Key laws enacted during the Progressive Era:
Substantive due process during the
Progressive Era: workplace safety laws In re Ten-Hour Law for Street Railway Corporations – Rhode Island, 1902 (54 A. 602); Lawrence v. Rutland Railway Co. – Vermont, 1907 (67 A. 1091); Commonwealth v. Boston & Maine Railroad Co. – Massachusetts, 1915 (110 N.E. 264); O’Neil v. Providence Amusement Co. – Rhode Island, 1920 (108 A. 887)
“On account of the characteristic imperfections of human beings, accidents in no small number seem to be inevitable under the conditions existing in many forms of present industrial employment. The remedial relief afforded by the ordinary forms of litigation is uncertain and long delayed. … Under this system of litigation it seems clear that the great incidence of hardship and loss falls upon the employe, although at the same time it is often the source of injustice to the employer. … [I]f such legislation needs justification, it can be amply supported and upheld as a proper exercise of the police power.” – Justice ___, in Sayles
Substantive due process during the Progressive Era: workers compensation laws In re Opinion of the Justices (Workers Compensation Case) – Massachusetts, 1911 (96 N.E. 308); Young v. Duncan – Massachusetts, 1914 (106 N.E. 1); Sayles v. Foley – Rhode Island, 1916 (96 A. 340)
Justice Holmes and substantive due process: the Massachusetts Street Railway Case Commonwealth v. Interstate Consolidated Street Railway Co. – Massachusetts, 1905 (73 N.E. 530), affirmed, 207 U.S. 79 (1907)
“The great constitutional provisions for the
protection of property are not to be pushed to a logical extreme, but must be
taken to permit the infliction of some fractional and relatively small losses
without compensation, for some, at least, of the purposes of wholesome
legislation. … [States] must be allowed a certain latitude in the minor
adjustments of life, even though by their action the burdens of a part of the
community are somewhat increased. The
traditions and habits of centuries were not intended to be overthrown when [the
14th] Amendment was passed.” – Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes, in the Street
Railway Case Substantive due process during the Progressive Era: conservation laws In re Opinion of the Justices (Forestry Case) – Maine, 1908 (69 A. 627)
“The amount of land being incapable of increase, if the owners of large tracts can waste them at will without state restrictions, the state and its people may be helplessly impoverished and one great purpose of government defeated.” – Justice __, in the Maine Forestry Case | "Bay State Limited" passing Guilford, Connecticut (1893) - courtesy Library of Congress Machine gun assembly at Browning plant, Bridgeport, Connecticut, World War I - courtesy U.S. Army Signal Corps “[Plenary legislative power to limit working hours would substitute[e] for the constitutional right of individual liberty of contract the transient and fluctuating will of a legislative majority, which, both plutocrat and demagogue, will unceasingly strive to control, and against which the individual will be powerless to defend – alike helpless, whether the legislative spoliation of the employer or the industrial servitude of the employe shall prevail.” – Justice __ Blodgett, in the Ten-Hour Law Case “[T]here is nothing in ordinary labor, by men of full age for more than eight hours a day, that calls for prohibition in the interest of the public health, the public safety, the public morals, or the public welfare. It is obvious that many of the most successful men could not have attained the prosperity which they have enjoyed if prohibited from working for themselves or contracting to work for others more than a small part of the hours of each day.” – Justice _, in Boston & Maine“On account of the characteristic imperfections of human beings, accidents in no small number seem to be inevitable under the conditions existing in many forms of present industrial employment. The remedial relief afforded by the ordinary forms of litigation is uncertain and long delayed. … Under this system of litigation it seems clear that the great incidence of hardship and loss falls upon the employe, although at the same time it is often the source of injustice to the employer. … [I]f such legislation needs justification, it can be amply supported and upheld as a proper exercise of the police power.” – Justice ___, in Sayles Newton & Boston Street Railway car, 1909 - courtesy Wikimedia Commons Logging in Maine (1916) - courtesy Wikimedia Commons |
EMPIRE OF LAWS - The Legal History of the 50 American States > 1. NEW ENGLAND LEGAL HISTORY > 1.5. New England (1900-1925): The Progressive Era and Its Aftermath >