The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1877-03-14

The SuPre COurs Of tlse United
Sfaae~.



tie opinion Of the Court:
Tie question IL be detei mined in thi
Ease l. whether the General Assembly
Iln is can, under the Limitations upon the
iegi-,a w.. power Of the States imposed By
she&on>titution at The United States, ii X %
law the max imum OF charges for the storage
u 2raiH Ia warehouses at Oh cago aud other
PLACES in the State having nos les than one
hund red thousand Inhabitants, in which
T grain is stored in bulk and II which the
gr .im # ffereut owners is r. liked together
/ or IN which grain Is stored in such man
er that identity OF different 4ois r parcels
/ C mot b. accurately preserved. Il is claim
ettaat such Il law i repugu ant--drst, 10
that part of elton 5, article |, OF tue Con-
! S;itutioa o! the United ates which conf rs
up "a Congress the power To Regulate com
HI-r win foreign nai ions aud among the
several 5s.FoS stc9n :, t. that plF- OF sec
| ton o % the same article which provides
| THAI .-tlt1 Igrefereuce shall be given by any
/ regulation or commerce. or revenue 10 the
| ports Of one State over clio OF ahotheF.
aud, third, TO that ptIt OF amendment tour
teen which orlIius that no Stae shall de-
| priye any person OF lie, liberty or property
| without due process OF law. nor deny TO
any person within il jurisdiction the equal
| protection of the laws.
Afcer an elaborate review in retu'ation of
| thu first clause OF the last-nAmtd objection
TO the con>titutiOnality If the law, the
| opinion concludes as follows:
| Rights of property whichhave been Great
| ed bg the common law cannot be taken
| away without due process, but the law Itself
asa rule of conIucT, may be changed ut the
| Will or even at the within, OF The Legislature
| uuless prevented by constitutional HmIta-
tons Indeed, the great Office of statutes Is
! to remedy defects in The common law as
they are developed and 10 adapt it 70 change
| of lime and circumstances. TO limit the
| rate of charge for services rendered Ill a
| public EN- loyment, or for the use OF prop
| erty in which the PUB ic h a an interest, Is
i. Bi.4f. ny rod
brf1re, aud establishes no new principle IN
| the law but only gives new eli CT 10 an
old one. We know that it is power which
may lie abused, hut that is no argument
| aztiust Its existence. For protection against
| abuses by legislatures the people must re-
sort. TO the polls, not to the courts. Alter
| what has already been said il is unnecessa-
| ~ TO ref,r at length To the effect 0: the
| otherprOVision of the fourteenth annt DIN ent
| wIiirn is relied upon viz, tina no ) ate shall
/ deny 10 any person within its jurisdiction
! the equal protection of the laws" Certain
| l., il cannot be claimed that this prevents
| the State from regulating fares OF hackmen
or the charges of draymeu ia Chicago UNI
| les, it does the same thing in every other
place within is Jurisdiction. Blu, as has
! b zen seen, the power to regulate tile bust
| ness of warehouses depends upon the same
| princi pie as the power To regulate hackmen
| and draymen. ana what cannot be done in
the one case in this particular cannot be
done in the other.
We come now to consider the effect upon
this statute OF The power OF Congress to reg
uate commerce. 1t was very properly said
in he ease of the State tax on railway gross
receipts { 10 Wall, 1888 that, 1T is not every
thing that affects commerce that amounts
! to regulation of 1t, within the meaning OF
| the Constitution" The warehouses of these
| plaintiffs in error are situated, and their
business carried on, exclusively within the
limits of the State of Illinois. They are
| used as instruments by those engaged in
State, as we'll as those engaged in interest
commerce, but they are no more neceS>ari-
ly part of commerce itself than the dray
or the cart by which, but for them, grain
| would be transferred from one railroad sta
ton to another.
