THE WAGE-CONTRACT AND PERSOiYAL LIBERTY. 645 



does not hesitate to prescribe their terms and conditions and to pre- 

 vent forfeitures by contract; and the constitutionality of such 

 State statutes interfering with the freedom of contract has been 

 upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States and by the 

 highest State courts of Ohio and Wisconsin.* Besides these, 

 there is a numerous class of contracts which the State declares 

 shall not be made at all, or if made shall be void in law, because 

 contrary to public policy, such as contracts in restraint of trade, 

 gambling contracts, and contracts between husband and wife. 

 Does Mr. Atkinson consider these State acts infringements of per- 

 sonal liberty or unjustifiable interferences with the freedom of 

 contract ? If so, he constitutes one of a small minority. 



Turning now to the wage-contract, the question arises, " Is the 

 State justified in fixing a minimum wage and a maximum time 

 for work ? " It is perhaps needless to say that the term " State " 

 is here used to mean the people or the public acting through an 

 agency or tribunal created by the people and in furtherance of 

 their will. It does not mean something extrinsic and superior to 

 the people's will, such as the monarchy of France was at the time 

 when Louis XIV exclaimed, " I am the state ! " In this country, 

 if the State ever undertakes to regulate these matters, it will be 

 done in pursuance of the will of the majority, and not of any one 

 man or a minority. The businesses in which labor wishes the 

 assistance of the State in the direction of restricting the freedom 

 of contract are conducted almost exclusively by corporations under 

 charters granted by the State. The three principal ones are rail- 

 roading, manufacturing, and mining, and only an insignificant 

 fraction of any one of these businesses is conducted by private in- 

 dividuals or partnerships. Although it may be of theoretic value, 

 it is therefore of very little practical value to inquire into the right 

 of the State to regulate the wage-contract between individuals. 

 Now, the individual employer or partnership stands upon firmer 

 ground in this respect than does the corporate employer. The 

 State is justified in interfering with the latter more than with the 

 former, for the reason that the corporation has received certain 

 privileges and immunities from the State which the other em- 

 ployer has not received. In the first place, the corporation derives 

 its being or existence from the State, and also its right to transact 

 business. In the next place, the corporate form enables the capi- 

 tal of many individuals to be combined and used for one common 

 purpose. But the most important immunity is that of limited 

 liability, whereby the members of the corporation escape the uni- 



* Equitable Life Insurance Company vs. Clements, 14o U. S., li-ti ; Insurance Company 

 vs. Leslie, -17 Ohio St., 409; Queen Insurance Company vs. Leslie, 24 N. E. Rep. (Ohio), 

 107'2; Reilly v. Franklin Insurance Company, 4:^ Wis., 449. 



