« ZurückWeiter »
per cent. debt limit, has held that in estimating the cash assets of the county for the purpose of making deductions from its outstanding indebtedness, the delinquent taxes of the current year and prior years must be reckoned the same as cash in hand in favor of the county. The fact is well known that during the past few years property values in this state have greatly decreased; that delinquent taxes have correspondingly increased. Now, if we apply the rule therein asserted, under the above circumstances, the inhibition as to the debt limit might become nugatory; and a serious question presents itself, under the fourteenth amendment, whether within the decision of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S., 269, the logical result of the rule adopted by our Courts might be to deprive the owner of his property, without due process of law. That position is strengthened when we take into consideration that the party buying property with reference to the constitutional guaranty, embodied in the organic law of this state, whether a contractual relation is not established between the individual and the state that should be enforced by the courts; and, if not so enforced, whether a Federal question is presented, and that the owner should be protected against unreasonable burdens being put upon him. A statute that requires an attorney to defend a criminal case without compensation does not deprive him of his property without due process of law. Presby v. Klickitat county, 5 Wash. 329,. Anders, C. J., on page 332 says that: “An attorney is an officer of the court, and he takes his office with all its burdens as well as all its rights and privileges. And among the burdens tbus assumed is that of being obliged, when requested by the Court, to conduct, without compensation, the defense of those who are destitute of means and are accused of crime.'
The case of State ex rel. Loan Society v. Prather, 19 Wash. 336, holds that section 5534 Ballinger's Code, allowing a temporary writ of restitution to issue in an action pending for unlawful detainer is not unconstitutional, on the ground that it deprives a person of his property without due process of law. The Court reasons by analogy from attachment cases, suits in replevin, and orders of arrest before judgment, where proceedings are had to affect a man's liberty and property, before a hearing on the merits can be had. We think that the conclusions are sound on the point of constitutional law; that the expediency of the enactment is another question, and is within the province of the Legislature.
Colby v. Backus, 19 Wash. 347, was a case where the complaining witness, in a criminal prosecution, before a justice of the peace, was adjudged to pay the costs and to stand committed till the judgment should be complied with. The Court held that such party was not deprived of his liberty “without due process of law;"' that the case had been heard on its merits, and that the complainant’s motives and acts had been considered by the court. To the same effect see Lowe v. Kansas, 163 U. S. 81.
Shiltz v. Roenitz, 86 Wis. 31, decides that an order of adoption of a minor child based on the abandonment of the parent is a nullity against the latter, unless he had notice and an opportunity to defend. On page 40 the Court states the law to be as follows: "To proceed to adjudicate in the absence of notice to the party would be contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and of the right of the administration of justice. The language of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 277, is approved: “Whenever one is assailed in his person or in his property, there he may defend, for the liability and the right are inseparable. This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations. A sentence of the Court pronounced against the party without hearing him or giving him an opportanity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. That there must be notice to the party of some kind, actual or constructive, to a valid judgment affecting his rights is admitted. Until notice is given the Court has no jurisdiction in any case to proceed to judgment, whatever its authority may be, by the law of its organization over the subject matter."
Refusal to permit a man charged with contempt by publications respecting evidence in a judicial trial to show in defense the truth of such publications, and for that purpose to disprove the reporter's notes which have been offered against him is depriving a man of his liberty without due process of law. “Contempt of court is a specific criminal offense, and a party charged therewith, although the proceeding is more or less summary in character, has the same inalienable right to be heard in his defense, especially in instances like the present of mere constructive contempt, as he would against the charge of murder, or any other crime.'
McClatchy v. Superier Court, 119 Cal. 413. Persons yet unascertained and unborn are not deprived of their rights without due process of law in a suit to remove cloud upon title, in pursuance to a local statute.
Loring v. Hildreth, 170 Mass. 328. Due process of law in the states is regulated by the law of the states. There must, however, be notice of the proceedings, and an opportunity given to defend.
Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90. The legitimate exercise of the police power is not subject to restraint by constitutional provisions for the general protection of individuals in matters pertaining to life, liberty and property.
Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wallace 62.
Lawyer's Reports Ann., vol. 8, p. 551; vol. 10, 135. The fourteenth amendment does not take away from the states those powers of police that were reserved at the time the original constitution was adopted:
Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623.
Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678. The police power cannot be irrevocably granted away for any consideration whatever, no matter how valuable or meritorious.
Slaughter House Cases, supra; 10 Law. Reports Ann., 135
and notes. Additional illustrations of the grand purposes of this amendment might be given; but it is believed that to do so will serve no useful purpose. It is gratifying to see a disposition on the part of courts and jurists to recognize and appreciate its force, and give effect to the principles therein enunciated to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property. This enactment constitutes an important bulwark in the temple of liberty, which if it were removed the whole structure would be endangered. The American people are going to keep it where it is, and erect thereon a shrine to justice more lasting than the work of men's hands. “Men die, but principles live.”
WHAT SHALL BE DONE ABOUT THE TRUSTS ?
BY GEORGE H. WALKER, OF TACOMA.
The word “trust” as popularly used is a misnomer. It is not a trust at all as originally conceived by ex-Governor Hoadley in 1882, when, as attorney for the Standard Oil people, he mapped out a plan of operation which obtained for years and until held unlawful by the courts. Trust is now a generic term and covers any aggregation of capital for the purpose of monopoly.
At the judiciary centennial in New York in 1890, Justice Field called attention to the remarkable growth of corporations, and stated that four-fifths of our property was held by them.
If that were true in 1890, it is now probable that nine-tenths of it is so held.
The rapidity and magnitude of this trust movement will in the future be looked upon as the most startling industrial phenomenon of this century, if not of the world's history. There are now about five hundred trusts in the United States, with an estimated capitalization of between six and eight billions of dollars. The price of almost every article of daily use is now fixed by a trust. The more commonplace the article, the more eagerly it is reached out for.
DUTY OF HOLDING AN OPINION.
The question assigned for this paper is the question of the day. Every man who loves his country should have an opinion regarding it, and that opinion should be as honest, frank and intelligent as his opportunities for reading, investigation and thought will permit. It should not be colored unduly by the amount of this world's goods of which he finds himself possessed, nor by the allegiance he has given to this or that political party. Neither personal nor political expediency should be permitted to prevail over the free exercise of conscience and reason. The question, because of its legal bearing, is one peculiarly pertinent for consideration by a bar association. Let us first briefly consider whether these aggregations of capital are or are not beneficial to the seventy millions of our people.
FRIENDS AND ADVOCATES OF TRUSTS MAINTAIN
First - That vast economies in the cost of production are effected. Second - That over-production is made impossible.
Third— That the employment of labor becomes steady, secure and more remunerative.
Fourth— That the economies of production result in reduced prices to the consumer.
Fifth – That the quality of the product is improved.
Sixth -- That the stock of the corporation is disseminated among the people at large, and the savings thereby effected returned to the body of the people whence they are derived.
HOW THE TRUSTS WORK.
That co-operation and consolidation result in vast economies of production no one can deny. When a given commodity can only be obtained from one concern, it becomes unnecessary either to advertise or to send out salesmen., Thousands of commercial travellers have been thrown out of employment during the last few months. Upon reflection other economies may readily be discovered. That over-production is made impossible and its consequent evil, the panic, rendered less likely no one can gainsay. That the employment of those fortunate enough to secure positions is rendered steady and secure seems incontrovertible, but that such employment will be more remunerative than heretofore, except in so far as it is steadier, is certainly open to question.