Incidentally they may become connec led
with Interstate commerce, but not ne ceS-
| SarilV 50. Their rc9ulat ion is Il thing of do
nestle concern, and certainly until Congress
act, in reference TO their Interstate rela-
lions the State may exercise all the powers
| OF government over them, even though III
| so during il may indirectly operate upon
! commerce outside its immediate jurlsdIc-
ton. We do not say that "A case may not
arise in which il will be found that State
under the form ofregulating Its own affairs
has encrOached upon the exclusive domain
| of Congress in respect to Interstate com
MERGE but we do say th4t upon the facts as
they are presented TO Us in this record thai
has not been done.
The remaining objection. to wit, that the
| |
T section g. article /, of the constitution OF the
United States, because it gives preference
To the ports of one State over those o
another. may be dil posed OF by the singl,
remark that this provision operates only a
l a limitation of the powers OF Congress. anC
no respect affects the States in the regu
la1ion of their domestic affairs. We con.
. clude, therefore, that the statute IN question
is not repugnant to the Constitution of til,
2 United states. and that there is no error il
RI i,11tr ont n i c.aS,
we have not been unmind!ul of thevast i'm
! portance of the questions involved. Cases q
akindred character were argued before II
more than year ago, by the most eminen
| counsel. and in a manner worthy OF thei
; weli-earned regulations. We have kept tn
] eases long under advisement, in order tina
their decision might be the result of GU
e mature deliberations. The judgment is af
D firmed.
The Supreme Court to-day, among other
also rendered the following decisions: q
" | Pick ct n. vs.. Chicago and North yes teri
l Railroad Company ct al, and 40, Lawrenc
| ct al. Vs.. Paul and others and Chicago ant
T | Northwestern Railroad Company, appeal
| from the Circuit Court for Western distric
; of Wisconsin. These suits present the sin
]. gle question of the power OF tile Legislator
i Of the State of Wisconsin TO provide by Law
i for maximum of charge To be made by til
. Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Com
{ pany for fare and freight upon the trans
/ porlalion of persons and property carried
! within The State or taken up outside ant
| brought within it or taken up Inside am
carried out, The decision is that until Con
| preSS acts in reference 10 the relations q
n Interstate domestic TO regulatethe fares G
: the raj roads SO far as they are of donesti
D concern. This company, il is said, has com
meIce. it is competent for the State rela
; tions wththe State, and incidentally thes
relations may reach beyond The Sta
= Until Congress undertakes to legislate f.
those who are without the State, Wiscon
sin may provide for those within, eve
though il may indirectly affect th0s
without. Alarmed. The Chief Justic
delivered the opinion.
+; 324, Chicago, Burlington and Quinc
I Railroad Company vs.. Attorney Geners
+" and State Treasurer of Iowa. Appeal iron
r the Iowa Circuit. In this it is said railroa
5 | companies are carriers fer hire; they ar
c incorpora ed as sucR and given extraordi
/ nary powers in order that they may tn
n better serve the public that in CAPACITY
q They are therefore engaged in public EN-
: plovment, affecting the PUBLIC Interest,"
y and under the decision in Murin = Scott V.
!, People of Illinois (the principal case) sub
l. ject TO legislative control as to their rate
Y OF fare and freight unless protected by thei
u charters. In the absence of legislative req
= ulation on the subject of fares the courI
/ must decide for it, as they do for privat
! persons when controversies arise, what
| reasonable; but when the Legislature steE
in and Prescribes maximum OF charge
operates upon thss corporation the same
it does upon individuals engaged in sim
j. lar business. A uniform rate of charges fC
Y all railroad companies in the State migl
V operate uDjnstly upon some. TWAS prope
5 therefore, to provide iu some way for a
n adaptation of the rates TO the circnms anef
c. of the different roads, and the Legislatur
4 IN the exercise of its discretion has seen fl
$ TO do this by system OF classification an
es whether this was the best that could be dor
re Is not tor the couW to decide Affirmed
lie The Chief Justice delivered the opinion,
ar $50. Chicago, Milwaukee and St Pau
p Railroad Com pany VS.. Ackley ct al. E rrC
T. u the Circuit Court for Wisconsin. Tn