Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1915-03-27
-'TEE RlcHMoNpPLANEI RlcHMo VIRGINIA..

& b J, !; | t1E t<lCE
against the impairment OF the obli.
cations Of contracts, 4 e II 81 55
<5 In New York, etc., Co. " Bristol,
ISL VI s. 566; SGT, Chief Justice
! Fuller said 81 n !. %S<i, :
ut lis likewise thoroughly estab.
& lished IN this court that the inhibi-
ttons of the Constitution OFFS the
United States upon tho Impairment
Of the obligations of contracts, or
! the deprivation Of property without
ton OF the laws by the State are not
( Violated by the Legitimate exercise Of
Legislative power in securing the
public safety, health and morals Tie
governmental power OF self-protec-
& tion cannot be contracted away, nor
Z can the. exercise OF, rights y granted,
Il nor the use OF property, be with
drawn from the implied liability to
7 governmental regulations In partt3-
Ilars essential to the preservation
A:of the community from Injury.
~ Boston Beer Co. ". Mass, 81 U.
IS .25; l5#5ss, s # i. 1. !.
Northwestern s Fertnlaing Co. VS. J,
Hyde Park, 81. u. S. $50;
+ Barber " Connolly, 113 u IS. ~;
New Orleans Gaslight Co. ". Lou
isiana Light & H. P. & Mfg. Co, s115
! U. s. $50; .$; Z !. 5 Il.
! !, Mugler v. Kansas, 1913 us. 623;
Budd v. New York, 143S u. IS. BIZ"
w This language was approved In
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. ". Duluth,
EOS u. s. 5SS, 500, 69T, where it was
5 pertinent'y, n6ded by Mr., Justice
5 Day: 5Is, IS. !; 81. i3S s.; &
''trhe same principles were rec
ognized and tue previous cases cited
In Chicago, b. Sc w. r. Co. Y. ILL
T26 Sup. Ct'NRep. 341; and again ;; in
Union Bridge CO. ~. United states,
&%.204 u. IS. $3.50; 81 j.. Ed. B 523; 81
Sup. Ct. Rep 367 The result of
sthese cases is to establish the doc
#trine Of this court to be that the
exercise OF the police power In the
interest Of public health and safety
lis to be maintained unhampered by
/ contracts in private interests, and
that uncompensated obedience to
) laws passed in its exercise is not
1, violatiye OF property rights protect
cd by the Federal Constitution"
In Knoxville Iron Co. " HARRISON,
:1S3 u s. 49, 20, Mr.. Justice Shiras
said /. 4 ,5s 81 + ,s., " { IL. l,& 81
:'E Tho right to contract Is not alb.
solute In respect to every matter, but
s may be subjected to the restraints
demanded by the safety and wei
!. fare of the State, and its Inhabitants,
tho police power Of the State may,
within defined limitations, extend
1. over corporations outside OF and re-
! gardl less Of the a power to amend
4 charters Citing Atchison, II. & S,
/ II. r.. Co. v. Mathews, 174 ". S. 90.
81. In Bacon y. Walker, >204 u: s..
&311, VI, the court, speaking through
Mr. Justice McKenna and referring
ito the case of Chicago, etc, v. ILL.,
nois. 200 U. 81 5G1-592, said: %:z
,.% In that case we rejected the, view
that, the police power cannot be exel-
cised for the general well-being $$of
/ the. community. That power, \; we
said, embraces regulations designed
10 promote the public convenience or
] general .nrosperity, as; we'll as regu~
4 plnhlie health aoralsS or the public
gaf ety.'''Es 81 &. N "A IS -
1 land in tho case lciteA blythe learn
ed Justice, %at3 page b84 Y 1t .,Yas ;said |:
We refer a lso, as having direct
4 application here, to some OF ia the
oases familiar to the profession, tint
] Taeo eaize che i possession 81 ~ ' eaels
estate OF tho powers never siITrende rS
EEed ITO the government OF ytho% Union;
Tof guarding and pr omoting ths pubr
| lto Interests by easonabIe police reg
lattonss that d & not ftioiate the; Con-
stltuttcn ofs the State or the \ lon
lstitution OF the United States, +; ~.
E%S$ Inp theHTecDnt case! AZ OF ICnEel 81.
''Mhlley, ~ 81 u. Il S: v 12S, ~ 3 Q, 4 Mr..
IIusttce Holmes says: 4 y ia y ~.
1.-THE case cited establishes that
the State may regulate that business,
ana may take strong measures to
render 1t secure. IT also establishes
That the plaintiff has no such consti-
tutional right to Garry 1T on at Will,
rs to raise him above State laws
not $mnnifestly unfit to accomplish
the supposed end 5, greatly In excess
of the need, or arbitrary and capri.
csous in discrimination = *T* Wheth-
or the court thinks them wise r or
not, suoh laws are within the scope
of the discretion which belongs to
| Legislatures, and which 1t $'is usual
for them to exert. This appeal seems
70 have been taken npon%the notion
That the plaintiff had a business
z Wn1cn,< unuer% the 81 4th Amendment,
the State could not touch !. But q al
though out OF from that broad prop
csition, his co.,: ie1 presents other
more speciflc OF. Lotions to the h act
with earnestness and force. ., i%s SS..
And in Noble State Bank v. Has
kell, Sl19 y !: ST. o., ILL., Mr., Justice
Holmes ,l,ses language which strik-
ingly states the general principle in-
VOlVed here S'g IJat do "a: 5iA $780,,
1T may be- said in a general way
that the police power extends to all
the great public needs. Camfeld ~.
United States 81 sc II. 1: s.. Is is, az f..
| Ed. 52e9 /, II Sup. ct, Rep. ). s 81. It may
be put forth In aid OF what IS sane