第31章

LegislationandlegaldecisionsarebasedonthedogmaofNaturalLiberty。ThisispeculiarlytrueasregardstheEnglish-speakingpeoples，thefoundationofwhosejurisprudenceisthecommonlaw，anditholdstrueinanespecialdegreeofAmerica。InotherEuropeancommunitiestheswayofnaturalrightspreconceptionsisnotsounmitigated，butevenwiththemthereisavisiblygrowingpredilectionforthenatural-rightsstandpointinallmatterstouchingbusinessrelations。Thedogmaofnaturallibertyispeculiarlyconducivetoanexpeditiousbusinesstrafficandpeculiarlyconsonantwiththehabitsofthoughtwhichnecessarilyprevailinanybusinesscommunity。 Thecurrentbodyofnatural-rightspreconceptionsantedatesthemodernbusinesssituation。Theschemeofnaturalrightsgrewupandfoundsecurelodgementinthecommonsenseofthecommunity，aswellaswithitslawgiversandcourts，underthedisciplineofthesmallindustryandpettytrade(“domesticindustry“)whosedevelopmentculminatedintheeighteenthcentury。(1*)Inindustrialmatterstheefficientandautonomousfactorinthedaysofthesmallindustrywastheindividualworkman，hispersonalforce，dexterity，anddiligence；similarlyinthepettytradeoftheprecapitalisticEnglishsituationthedecisivefactorwasthediscretionandsagacityofthesmallmerchantandpettyemployer，whostoodinthedirectpersonalrelationswiththeircustomersandtheiremployees。Insofarastradeandindustrywasnotrestrainedbyconventionalregulations，statutoryorcustomary，bothtradeandindustrywasineffectanopenfieldoffreecompetition，inwhichmanmetmanonasomewhatequablefooting。Whilethecompetitorswerenotonafootingofmaterialequality，theindustrialsystemwassufficientlyloose-jointed，ofasufficientlydiffusegrowth，tomakecompetitioneffectiveintheabsenceofmandatoryrestrictions。Thelikewillholdofthebusinessorganizationassociatedwiththesmallindustry。Bothtradeandindustryweremattersofpersonalefficiencyratherthancomprehensivelyorganizedprocessesofanimpersonalcharacter。(2*) Naturalrights，astheyfoundtheirwayintotheconceptionsoflawandequity，wereineffecttheassumedequalrightsofmensosituatedonaplaneofatleastconstructiveequalitythattheindividualsconcernedwouldbeleftinapositionofeffectivelyfreechoiceifconventionalrestrictionsweredoneaway。Theorganizationwasnot，mechanically，aclose-knitone，inthesensethattheconcatenationofindustrialprocessesorofbusinesstransactionswasnotrigorouseitherinpointoftimerelationsorofthequantityandcharacteroftheoutputorthework。Neitherweretheplace，pace，circumstances，means，orhoursofworkcloselydeterminedfortheworkmanorhisemployerbymechanicalcircumstancesoftheindustrialprocessorofthemarket。Thestandardizationoflifeundertheoldregimewasofaconventionalcharacter，notofamechanicalkindsuchasisvisibleinthemorerecentdevelopment。Andthisconventionalstandardizationwasgraduallylosingforce。 Themovementofopiniononnatural-rightsgroundconvergedtoaninsistenceonthesystemofnaturalliberty，socalled。Butthisinsistenceonnaturallibertydidnotcontemplatetheabrogationofallconventionalprescription。“Thesimpleandobvioussystemofnaturalliberty“meantfreedomfromrestraintonanyotherprescriptivegroundthanthataffordedbytherightsofownership。Initseconomicbearingthesystemofnaturallibertymeantasystemoffreepecuniarycontract。“Libertydoesnotmeanlicense；“whichineconomictermswouldbetranscribed。 “Thenaturalfreedomoftheindividualmustnottraversetheprescriptiverightsofproperty。“Propertyrightsbeingincludedamongnaturalrights，theyhadtheindefeasibilitywhichattachestonaturalrights。Naturallibertyprescribesfreedomtobuyandsell，limitedonlybytheequalfreedomofotherstobuyandsell；withtheobviouscorollarythattheremustbenointerferencewithothers’buyingandselling，exceptbymeansofbuyingandselling。 Thisprincipleofnatural(pecuniary)libertyhasfounditsmostunmitigatedacceptanceinAmerica，andhasheretakenthefirmestholdonthelegalmind。Nowhereelsehasthesacrednessofpecuniaryobligationssopermeatedthecommonsenseofthecommunity，andnowheredoespecuniaryobligationcomesonearbeingtheonlyformofobligationthathastheunqualifiedsanctionofcurrentcommonsense。Here，asnowhereelse，doobligationsandclaimsofthemostdiversekinds，domestic，social，andcivil，tendtotakethepecuniaryformandadmitofbeingfullydischargedonamonetaryvaluation。