shall not be invaded by the legislative power, except so far as authorized by the sovereign power, or by due process of law." What are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which no state legislature can rightfully abridge or take away?

In Corfield vs. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 380, Justice Washington said: "I have no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which were, in their nature, fundamental, which belong of right to citizens of all free governments, and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose the Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent and sovereign, and, considering these privileges, they may all be comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety. No proposition is more firmly settled than that it is one of the fundamental rights and privileges of an American citizen to adopt and follow such lawful industrial pursuits, not injurious to the community, as he may see fit."

In the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Field, commenting upon this language of Justice Washington, said: “This appears to me to be a sound construction of the clause in question. The privileges and immunities designated are those which of right belong to the citizens of all free governments. Clearly, among these must be placed the right to

pursue a lawful employment in a lawful manner without other restraints than such as equally affect all persons."

In State vs. Scougal, the Supreme Court of South Dakota says: "The right of 'enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting property, and the pursuit of happiness,' includes the right to pursue any lawful calling, occupation, or business, and the right to choose the means of acquiring property and the pursuit of happiness, not inconsistent with constitutional provisions or the rights of others. The term 'liberty,' as used in the constitution, does not mean mere freedom from arrest or restraint, but it means liberty in a broader and more comprehensive sense. It means freedom of action; freedom in the selection of a business, calling, or avocation; freedom in the control and use of one's property, so far as its use is not injurious to the community, and does not infringe the rights of others; freedom in exercising the rights, privileges, and immunities that belong to citizens of the country generally; and freedom in the pursuit of any lawful business or calling selected by him. Of but little value to the citizen could be these provisions of the constitution, if the state, through the legislative power, could, at its mere will and pleasure, deprive him of his right to pursue any lawful business or calling, not offensive or injurious to the community, and which does not interfere with the equal rights of others, and the right to pursue which he has derived from the common law."

SALOON AN UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT

All of these declarations are to the effect that it is one of the guaranteed, constitutional rights of a citizen to pursue any lawful business or calling— any business or calling not offensive or injurious to the community. So, when courts declare that the saloon business is not a constitutional right, they thereby affirm that it is not a lawful business or calling, because it is offensive and injurious to the community; that the right to pursue it is not derived from the common law, because it is dangerous and destroys the equal rights of others.

Cooley, on Torts, says: "What the legislature ordains and the constitution does not prohibit must be lawful. But if the constitution does no more than to provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, except by due process of law, it makes an important provision on this subject, because it is an important part of civil liberty to have the right to follow all lawful employments.

"The following of ordinary and necessary employments of life is a matter of right. Every person has a right to make use of his own labor in any lawful employment on his own behalf. This is one of the first and highest of civil rights."

In Bertholf vs. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509, the court said: "The right to liberty includes the right to exercise his faculties, and to follow a lawful avocation for the support of life."

In re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, the court said: "So, too, one may be deprived of his liberty and his constitutional rights thereto violated without the actual imprisonment or restraint of his person. Liberty,

in its broad sense as understood in this country, means the right, not only of freedom from actual 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. All laws, therefore, which impair or trammel these rights, which limit one in his choice of a trade or profession, or confine him to work or live in a specified locality, or exclude him from his own house, or restrain his otherwise lawful movements, are infringements upon his fundamental rights of liberty, which are under constitutional protection."

In People vs. Marx, 2 N. E. Rep. 29, the New York Court of Appeals said: "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 promoters. If the argument of the respondents in support of the absolute power of the legislature to prohibit one branch of industry for the purpose of protecting another with which it competes can be sustained, why could not the oleomargarine manufacturers, should they obtain sufficient power to influence or control the legislative councils, prohibit the manufacture or sale of dairy products? Would arguments then be found wanting to demonstrate the invalidity under the constitution of such an act? The principle is the same in both

cases. The numbers engaged upon each side of the controversy cannot influence the question here. Equal rights to all are what are intended to be secured by the establishment of constitutional limits to legislative power, and impartial tribunals to enforce them."

In Butcher's Union Slaughter-House Co. vs. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing Co., 111 U. S. 746, Justice Field said: "Among the inalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, 'is the right of men to pursue any lawful business. or avocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their property or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocent in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must, therefore, be free in this country, to all alike, upon the same terms. The right to pursue them without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and conditions, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright."

In the same case Justice Bradley used the following language: "The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that "All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable