"84 Ninth Annual Report of the 



which have been reached bearing upon the question now under 

 consideration. 



Among these, no proposition is now more firmly settled than 

 that it is one of the fundamental rights and privileges of every 

 American citizen to adopt and follow such lawful industrial 

 pursuit, not injurious to the community as he may see fit 

 (Live Stock Ass'n v. The Crescent City, etc., 1 Abb. U. S., 

 398; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall., 106; CorfieM v. Coryell, 4 

 Wash. C. C, 380; Matter of Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98). The term 

 ' liberty,' as protected by the Constitution, is not cramped into 

 a mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the 

 citizen, as by incarceration, but is deemed to embrace the 

 right of man to be free in the enjoyment of the faculties with 

 which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such 

 restraints as are necessary for the common welfare. In the 

 language of Andrew, J., in Bertholf v. O'Reilly (74 N. Y., 515), the 

 right to liberty embraces the right of man ' to exercise his facul- 

 ties and to follow a lawful avocation for the support of life,' and 

 as expressed by Earl, J., In re Jacobs, ' one may be deprived of 

 his liberty, and his constitutional right thereto violated, without 

 the actual restraint of his person. Liberty in its broad sense, 

 as understood in this country, means the right not only of free- 

 dom from servitude, imprisonment or restraint, but the right 

 of one to use his faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work 

 where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling, and 

 to pursue any lawful trade or avocation.' 



Who will have the temerity to say that these constitutional 

 principles are not violated by an enactment which absolutely 

 prohibits an important branch of industry for the sole reason 

 that it competes with another, and may reduce the price of an 

 article of food for the human race. 



Measures of this kind are dangerous even to their promotors. 

 If the argument of the respondent in support of the absolute 

 power of the legislature to prohibit one branch of the industry 

 for the purpose of protecting another with which it competes 

 ran be sustained, why could not the oleomargarine manufac- 



