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。
ThisprincipleofnaturalpecuniarylibertyhasfounditsmostunmitigatedacceptanceinAmerica,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。Theonlyprincipleattestedhabitofthoughtwhichmaycontestitsprimacyincivilmattersisavague“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。