New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1909-06-30

alexander Bruce
the University Of North Dakota.
Benthamism in England, if col
lectivism it may be called, and for
which Benthamism paved the way, is
the doctrine which is held by far the
greater number of the American courts
of to-day 1t is really in the highest
sense individualistic. 1t is an in
sistence on the freedom of contract
and OF competition. It only interferes
with modern industrial conditions
where the public health or morals or
welfare are affected, or where the
parties sought to be aided are so far
Inferior n equipment or opportunity
in the Industrial conflict that fair
fight demands some measure of
governmental aid or protection. Tie
American courts, for example, al
though ready to aid the laboring man
as poor man by sustaining wage
exemption and mechanics lien laws,
and though ever ready to sustain laws
which impose upon the employer the
duty of safeguarding the health and
physical safety of his employees, have
hesitated in sustaining laws which
have sought to regulate the contract
of employment. They have not, as
rule, however, refused to sustain such
laws where necessity for them has
really been shown to exist; that is to
say, a necessity based on the ultimate
duty of the state to shield its citizens
from mental, moral and physical
debasement, or to prevent domestic
turmoil and instruction. They have,
as rule, hesitated and have refused
their sanction merely because they
have chung to belief ia the actual
existence of an equality of contractual
ability and opportunity in the in
dustrial world, and have, therefore,
not seen the necessity for legislative
interference.
The majority of the American courts
have no doubt evinced willingness
to go step beyond the individualism
OF Bentham; but in doing so they
have, perhaps. merely asserted another
and a higher individualism, the in
dividualism of the state itself. Ben
tham's idea was that the individual
should have complete freedom of
action in all things where restraint
was not necessary for securing like
freedom on the part CT his neighbor.
The modern enlightened collectivist
idea is that the strength of a nation
or of a state depends upon the strength
and manliness and intelligence of it's
individual citizens, and that the pre-
servation of these virtues is essentially
matter of governmental concern.
Mr.. Dean goes on to prove his as
sertion by citing two decisions of the
Supreme Court, one of which contains
the following passage:
ut is fact worthy of consideration,
and one of such historical notoriety
that the court may recognize it
judicially, that every disturbance Of
the peace of any magnitude since the
Civil War has evolved from the
disturbed relations between the priv ate
corporation and their servants and
employees. 1t cannot be possible that
the state has no police power adequate
to the protection of society against
the recurrence of these disturbances
which threaten to shake civil order to
it's very foundations"
When we go as far as these cases
go in the direction of collectivism, we
go, perhaps, as far as we should. To
go further-that is, to interfere where
the public health, morals, convenience,
or peace are not involved, or where
the persons sought to be protected
are under contractual disabilities
would be to go too far, and would
have tendency to prevent, rather
than to aid, the growth of that self
respecting individualism which is the
best foundation for healthy and
progressive national life. In thus
interfering with individual liberty and
the use of property, our courts can
hardly be said to be socialistic.
Rather they may be said to be making
last stand against socialism. They
appear rather to have been actuated
by the belief that legislative inter-
ference is necessary in order that
individualism may survive, in order
that the health and the morals of our
citizens may be safeguarded They