The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1877-03-31
The Granger Decision.


case of the Illinois grain warehouses,
which will be known henceforth as the
the Granger decision, is a very clear pres
entation of the rights of States in the
regulation of the charges for the use of
property devoted to public uses. The
State Governments, he says, inherited
the wide powers of the British Parla-
ment. Certain of these powers, express
ly named, they surrender to a common
government, the United States; the rest
they retain, and exercise under the limi-
tations of their self-imposedco constitutions.
These retained powers authorize them,
not to control rights which are purely
and exclusively private, but to require
every citizen to so conduct himself and
so use his own property as not unneces-
sarily to inJure another. This is of the
very essence of government, and is but
tressed by numerous decisions. Under
these powers, the States have exercised
the regulation of common carriers, inns,
and a variety of public interests, and
Congress has done the same in the Federal
District. AS the Chief-Justice lays down
the principle: When one devotes his
property to use in which the public has an
interest, he in effect grants to the public
an interest in that use, and must submit to
be controlled by the public for the COM
mon good to the extent of the interest
he has thus created He may withdraw
his grant by disseminating the use, but,
so long as he maintains the use, he must
submit to the control"
This language is a complete answer to
those who have claimed that the Grange
policy was a policy of spoliation and
robbery. 1t was harsh policy, but it
was undertaken on a ust principle, the
principle that the great agricultural in
dustry of the Western States had para
mount interest in the manner in which
railroads and grain elevators were man
aged. The Chief-Justice, in applying
this principle to the grain warehouses,
had less obvious instance of the requi-
site degree of publicity to give it force
than he would have had if the case had
formally included the railroads. But he
had no difficulty in showing, from the
manner of conducting the business, that
all the grain traffic of the greatest grain
market in the world passed through
these warehouses, controlled by nine
firms. In the language of their own
counsel, they were " the very gateway of
commerce" taking toll of everything
that passes, levying, in the words of
Lord Hale, "a common charge" and
Justly liable to common regulation.
1t matters not that the warehouses ante
dated the legislation, they could not
antedate the power to legislate. Again,
the determination of what is reasona-
BILE charge is by all precedents within
the legislative prerogatlve; in private
contracts it is judicial function, but
not so in these matters which the Legis-
lature may regulate. The power to
regulate may be abused, but " the people
must resort for the remedy to the polls,
not to the courts"
Strange to say, the doctrine of the
Dartmouth College case, regarding the
inviolability of contracts, was not adj
vanced in the warehouse case; it mainly
rested on the clause in the Fourteenth
amendment forbidding any State to de-
prive any person of life, liberty, or prop
erty without due process of law The
power of Congress to regulate commerce
was also alleged, to which the clear an.
swer was that the States retained their
internal powers in the absence of any
exercise of the Federal jurisdiction. The
Dartmouth College doctrine was adj
vanced before the Supreme Court, how.
ever, by Mr. Stoughton in certain Wis
consin cases against the Chicago &
Northwestern Railroad but does moi
seem to have attracted the attention OF
the court, which has decided all these
cases on the doctrine laid down as above
by Chief-Justice Waite. There are five
or six of these cases, in one of which &
road chartered by the Territory of Wis
consin, with full power to make rates
was not organized till long after the es
Establishment of the State. The court helC
that the contract, so far as it was Il con
tract, was with the State. The tacit
abandonment of the Dartmouth College
doctrine in its extreme conclusions il
very curious. .rr ."
Some of the papers take up the ole
wall, the Wall street nonsense, that the
decision renders railway capital inse
cure" 1t was the waste, extravaganza
and imitation of the railroad. building ert
which have ruined railroad enterprise
and rendered the capital insecure. L