Advertisement

Constitutional Political Economy

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 407–437 | Cite as

The classical limits to police power and the economic foundations of the Slaughterhouse dissents

  • Nicola GiocoliEmail author
Original Paper
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

The essay examines the influence of classical economics on an important episode in American 19th-century jurisprudence on business regulation, the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873. It is well known that the dissents penned by Supreme Court Justices Field and Bradley lay down the fundamental doctrines of the later Lochner era of so-called laissez faire constitutionalism. The essay argues that these dissents were inspired by Adam Smith’s system of natural liberty and, in particular, by his views about the regulation of negative externalities and the undesirability of government-granted monopolies. The Smithian influence emerges even more clearly when the briefs presented by counsel for the plaintiffs John A. Campbell are considered. Those briefs contained most of the issues raised by the dissenting Justices; hence, it is claimed that Lochner’s intellectual roots may be traced back to Campbell and, from him, to Smith.

Keywords

Slaughterhouse Cases Lochner era Classical political economy Adam Smith John A. Campbell Monopoly 

JEL Classification

B12 K10 N41 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Simon Cook, Maria Pia Paganelli and two anonymous referees for their useful comments. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Aleinikoff, T. A. (1987). Constitutional law in the age of balancing. Yale Law Journal, 96(5), 943–1005.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, G. S. (1998). Property as propriety. Nebraska Law Review, 77(4), 667–702.Google Scholar
  3. Balkin, J. M., & Levinson, S. (2001). Legal historicism and legal academics: The roles of law professors in the wake of Bush v. Gore. Georgetown Law Journal, 90, 173–197.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, R. E., & Bernick, E. D. (2018). No arbitrary power: An originalist theory of the due process of law. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3149590. Accessed April 2019.
  5. Benedict, M. L. (1985). Laissez-faire and liberty: A re-evaluation of the meaning and origins of laissez-faire constitionalism. Law and History Review, 3(2), 293–331.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, D. E. (2003). Lochner’s Legacy’s Legacy. Texas Law Review, 82(1), 1–64.Google Scholar
  7. Bernstein, D. E. (2017). The history of ‘substantive’ due process: It’s complicated. Texas Law Review, 95(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  8. Cachán, M. (2002). Justice Stephen Field and ‘free soil, free labor constitutionalism’: Reconsidering revisionism. Law and History Review, 20(3), 541–576.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, J. A. (1975 [1873]). Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wallace 36, Brief for Plaintiffs. In P. B. Kurland, & G. Casper (Eds.), Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional Law, Volume 6 (pp. 535–575, 577–586, 639–693, 734–763), Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.Google Scholar
  10. Conkin, P. K. (1980). Prophets of Prosperity. America’s First Political Economists. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Connor, H. G. (1920). John Archibald Campbell: Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1853–1861. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  12. Constant, B. (1837). Cours de Politique Constitutionelle. Bruxelles: Société Belge de Libraire.Google Scholar
  13. Cooley, T. M. (1868). A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  14. Corwin, E. S. (1948). Liberty Against the Government. The Rise, Flowering, and Decline of a Famous Judicial Concept. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Curtis, M. K. (1996). Resurrecting the privileges or immunities clause and revising the Slaughter-House Cases without exhuming Lochner: Individual rights and the fourteenth amendment. Boston College Law Review, 38(1), 1–106.Google Scholar
  16. Davenport, S. (2008). Das Adam Smith Problem and faculty psychology in the antebellum North. In B. W. Bateman & H. S. Banzhaf (Eds.), Keeping Faith, Losing Faith: Religious Belief and Political Economy (pp. 243–264). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  17. De Roover, R. (1951). Monopoly theory prior to Adam Smith: A revision. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 65(4), 492–524.Google Scholar
  18. Dorfman, J. (1966 [1949]). The Economic Mind in American Civilization, 16061865 (Vols. I–II). New York: Augustus M. Kelley.Google Scholar
  19. Ely, J. W. (2006). ‘To pursue any lawful trade or avocation’: The evolution of unenumerated economic rights in the nineteenth century. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 8(5), 917–955.Google Scholar
  20. Fleckner, A. S. (2016). Adam Smith on the Joint-Stock Company. Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance. Working paper 2016-01.Google Scholar
  21. Fleischacker, S. (2002). Adam Smith’s reception among the American Founders, 1776–1790. William and Mary Quarterly, 59(4), 897–924.Google Scholar
  22. Foner, E. (1970). Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Freund, E. (1904). The Police Power: Public Policy and Constitutional Rights. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Frey, D. E. (2002). Francis Wayland’s 1830s textbooks: Evangelical ethics and political economy. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 24(2), 215–231.Google Scholar
  25. Gillman, H. (1993). The Constitution Besieged. The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  26. ​Giocoli, N. (2014). Predatory Pricing in Antitrust Law and Economics. A Historical Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Giocoli, N. (2017). The (rail)road to Lochner: Reproduction cost and the Gilded Age controversy on rate regulation. History of Political Economy, 47(1), 31–58.Google Scholar
  28. Haakonssen, K. (1981). The Science of a Legislator. The Natural Jurisprudence of David Hume and Adam Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Herzog, L. (2014). Adam Smith’s account of justice between naturalness and historicity. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 52(4), 703–726.Google Scholar
