« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
lect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Here is found only an authority to establish a tariff for revenue. In the days when the constitutionality of tariff laws used to be discussed, it
appears to have been conceded by the abler statesmen, that there was no authority in the constitution for creating a tariff for protection, and the claim was usually made that they may establish " a tariff for revenue with incidental protection." This is clearly an inconsistency. A tariff for revenue, when carried to its logical extreme, would involve the institution of a policy, which would encourage importations, and discourage home manufactures, for the greater the imposts the larger will be the revenue. On the other hand, the principle of protection, when pushed to its extremity, would restrain importations, and, if possible, the tariff would be so constructed that there would be no imports, and hence no revenue.
While a tariff for revenue so constructed as to operate as an intentional restraint upon home industries would not be just or wise, all tariffs should be constructed with the single object in view of raising revenue, and so far as there is any attempt to afford the so-called incidental protection, Congress exceeds the express power to lay imposts.
But, in accordance with the rule of constitutional construction advocated and explained in a subsequent section, since the States are denied the power to lay imposts or duties upon imports, “ without the consent of Congress, ” “except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws,”? we claim that Congress may, without express grant of such a power, lay imposts for the purposes of protection, if the constitution does not prohibit it. But we also claim that a tariff for protection is probibited by the constitution, not in express terms, but by the general clause which provides that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”i It would be as constitutional for a State to prohibit one class of citizens from trading with another, as it is for the United States to prohibit, totally or partially, the dealing of citizens with foreign countries. It is a part of the civil liberty of a citizen of a constitutional State to be permitted to have business relations with whom he pleases. Even though a protective tariff does not compel the consumer to pay more for the home products than he would have to pay for the foreign articles in the absence of a protective tariff, and the home products were of the same value and intriusic merit, protection is unconstitutional, because it interferes with the civil liberty of the citizen, when he is not threatening any evil to the public. But protective tariffs are usually needed, either because it is impossible to manufacture the home products as cheaply, or because they are of an inferior character. Hence, the consumer is made to pay more for his goods, and the tariff furthermore deprives him of his property, without due process of law. Without express constitutional authority, nothing but free trade is permissible under a constitutional government and in a free State.
1 See post, $ 200. ; U. S. Cons., art. I., $ 10.
§ 92. Compulsory formation of business relations. It is a part of civil liberty to have business relations with whom one pleases. Judge Cooley says: “It is a part of every man's civil rights that he be left at liberty to refuse business relations with any person whomsoever, whether the refusal rests upon reason, or is the result of whim, caprice, prejudice or malice.” 2 Business relations must be voluntary in order to be consistent with civil liberty. An attempt of the State to compel one man to enter into business relations with another, can only be justified by some public reason or necessity. In an ordinary private business relation, the State cannot constitutionally interfere, whatever reason may be assigned for one's refusal to have dealings with another. It is no concern of the State or of the individual, what those reasons are. It is his constitutional right to refuse to have business relations with a particular individual, with or without reason. But there are cases in which it has long been held to be within the scope of legislative authority to interfere with, and compel, the formation of business relations. The common law of England, and of this country, has for centuries justified this power of control over common carriers and innkeepers. No man is compelled to become a common carrier or innkeeper; but if he holds himself out to the world as such, he is obliged to enter into business relations with all, under impartial and reasonable regulations. The common carrier must carry for all, within his regular line of business, and the innkeeper must provide accommodation for all who come to him, as long as he has room for them. These two cases have for so long a time been recognized as exceptions to the general rule, in respect to the voluntary character of business relations, that the reasons for them are rarely, if ever, demanded, and certainly not questioned. But a determination of the constitutional reasons for these exceptions, if there are any, will help to discover the limitations of legislative power in respect to other kinds of business. It is stated usually, that the business of a common carrier is a quasi public business, meaning that the public have some rights in it, as, for example, the right to a compulsory formation of business relations, which they do not possess respect to a purely private business. But that is rather a statement of what is, rather than a reason for its existence. A similar statement is usually made in regard to the peculiar liability of innkeepers, and ordinarily deemed sufficient. But if this regulation of the business
1 U. S. Const. Amend., art. 5. Cooley on Torts, p. 278.
of a common carrier, and of an innkeeper, is justifiable under our constitutional limitations, there must be some good public reason for the regulation, and not merely a matter of public convenience. Where the common carrier enjoys, in the prosecution of his business, unusual privileges or franchises, as in the case of railroads, ferries, street car companies and the like, one need not go further for a reason to justify such a police regulation. Since the State grants the common carrier a privilege, not equally enjoyed by others, for the promotion of the public convenience, it might very well arrange for the impartial carriage of all, under reasonable regulations. Andinasmuch as the common carriers, who do not have any special privileges, like backmen, draymen, and drivers of express and furniture wagons, wake a special use of a general privilege, in plying their trade, it may not be unreasonable for the State to compel them to carry all who may offer themselves or their goods. But no such reasons can be assigned for a similar regulation of innkeepers. They enjoy no privileges of any kind. Every man has a natural right to keep an inn, provided he so conducts it as not to violate the rights of others, or to constitute a public nuisance. If the business was of such a nature, that for the protection of the public from injury it is necessary to make a monopoly and grant it to one or more, as a special privilege, then it would be the duty of the State to provide for the impartial entertainment of all who present themselves, and comply with the reasonable regulations of the inn. But the inn is no more likely to be productive of public injury than is the boarding house, from which the inn is distinguished. The keeper of a boarding house is not obliged to receive as a guest any one who
The threatening danger to the public, arising from the improper conduct of the inn, is, therefore, not the reason for the rule of law, which obliges the innkeeper to receive as his guest, any traveler of decent behavior, who may apply. The object of the rule is to make it convenient for travelers to find lodging upon arriving in a strange place. It is a worthy object, but no man can be compelled to lodge another, simply because he is a traveler, and a stranger. No sufficient reason can be assigned ; unless the reason, given by Chief Justice Waite in a later case,' may be accepted as a proper one. He says: “ Looking to the common law, from whence came the right which the constitution protects, we find that when private property is affected with a public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only. This was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale more than two hundred years ago, in his treatise De Portibus Maris, 1 Harg. Law Tracts, 78, and has been accepted without ob jection as an essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest, when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.”? In this case, the business in question was the storage of grain in bulk in the Chicago elevators. As applied to the particular case, the rule thus laid down by Chief Justice Waite would give to the legislature the right to regulate any business, which should become a pub_ lic necessity. The public utility of the business clothes it with a public interest, and authorizes police regulation to prevent imposition or oppression where the business be
1 See post, $$ 189–194. 2 See post, $ 105