The EquivocationInfectsthe Intellectuals 63burdenedfellowcountrymen.’”^64 AndBlackdoesnot deignto admitthat Holmesvocally
opposedManchesterism.JusticeHolmesruledin favorof havingthe U.S.JusticeDepart-
mentforciblybreakup the StandardOil Companyof JohnD. Rockefeller,Sr.^65 Thisis the
exactsameRockefellerwhomHofstadterandhis followersfingeras a socialDarwinist.
JusticeHolmeswasnot a pal to Rockefeller,Sr., or othersuchprofiteerswhowishedto
keepthe government’s handsoff theirprivatefortunes.Despitehis owngovernistprem-
ises,Rockefellerdenouncedthe personalincometax to a reporterin 1914,“Whena man
has accumulateda sumof money,accumulatedit withinthe law,the Governmenthas no
rightto sharein its earnings.”^66 By contrast,a newsreporterfamouslyparaphrasedJus-
tice Holmestellinghim that taxes“are the pricewe pay for a civilizedsociety.”^67
AnotherconsiderationdemolishesBlack’s insinuation.Spencer’sSocialStaticscould
not haveinspiredHolmes’s pro-eugenicistrulings,as Holmesactuallypubliclydispar-
agedthat book.Thiswasvisiblein the 1905caseLochnerv. NewYork. In the case,the state
of NewYorkhad attemptedto micromanagethe laborpracticesof bakerJosephLochner,
dictatingoverthe employmenthoursthathe andhis staffmemberswouldotherwise
negotiatefreelyon theirown.^68 Lochnerowneda smallbakeshop,andhe hiredPolish
immigrantswhowerewillingto workmuchlongerhours,andfor lowerremuneration,
thanwhatwasoftenexpectedof native-bornbakeshopemployees.Laborunionsand
Lochner’s much-larger,wealthiercompetitorsteamedup in lobbyingfor regulationsto
limitthe workhoursof everyone.ThatwoulddeprivePolishimmigrantworkersof the
abilityto worklonghours,theirwillingnessto bravesuchhoursbeingtheircompetitive
advantageagainstnative-bornlabor.Lochnerand his employeeswouldnot toleratesuch
governmentforceimpedingtheirbusinessrelationships.For thatreason,Lochnerap-
pealedthis caseto the U.S.SupremeCourt.In a voteof five to four,the Courtcamedown
on Lochner’s side.^69 In the majorityopinion,JusticeRufusPeckhamnotedthatin Joseph
Lochner’s managementdecisions,Lochner’s businesswas“not dangerousin any degree
to morals,or in anyrealandsubstantialdegreeto the healthof the employee.” The
majority of Supreme Court Justices,against Holmes’s wishes, cited the Fourteenth
Amendmentin theirrulingthat privateindividualsmaypeaceablyrun theirbusinessesas
theychoose.Therulingmajoritydid not wantstategovernmentsimpinginguponsuch
rights.Suchrights,Peckhamstated,“cannotbe prohibitedor interferedwith,without
violatingthe FederalConstitution.”^70
Thiswasactuallya greatvictoryfor liberty.Recollect,fromBookOne,the U.S.Su-
premeCourtcaseBuchananv. Warley. It is no accidentthatMoorfieldStoreyand Clayton
Blakeycitedthe Lochnerdecisionin theirown 1917 brieffor the case,whereinthey
arguedthatindividualpropertyrightsmustbe prioritizedaboveanycollectivists’ at-
temptto forbida whitemanfromsellinglandto a blackman.^71 It will be recalledthatit
wasthis argumentof Storey’s and Blakey’s thatsuccessfullystruckdownthe ordinance-
enforcedsegregationof statesacrossthe nation.TheLochnerprecedenthelpedrender
this possibility.^72
But in his dissentingopinionforLochner, Holmeswrote,“The libertyof the citizento
do as he likesso longas he doesnot interferewiththe libertyof othersto do the same,
whichhas beena shibbolethfor somewell-knownwriters,is interferedwithby school
laws,by the PostOffice,by everystateor municipalinstitutionwhichtakeshis moneyfor
purposesthoughtdesirable,whetherhe likesit or not.” To Holmes,the merefact that
peopleadaptedto the conditionof suchgovernmentalspoliationstakingplaceprovedto
be justificationfor governmentalregulationas such.ThenHolmessniped,“TheFour-
teenthAmendmentdoesnot enactMr. HerbertSpencer’sSocialStatics.”^73 Hofstadterhere
admitsthatHolmesutteredthesewordsin “protest” againstSpencer’s sociopolitical-
economicphilosophy.^74