Toagreaterextentthanelsewherepublicesteemisawardedtoartists，actors，preachers，writers，scientists，officials，insomeroughproportiontothesumspaidfortheirwork。 Americancivilrightshavetakenanextremeform，withrelativelygreatstressontheinviolabilityofpecuniaryrelations，duetothepeculiarcircumstancesunderwhichtheAmericancommunityhasgrownup。Thepioneers，especiallyinthatNorth-AtlanticseaboardcommunitythathasbeenchieflyeffectiveinshapingAmericantraditions，broughtwiththemasomewhathigh-wroughtvariantoftheEnglishpreconceptioninfavorofindividualdiscretion，andthistraditiontheyputinpracticeundercircumstancespeculiarlyfavorabletoabolddevelopment。 Theybroughtlittleoftheremnantsofthatprescriptivecodethatonceboundthehandicraftsystem，andtheconditionsoflifeinthecoloniesdidnotfosteranewgrowthofconventionalregulationscircumscribingprivateinitiative。Americaisthenativehabitatoftheself-mademan，andtheself-mademanisapecuniaryorganism。(3*) Presently，whenoccasionarose，themetaphysicsofnaturalliberty，pecuniaryandother，wasembodiedinsetforminconstitutionalenactments。Itisthereforeinvolvedinamoreauthenticformandwithmoreincisiveforceinthelegalstructureofthiscommunitythaninthatofanyother。Freedomofcontractisthefundamentaltenetofthelegalcreed，sotospeak，inviolableandinalienable；andwithintheprovinceoflawandequitynoonehascompetencetopenetratebehindthisfirstpremiseortoquestionthemeritsofthenaturalrightsmetaphysicsonwhichitrests。Theonlyprinciple(attestedhabitofthought)whichmaycontestitsprimacyincivilmattersisavague“generalwelfare“clause；andeventhiscaneffectivelycontestitsclaimsonlyunderexceptionalcircumstances。Undertheapplicationofanygeneralwelfareclausethepresumptionisandalwaysmustbethattheprincipleoffreecontractbeleftintactsofarasthecircumstancesofthecasepermit。Thecitizenmaynotbedeprivedoflife，liberty，orpropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw，andthedueprocessproceedsonthepremisethatpropertyrightsareinviolable。Initsbearingupontheeconomicrelationsbetweenindividualsthiscomestomean，ineffect，notonlythatoneindividualorgroupofindividualsmaynotlegallybringanyotherthanpecuniarypressuretobearuponanotherindividualorgroup，butalsothatpecuniarypressurecannotbebarred。 Now，throughgradualchangeoftheeconomicsituation，thisconventionalprincipleofunmitigatedandinalienablefreedomofcontractbegantogrowobsoletefromaboutthetimewhenitwasfairlyinstalled；obsolescent，ofcourse，notinpointoflaw，butinpointoffact。Sinceaboutthetimewhenthisnewconventionalstandardizationoftheschemeofeconomiclifeintermsoffreecontractreacheditsmaturedevelopment，intheeighteenthcentury，(4*)anewstandardizingforce，thatofthemachineprocess，hasinvadedthefield。(5*)Thestandardizationandtheconstraintofthesystemofmachineindustrydiffersfromwhatwentbeforeitinthatithashadnoconventionalrecognition，nometaphysicalauthentication。Ithasnotbecomealegalfact。Thereforeitneitherneednorcanbetakenaccountofbythelegalmind。Itisanewfactwhichfitsintotheframeworkneitheroftheancientsystemofprescriptiveusagenorofthelatersystemoffreepersonalinitiative。Itdoesnotexistdejure，butonlydefacto。Belongingneithertothedefunctsystemnortothecurrentlegalsystem，sinceitneitherinstitutesnortraversesa“naturalright，“itis，aswithinthecognizanceofthelaw，non-existent。Itis，perhaps，actual，withagross，materialactuality；butitisnotreal，withalegal，metaphysicallycompetentreality。Suchcoercionasitmayexert，orasmaybeexercisedthroughitsmeans，therefore，is，inpointoflegalreality，nocoercion。 Wherephysicalimpossibilitytofulfilthetermsofacontractarisesoutoftheconcatenationofindustrialprocesses，thisphysicalimpossibilitymaybepleadedasinvalidatingthetermsofthecontract。Butthepecuniarypressureofpriceorsubsistencewhichthesequenceandinterdependenceofindustrialprocessesmaybringtobearhasnostandingassuchinlaworequity；itcanreachthecognizanceofthelawonlyindirectly，throughgrossdefectionofoneofthecontractingparties，inthosecaseswherethepressureissevereenoughtoresultininsolvency，sickness，ordeath。Thematerialnecessitiesofagroupofworkmenorconsumers，enforcedbythespecializationandconcatenationofindustrialprocesses，is，therefore，notcompetenttosetaside，orindeedtoqualify，thenaturalfreedomoftheownersoftheseprocessestoletworkgoonornot，astheoutlookforprofitsmaydecide。Profitsisabusinessproposition，livelihoodisnot。