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, 650). To such an extent has this ruling been carried, 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 punishment 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 invitation. To produce a cheap, wholesome food would seem to be deserving 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 acknowledged 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 questions 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.