  30. Horwitz, M. J. (1992). The Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960. The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hovenkamp, H. (1989). The Sherman Act and the classical theory of competition. Iowa Law Review, 74, 1019–1065.Google Scholar
  32. Hovenkamp, H. (1991). Enterprise and American Law, 1836–1937. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hovenkamp, H. (1996). Law and morals in classical legal thought. Fulton Lectures, University of Chicago Law School. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/fulton_lectures/10/. Accessed April 2019.
  34. Hyman, H. H. (2000). Slaughterhouse Cases. In L. W. Levy & K. L. Karst (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Jordan, C. (1980). Justice John Campbell. Last of the Jacksonians. In W. F. Swindler (Ed.), Yearbook 1980 Supreme Court Historical Society (pp. 78–88). Washington, DC: Supreme Court Historical Society.Google Scholar
  36. Kens, P. (1998). Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  37. Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Labbé, R. M., & Lurie, J. (2005). The Slaughterhouse Cases. Regulation, Reconstruction, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Kansas: Univeristy Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  39. Leonard, T. C. (2009). Origins of the myth of Social Darwinism: The ambiguous legacy of Richard Hofstadter’s Social Darwinism in American Thought. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 71, 37–51.Google Scholar
  40. Lerner, M. (1933). The Supreme Court and American Capitalism. Yale Law Journal, 42(5), 668–701.Google Scholar
  41. Mayer, D. N. (2009). The myth of ‘laissez-faire constitutionalism’: Liberty of contract during the Lochner Era. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 36(2), 217–284.Google Scholar
  42. McCloskey, R. G. (1951). American Conservatism in the Age of Enterprise. A Study of William Graham Sumner, Stephen J. Field, and Andrew Carnegie. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. McCurdy, C. W. (1975). Justice Field and the jurisprudence of government-business relations: Some parameters of laissez-faire constitutionalism, 1863–1897. Journal of American History, 61(4), 970–1005.Google Scholar
  44. Medema, S. G. (2009). The Hesitant Hand. Taming Self-Interest in the History of Economic Ideas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mill, J. S. (1909 [1848]). Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (7th ed.). London: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
  46. Novak, W. J. (1996). The People’s Welfare. Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  47. Palmer, P. A. (1941). Benthamism in England and America. American Political Science Review, 35(5), 855–871.Google Scholar
  48. Parmet, W. (1996). From Slaughter-House to Lochner: The rise and fall of the constitutionalization of public health. American Journal of Legal History, 40(4), 476–505.Google Scholar
  49. Pound, R. (1909). Liberty of contract. Yale Law Journal, 18(7), 454–487.Google Scholar
  50. Reed, T. W. (1949). History of the University of Georgia. Athens: University of Georgia. http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/reed/. Accessed April 2019.
  51. Ross, M. A. (2003a). Obstructing reconstruction: John Archibald Campbell and the Legal Campaign against Louisiana’s Republican Government, 1868–1873. Civil War History, 49(3), 235–253.Google Scholar
  52. Ross, M. A. (2003b). Justice of Shattered Dreams: Samuel Freeman Miller and the Supreme Court during the Civil War Era. Baton Rouge: Luisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Shugerman, J. H. (2010). Economic crisis and the rise of judicial elections and judicial review. Harvard Law Review, 123(5), 1061–1151.Google Scholar
  54. Siegel, S. A. (1991). Lochner Era jurisprudence and the American constitutional tradition. North Carolina Law Review, 70, 1–111.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, A. (1790 [1759]). The Theory of Moral Sentiments (6th ed.). London: Millar.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, A. (1904 [1776]). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (5th ed., E. Cannan, ed.). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  57. Spencer, H. (1851). Social Statics; or, The Conditions Essential to Happiness Specified, and the First of Them Developed. London: John Chapman.Google Scholar
  58. Stigler, G. J. (1982). The economists and the problem of monopoly. American Economic Review, 72(2), 1–11.Google Scholar
  59. Tamanaha, B. Z. (2010). Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Twiss, B. R. (1942). Lawyers and the Constitution. How Laissez Faire Came to the Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Viner, J. (1960). The intellectual history of laissez faire. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 45–69.Google Scholar
  62. Wallis, J. J. (2006). The concept of systematic corruption in American history. In E. L. Glaeser & C. Goldin (Eds.), Corruption and Reform: Lessons from America’s Economic History (pp. 23–62). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wiecek, W. M. (1998). The Lost World of Classical Legal Thought. Law and Ideology in America, 1886–1937. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Winch, D. (1992). Adam Smith: Scottish moral philosopher as political economist. The Historical Journal, 35(1), 91–113.Google Scholar
  65. Witztum, A., & Young, J. T. (2013). Utilitarianism and the role of utility in Adam Smith. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 20(4), 572–602.Google Scholar
  66. Young, J. T. (1986). The impartial spectator and natural jurisprudence: an interpretation of Adam Smith’s theory of the natural price. History of Political Economy, 18(3), 365–382.Google Scholar
  67. Young, J. T. (2001). Justice versus expediency. The Wealth of Nations as an anti-political economy. In E. L. Forget & S. Peart (Eds.), Reflections on the Classical Canon in Economics. Essays in Honor of Samuel Hollander (pp. 148–167). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Young, J. T. (2005). Unintended order and intervention: Adam Smith’s theory of the role of the state. In S. G. Medema & P. Boettke (Eds.), The Role of Government in the History of Economic Thought (pp. 91–119). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawUniversity of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations