◆ SpookStack

—3— few matters pertaining to the enforcement of state crim- inal law. There was, to be sure, in Article [, Section 9, a prohibition against Bills of Attainder and against ex post facto laws and the United States Supreme Court had occasion last century to deal with aspects of that problem. But apart from those restrictions, the states could design such criminal laws as they chose and enforce them in any manner they desired. Then came the Four- teenth Amendment with its Due Process Clause. Those who designed that Amendment did not define due process. But the great stream of cases that came to the Court over the decades presented the recurring question as to what provisions, if any, of the Bill of Rights were in- cluded in the Due Process Clause and thus made applica- ble to the states by reason of the Fourteenth Amendinent. While the Fourteenth Amendment was designed pri- marily to give political rights to Negroes. the first bene- ficiaries were not the Negroes but proprietary interests. In 1886 the Court held that “person” within the mean- ing of the Equal Protection Clause included the corpora- tion; and in 1889 the same was held as respects the Due Process Clause.” Likewise the first provision of the Bill of Rights made applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment favored the proprietary interests. In 1897, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment forbade a state from taking private property for public use with- out the payment of just compensation.”* just as the fed- eral governinent would be required to do under the “just the years, many such decisions have incorporated rights, secured against federal interference by the Bill of Rights, into the Fourteenth Amendment. The most recent of Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pec. R.Co., Us U.S. 594, 39. U Minneapolis Ry. Co. v. Beckwith, 120 U.S. 2A, 12 Chicago, BL & Q. R. Co. v. Chicaga, 160 U.S. 226.