[61] Calder _v._ Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388-389 (1798). _See also_ Loan Association _v._ Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1875). [62] Bank of Columbia _v._ Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 244. [63] Scott _v._ Sandford, 19 How. 393, 450 (1857). [64] 13 N.Y. 378 (1856). [65] Ibid. 390-392. The absolute veto of the Court of Appeals in the Wynehamer case was replaced by the Supreme Court, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by a more flexible doctrine, which left it open to the State to show reasonable justification for that type of legislation in terms of acknowledged ends of the Police Power, namely, the promotion of the public health, safety and morals. _See_ Mugler _v._ Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887); and for a transitional case, Bartemeyer _v._ Iowa, 18 Wall. 129 (1874). [66] The Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 78-82 (1873). The opinion of the Court was focused principally on the privileges and immunities clause, and the narrow construction given it at this time is still the law of the Court. But Justices Bradley and Swayne pointed out the potentialities of the due process of law clause, and the former's interpretation of it may be fairly regarded as the first step toward the translation by the Court of "liberty" as Freedom on Contract. [67] 94 U.S. 113 (1876). [68] Benjamin R. Twiss, _Lawyers and the Constitution, How Laissez Faire Came to the Supreme Court_, 141-173 (1942). [69] _See_ especially Lochner _v._ New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905); and Adkins _v._ Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923). [70] 169 U.S. 466; ibid. 366. [71] _See_ Charles W. Collins, _The Fourteenth Amendment and the States_, 188-206 (1912). [72] Labor Board _v._ Jones & Laughlin, 301 U.S. 1, 33-34; West Coast Hotel Co. _v._ Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 391-392. [73] 268 U.S. 652, 666; _cf._ Prudential Ins. Co. _v._ Cheek, 259 U.S. 530, 543 (1922). [74] The subject can be pursued in detail in connection with Amendment I, pp. 769-810. [75] These cases are treated in the text, _see_ Table of Cases. [76] _See_ Williams _v._ United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951). [77] _See:_ Oliver Wendell Holmes, _Collected Legal Papers_, 239, 295-296 (1920); Merlo J. Pusey, _Charles Evans Hughes_, I, 203-206 (1951). Burns Baking Co. _v._ Bryan, 204 U.S. 504, 534 (1924); Baldwin _v._ Missouri, 281 U.S. 586, 595 (1930); _American Political Science Review_, xii, 241 (1918); _New York Times_, February 12, 1930. It was also during the same period that Judge Andrew A. Bruce of North Dakota wrote: "We are governed by our judges and not by our legislatures.... It is our judges who formulate our public policies and our basic law". _The American Judge_, 6, 8 (1924). Substantially contemporaneously a well read French critic described our system as _Le Gouvernment des Juges_ (1921); while toward the end of the period Louis B. Boudin published his well known _Government by Judiciary_ (2 vols., 1932). [78] _Collected Legal Papers_, 295-296. CONTENTS