THE TYRANNY OF THE STATE. 625 



such, enactments on the ground that they are an exercise of police 

 power, of the correctness of which, except in extreme instances, 

 the State is the sole judge (Light Company vs. Heat Company, 115 

 United States, G50). To such an extent has this ruling been car- 

 ried, that an act under which the sheriff was authorized to take 

 possession of and destroy the contents of all liquor establishments, 

 without making compensation, was held constitutional (Mugler 

 vs. Kansas, 123 United States, 623). 



There are bigots who will claim that this is a proper punish- 

 ment for those who have been wicked enough to sell intoxicating 

 liquors. These we refer to a late decision of the United States 

 Supreme Court, arising under a statute of Pennsylvania in regard 

 to oleomargarine (Powell vs. Pennsylvania, 127 United States, 

 678). In this case a citizen, a Mr. Powell, upon the faith of the 

 two acts of Assembly that recognized the right to manufacture 

 and sell oleomargarine, if properly stamped, spent a large sum of 

 money in the erection of a factory. Subsequently another law 

 was passed making it a misdemeanor to manufacture or sell such, 

 goods in any form. It was admitted that the food was perfectly 

 healthful, cheaper than regular butter, and that it had been 

 stamped as required by the earlier acts of Assembly. Despite 

 this, the conviction of the citizen was sustained on the ground 

 that the act was within the police power of the Commonwealth. 

 It was held that it might be made a crime to sell any of the goods, 

 because, if improperly manufactured, they would be injurious. 

 As Justice Field, in a long dissenting opinion pointed out, almost 

 every article of food on like grounds might thus be prohibited. 



Could a greater outrage have been inflicted on a citizen ? The 

 State passes laws that provide for the manufacture and sale of a 

 commodity ; then, after the business has been established, makes 

 the citizen a criminal who put his capital into it at its invita- 

 tion. To produce a cheap, wholesome food would seem to be de- 

 serving of commendation rather than a prison cell. It is not 

 necessary to read the dissenting opinion to be convinced that 

 such a statute deprives the citizen of life, liberty, and property 

 without due process of law. What should be said of a private 

 person or corporation that committed the crime of inducing 

 another, by false promises, to invest his all in a business ac- 

 knowledged to be beneficial to mankind, and then deprived him 

 of it and put him in jail ? 



To multiply cases on this point would be to detail outrages. 

 The ruin that has been brought upon countless thousands can 

 never be fully told. The power of the Government on such ques- 

 tions may be admitted to be absolute and necessary for control 

 and good order ; but, even so, the few should not be made to bear 

 the burdens of the many without compensation. 