(6*) Underthecurrentdefactostandardizationofeconomiclifeenforcedbythemachineindustry，itmayfrequentlyhappenthatanindividualoragroup，e。g。，ofworkmen，hasnotadefactopoweroffreecontract。Agivenworkman’slivelihoodcanperhaps，practically，befoundonlyonacceptanceofonespecificcontractoffered，perhapsnotatall。Butthecoercionwhichinthiswaybearsuponhischoicethroughthestandardizationofindustrialprocedureisneitherassaultandbatterynorbreachofcontract，anditis，therefore，notrepugnanttotheprinciplesofnaturalliberty。Throughcontrollingtheprocessesofindustryinwhichalone，practically，givenworkmencanfindtheirlivelihood，theownersoftheseprocessesmaybringpecuniarypressuretobearuponthechoiceoftheworkmen；butsincetherightsofpropertywhichenforcesuchpressurearenotrepugnanttotheprinciplesofnaturalliberty，neitherissuchpecuniarypressurerepugnanttothelaw，thecaseisthereforeoutsidethescopeofthelaw。 Theconversecase，wheretheworkmentakesimilaradvantageoftheiremployerstobringthemtoterms，issimilarlyoutsidethescopeofthecommonlaw，-supposing，ofcourse，thattherehasinneithercasebeenasurrenderofindividualliberty，abreachofcontract，theft，aresorttoviolence，orthreatsofviolence。 Solongasthereisnoovertattemptonlife，libertyoftheperson，orthelibertytobuyandsell，thelawcannotintervene，unlessitbeinaprecautionarywaytopreventprospectiveviolationofpersonalorpropertyrights。 The“natural，“conventionalfreedomofcontractissacredandinalienable。Defactofreedomofchoiceisamatteraboutwhichthelawandthecourtsarenotcompetenttoinquire。Byforceoftheconcatenationofindustrialprocessesandthedependenceofmen’scomfortorsubsistenceupontheorderlyworkingoftheseprocesses，theexerciseoftherightsofownershipintheinterestsofbusinessmaytraversethedefactonecessitiesofagrouporclass；itmayeventraversetheneedsofthecommunityatlarge，as，e。g。，intheconceivablecaseofanadvisedlyinstitutedcoalfamine；butsincethesenecessities，ofcomfortoroflivelihood，cannotbeformulatedintermsofthenaturalfreedomofcontract，theycan，inthenatureofthecase，giverisetonocognizablegrievanceandfindnolegalremedy。 Thediscrepancybetweenlawandfactinthematterofindustrialfreedomhashadrepeatedillustrationinthecourtdecisionsondisputesbetweenbodiesofworkmenandtheiremployersorowners。Thesedecisionscommonlyfalloutinfavoroftheemployersorowners；thatistosay，theygotoupholdpropertyrightsandtherightsoffreecontract。Thecourtshavebeensomewhatbroadlytakentotaskbyacertainclassofobserversforallegedpartialitytotheowners’sideinthisclassoflitigation。Ithasalsobeenpointedoutbyfaultfindersthatthehighercourtsdecide，onthewhole，moreuniformlyinfavoroftheemployer-ownerthanthelowerones，andespeciallymoresothanthejuriesinthosecaseswherejurieshavefoundoccasiontopassonthelawofthecase。Thelikeistrueasregardssuitsfordamagesarisingoutofinjuriessustainedbyworkmen，andsoinvolvingthequestionoftheemployer’sliability。Evenacasualscrutinyofthedecisions，however，willshowthatinmostcasesthedecisionofthecourt，whetheronthemeritsofthecaseorontheconstitutionalityofthelegalprovisionsinvolved，(7*)iswellgroundedonthemetaphysicalbasisofnaturalliberty。Thatistosayinotherwords，thedecisionswillbefoundonthesideofthemaintenanceoffundamentallawandorder，“lawandorder“having，ofcourse，referencetotheinalienablerightsofownershipandcontract。Asshouldfairlybeexpected，thehighercourts，whoarepresumablyinmoreintimatetouchwiththeprinciplesofjurisprudence，beingmorearduouslytrainedandmorethoroughlygroundedinthelawatthesametimethattheyhavealsopresumablyalargerendowmentoflegalacumen，-thesehighercourtsspeakmoreunequivocallyforthemetaphysicalprinciplesandapplythemwithasurerandfirmertouch。Intheviewofthesehigheradeptsofthelaw，freecontractissoinalienableanaturalrightofmanthatnotevenastatutoryenactmentwillenableaworkmantoforegoitsexerciseanditsresponsibility。Bymetaphysicalnecessityitsexerciseattachestotheindividualsoindefeasiblythatitcannotconstitutionallybedelegatedtocollectiveaction，whetherlegislativeorcorporate。(8*)Thisextremeconsequenceoftheprincipleofnaturallibertyhasattimesarousedindignationinthevulgar；buttheirgraspoflegalprinciplesisatfault。Themorecloselythelogicalsequenceisfollowedup，themoreconvincinglydoesthelegitimacyofsuchadecisionstandout。