DUE PROCESS LAW. Law in its reg ular course of administration through courts of justice. 3 Story, Const. 264, 661; Miller, Const. 664; Wynehamer v. People, 13 Isl. Y. 378.
This definition embodies the earlier con ception; 2 Co. Inst. 51; but it was long ago held too narrow; Murray's Lessee v. Hobo ken Land & Improvement Company, 18 How. (U. S.) 272, 15 L. Ed. 372, where a distress warrant to collect a balance due from a col lector of customs, under executive author ity, prescribed by law, was held due process within the Vth Amendment; and the same ruling is made under the XIVth Amendment; Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, Ct 261, 51 L. Ed. 461, where it was said that the phrase, "has never been defined.• It does not mean proceedings in court. Its fundamental requirement is an opportunity for a hearing and defense, but no fixed pro cedure is demanded," and the ruling in Da vidson V. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 24 L. Ed. 616 (infra) is approved.
Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age or cus tom, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the gen eral public good, which and pre serves these principles of liberty and jus tice. Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 4 Sup. Ct. 111, 292, 28 L. Ed. 232.
This term is considered by Coke as equiv alent to the phrase "law of the land" (used in Magna Carta, c. 29), and is said by him to denote "indictment or presentment of good and lawful men." Co. 2d Inst. 50. Amend ment V. of the Constitution of the United States provides: "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, with out due process of law." Amendment XIV. prohibits a state from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. A similar provision exists in all the state constitutions; the phrases "due course of law" and "the law of the land" are sometimes used; but all three of these phras es have the same meaning ; and that implies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indi cated by parliament ; Davidson v.. New Or leans, 96 U. S. 97, 24 L. Ed. 616; Cooley, Const. Lim. 437, where the provisions in the various state constitutions are set forth. Miller. J., says, in that case that a general definition of the phrases which would cover every case would be most desirable, but that apart from the risk of failure to make the definition perspicuous and comprehensive, there is a wisdom in ascertaining the extent and application of the phrase by the judi cial process of exclusion and inclusion as the cases arise. In that case, however, he says
also, that it must be confessed that the con stitutional meaning or value of the phrase remains without that satisfactory precision of definition which judicial decisions have given to nearly all the other guaranties of personal rights found in the constitutions of the several states and of the United States. And in a much later case it was said that the phrase has never been precisely defined; while its fundamental requirement is opportunity for hearing and defense; the procedure may be adapted to the case. Pro ceedings in court are not always essential; Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, 27 Sup. Ct. 261, 51 L. Ed. 461, where it was held that personal of liens for taxes and as sessments on real estate on resident owners, and constructive service by publication on non-resident owners, may be required by statute, the land being accountable to the state and the owner charged with knowledge of laws affecting It The liberty guaranteed is that of natural and not of artificial persons; Western Turf Ass'n v.,Greenberg, 204 U. S. 359, 27 Sup. Ct. 384, 51 L. Ed. 520 ; where it was said "a cor poration cannot be deemed a citizen within the meaning, of the • clause of the Constitu don of the United States which protects the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against being abridged or im paired by the law of a state" ; the same prin ciple was laid down in Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U. S. 243, 27 Sup. Ct. 126, 51 L. Ed. 168, 7 Ann. Cas. 1104 and Pembina Consol. Silver Min. & Mill. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650. But corporations are persons as well as with respect to this guaranty as to that of equal protection of the laws ; Cov ington & L. Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 17 Sup. Ct. 198, 41 L. Ed. 560; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819 ; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 10 Sup. Ct. 462, 702, 33 L. Ed. 970.