Happiness

The “pursuit of happiness,” as used in the Declaration of Independence is said to be the right to pursue any iawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase one’s prosperity, or develop one’s faculties, so as to give to one bis highest enjoyment. Butchers’ Union, S. H. & L. S. L. Co. V. Crescent City Co., Ill U. S. 757, 4 Sup. Ct 662, 28 L. Ed. 585. HARBOR (Sax. here-herga, station for an army). A place where ships may ride with safety; any navigable water protected by the surrounding country; a haven. It is public property. Harbor is to be distinguisbed from "port," which has a reference to the delivery of cargo. See 7 M. & G. 870; Martin v. Hilton, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 371; 2 B. & Aid. 460. Thus, we have the “said harbor, basin, and docks of the port of Hull.” 2 B. & Aid. 60. But they are generally used as synonymous. Webster, Diet. In the United States the control of harbors and regulation of dock lines and the like is exercised by the states, although under the power to regulate commerce the federal government annually expends large sums of money in the improvement of navigation in harbors and other navigable waters. A state may enact police regulations for the conduct of shipping in any of its harbors; Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 351; Cooley, Const. Lim. 730; and congress has full power to make regulations on the same subject; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. (U. S.) 209, 13 L. Ed. 996; Barnaby V. State, 21 Ind. 450; Pacific Mail S. S. Co. V. Jollffe, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 450, 17 L. Ed. 805; Cisco V. Roberts, 36 N. Y. 292. A statute passed for the protection of a harbor, which forbids the removal of stone, gravel, and sand from the beach, is constitutional; Com. V. Tewksbury, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 55; and the United States has the authority to make a contract for the removal of rock from a harbor; Benner v. Dredging Co., 134 N. Y. 156, 31 N. E. 328, 17 L. R. A. 220, 30 Am. St. Rep. 649. New harbor lines may be established with- I out further legislative authority, and such establishment is a practical discontinuance of the old lines; Farist Steel Co. v. City of Bridgeport, 60 Conn. 278, 22 Atl. 561, 13 L. R. A. 590. The state board of harbor commissioners has power to establish harbor lines in front of towns; State v. Board of Com’rs, 4 Wash. 6, 29 Pac. 938; and an act which provides for the disestablishment of such lines is contrary to the state constitution and void; Wilson v. Board of Com’rs, 13 Wash. 65, 42 Pac. 524; such an act on the part of such commissioners does not deprive a riparian owner of the right of access to his land, but merely determines the line to which he may fill without encroaching on public rights; Sherman v. Sherman, 18 R. I. 504, 30 Atl. 459. The mere establishment of general harbor lines by such commissioners is not of itself an injury or a taking of the property and cannot be enjoined; Prosser V. R. Co., 152 U. S. 59, 14 Sup. Ct. 628, 38 L. Ed. 362. The authority to make improvements in harbors implies the power to employ all necessary means thereto; Bateman V. Colgan, 111 Cal. 580, 44 Pac. 238. in the crown; though a subject may have such right by charter, grant, or prescription, but in all cases charged with the right of the public to use it. In England such grantee is bound to repair, but in Scotland only to the extent of the dues received. The insufficiency of the common-law power led to an extended course of legislation for the control of ports and harbors, through what is known in Great Britain as the Aarbor authority, which is vested in commissioners or bodies corporate or otherwise. Such bodies are charged with the duty of general supervision of the construction, extension, improvement, and lighting of the harbor and collection of dues therefrom. The general consolidation act of 10 Viet c. 271, defined these duties and powers in detail as did the general act of 24 & 25 Viet. c. 47, supplemented by various local acts. In Torts. To receive clandestinely or without lawful authority a person for the purpose of so concealing him that another having a right to the lawful custody of such person shall be deprived of the same. Van Metre v. Mitchell, 2 Wall. Jr. 317, Fed. Gas. No. 16,865. For example, the harboring of a wife or an apprentice in order to deprive the husband or the master of them; or, in a less technical sense, it is the reception of persons Improperly; Poll. Torts 275; Wood v. Gale, 10 N. H. 247, 34 Am. Dec. 150; Eells V. People, 4 Scam. (111.) 498. It may be aptly used to describe the furnishing of shelter, lodging, or food clandestinely or w’ith concealment, and under certain circumstances, may be equally applicable to those acts divested of any accompanying secrecy; U. S. v. Grant, 65 Fed. 415. The harboring of such persons will subject the harborer to an action for the injury; but, in order to put him completely in the wrong, a demand should be made for their restoration, for in cases where the harborer has not committed any other wrong than merely receiving the plaintiff’s wife, child, or apprentice, he may be under no obligation to return them without a demand; 1 Chit. Pr. 564; Dark v. Marsh, 4 N. C. 228; Jones v. Van Zandt, 5 How. (U. S.) 215, 227, 12 L. Ed. 122. See Entice.

The constitutional right of men to pursue their “happiness” means the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity, or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. 111 U.S. 757, 4 Sup, Ct. Rep. 652; 1 Bl. Comm. 41.

The foundation of ethits or natural law is "that every man should ' Fee V. Taylor, 83 Ky. 263-63 (1886), Holt, J. See also Bose V. First Nat. Bank of Springfield, 91 Mo. 401-3 (1886), cases; Bell v. Brewster. 44 Ohio St. 696, 698 (1887), cases; Smyth v. Caswell, 67 Tex. 673 (1887); as to pursue his own true and substantial happiness, "i But as utility contradicts the common sense and feeling of mankind, utility is not the standard of right and wrong.'' The object of all government is to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community by which it is established. 2 • Happiness is an inalienable right. In its pursuit all avocations, honors, positions, are alike open to every one.* The right of men to pursue their happiness means the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment.5 The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty (g. v.) of the citizen. No legislature may deny the right to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly.^ See Privilege, 2.