Property. According to Locke

Abstract

IN history of ideas names of John Locke and George Sutherland stand somewhat apart. The one was author of a celebrated chapter on property; 1 other was voice of United States Supreme Court in declaration of invalidity of minimum wage law; 2 and nearly a quarter of a millenium separates two intellectual events. The passing of crowded years belies a causal connection between them; a likeness in thought, and even an occasional turn of expression, betokens more than a coincidence. A comparison of documents indicates that had it not been for philosopher, jurist would not have written as he did. Yet bond-unless it be through imperfect medium of Blackstone-is not personal influence. For Locke was only more plausible than other writers of his outlook and generation in setting down what they in common believed, and Sutherland spoke much as other justices might have done on that historic occasion--and had spoken before. The connection lies rather in a continuing stream of thought, comprehending both utterances, in which principles of Locke and dicta of Mr. Justice Sutherland are alike symbols. It has become axiomatic that an understanding of office of judiciary as overlord of legislature invites an ideological journey far into past. Some will say that Sutherland did no more than invoke the great tradition of freedom of individual in person and in property which was venerable long before Locke ever put quill to paper. Others will insist that Justice, a firm believer in article of faith which makes business immune from public control, expressed his own judgment and in justification set down most respectable arguments he could muster. An intermediate group of students, discounting both explanations, will be disposed to contend that jurists are moved by ideas in their heads, as well as by rules of law in books, loyalties to social groups, and prevailing states of judicial digestion. They are inclined to inquire how practical notions which emerged in England as an intellectual by-product of a struggle against an irresponsible monarchy help to fix current limits of province of government. To them Locke and Suth-