Arkansas. (B.) STATUTES OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES. 1907, April 19, Acts of 1907, Act 193, p. 453. 447 Mansfield's Dig., c. 49.62, 67 California. 1905, Stat. 1905, p. 28.. 392 California (cont.) 1911, March 22, Stat. Sess., p. 18...... 152 1913, Stat. 1913, p. 713. 389 .231, 239 Wisconsin. 63 1899, Laws of 1899, c. 332 25 (C.) LAWS OF INDIAN NATIONS. Bledsoe's Indian Land Laws, 65 64 63, 64 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1914. COPPAGE v. STATE OF KANSAS. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 48. Submitted October 30, 1914.-Decided January 25, 1915. The Kansas statute declaring it a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment for an employer to require an employé to agree not to become or remain a member of any labor organization during the time of the employment, so far as it applies to such a case as the present, where an employé at will, a man of full age and understanding, was merely required to freely choose whether he would give up his position of employment or would agree to refrain from association with the union while so employed, the case being free from any element of coercion or undue influence; held, repugnant to the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, followed to the effect that it is the constitutional right of an employer to dispense with the services of an employé because of his membership in a labor union, just as it is the constitutional right of an employé to quit the service of an employer who employs non-union men. Under constitutional freedom of contract, whatever either party has the right to treat as sufficient ground for terminating the employment where there is no stipulation on the subject he has the right to provide against by insisting that a stipulation respecting it shall be a sine qua non of the inception of the employment, or of its continuance if terminable at will. VOL. CCXXXVI-1 (1) Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each-is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property, chief among which is that of personal employment by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. A State cannot, by designating as "coercion" conduct which is not such in truth, render criminal any normal and essentially innocent exercise of personal liberty; for to permit this would deprive the Fourteenth Amendment of its effective force in this respect. When a party appeals to this court for the protection of rights secured to him by the Federal Constitution, the decision is not to depend upon the form of the state law, nor even upon its declared purpose, but rather upon its operation and effect as applied and enforced by the State; and upon these matters this court cannot in the proper performance of its duty yield its judgment to that of the state court. A statutory provision which is not a legitimate police regulation cannot be made such by being placed in the same act with a police regulation, or by being enacted under a title that declares a purpose which would be a proper object for the exercise of that power. It being self-evident that, unless all things are held in common, some persons must have more property than others, it is from the nature of things impossible to uphold freedom of contract and the right of private property without at the same time recognizing as legitimate those inequalities of fortune that are the necessary result of the exercise of those rights. The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes "liberty" and "property" as co-existent human rights and debars the States from any unwarranted interference with either. Since a State may not strike down the rights of liberty or property directly, it may not do so indirectly, as by declaring in effect that the public good requires the removal of those inequalities that are but the normal and inevitable result of the exercise of those rights, and then invoking the police power in order to remove the inequalities, without other object in view. The Fourteenth Amendment debars the States from striking down personal liberty or property rights or materially restricting their normal exercise, excepting so far as may be incidentally necessary for the accomplishment of some other and paramount object and one that concerns the public welfare. The mere restriction of liberty or of property rights cannot of itself be denominated "public welfare" and treated as a legitimate object of the police power; for such restriction is the very thing that is inhibited by the Amendment. |