre-
vent the natural outcome OF a dominant opinion
unless il can be said that a rational and fair
man necessarily would admit that the statute