The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1877-03-08

The Winona & St. Peter Railroad company vs..
: Blake ct al; error to the Supreme Court Of
Minnesota. No. ~. Mcirath, receiver, vs..
Co'e'ra"; error to Circuit Court tor the Dis
trict OF Minnesota
As in the former case the rail road was by
itscharter bound to carry when called upon as I
ommOn carrier, and charge only reasonable
rates; these are incidents OF the occupation in
which 1t was authorized to engage. The casa
is held to fall within the decision decided at
the same time, and stated above. In No. "a it
Is held the question is The same and the decis-
ion il affirmed in both cases.
The Chief Justice delivered the epinion
JusticY Field dissented in all tue Granger
cass9. and with permission of the court will
aEzvatter Als an opinion.
| The court goes still further and de-
cides that the Logislature.of State has
. right to control the grain warehouses
Of the State. and fix the maximum Of
their charges Tor storing grain. It
says:
In the Supreme Court to- day the Chief JUST
ice read the opinion OF the court in the case or
Mum Scott against the people of the stats
Of Illinois, the principal Granger casa, affirm
inv the right Of the State to fx by law the
y srshouse at Chicago and other places in the
Stats, having not less than 1OO, 900 inhabitants.
iu which grain ia stored In bulk and In which
grain OF different owners is mix ID together, x
IN which grain is stored In such manner that
the identity of diff rent lots or parcels eaunot
bs accurately preserved, as provided by the
Legislatures. ln the course ofthe opinion the
court says: "In countries where the common
law prevails X has been customary from time
immemorial for the Legislature to declare what
shall be reasonable compensation under such
circumstances or, PEI haps, more properly
speaking, to fix the maximum by and which
any charge made would be reasonable. Un-
doubtedly in more private contracts, relating
to matters in which the public has no interest,
what is reasonable must be ascertaided jndi-
cially, but this is hecluse the Legislature has no
control over such contract. So, too, in mat
ters in which legislative control may bo exor-
cissd Ifthere are no salutory rsgula ions upon
. the subject the court mnst determine which is
reasonable. The controlling fact is the pow er
to rpgulatht all. H that exists. the right to es-
tablisli the maximum Of charges, as one Of the
means ofregnlation, Is implied. In fact the
common law rule which requires the charge
% b. reasonable Is itself regulations as to price
" iLlOAk ~ tuO w ASA IDhiA lb&hp l-l0 lateT3 y
will and compel the public to yield to his
terms or forego their use. The conclusion is
that the Law Is not repng gnantto the constitu-
ton Of the United States aid that there is no
error in the judg gment."
Who will talk about communism land
) aggrarianism nowe
81 4 In this State these decisions will not,
in al probability. be productive Of any
!. Immediate. practical result. The Anti
Monopoly movement Of 1874 taught
|. the railroad companies that lthe people
( had rights which must be respected. and
., the result has been that we hear no more
, Of those outrageous charges for freight
: which once disgraced some Of our rail-
. roads. and which provoked and justified
? the popular excitement we hare re-
! ferred TO-
> We are grateful to the Supreme Court
> u tho United States for that decision
= Any cher conclusion reached BY them
: would have dragged civilization back.
Ward one hundred yesrs, and hava Is.
tab]ished despotism which could ONLY
have ben oTsrthrown by . bloody revo
y 1I1nffan. f