The Grange advance. [volume] (Red Wing, Minn.) 1873-1877, 1877-04-11
The Granger Decision.

The Granger Decision.
Chief Justice Waite's decision in the
case of the Illinois grain warehouses,
which will be known henceforth as the
granger decision, is very clear presen-
tation Of the rights of States in the reg
ulation of the charges for the use of
property devoted to public uses. The
State governments, he says, inherited
the wide powers of the British parlia-
ment. Certain of these powers, ex-
pressly named, they surrender to COM
mon government, the United States; the
rest they retain, and exercise under the
limitations of their self imposed consti-
buttons. These retained power author
ize 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 unnecessarily to injure another.
This is of the very essence Of govern
ment, and is buttressed by numerous
decisions. Under these powers, the
States have exercised the regulation Of
common carriers, inns, and variety of
public interests, and congress has done
the same ia the federal district. As
the chief justice lays down the princi-
pie: "When one devotes his property
to use in which the public has an in
terest, he in effect grants to the public
an interest in that use, and must sub
NIT to be controlled by the public for
the common good to the extent of the
interest he has thus created. He may
withdraw his grant by discontinuing
the use; but so long as lie maintains
the use, he must submit to the control"
This language is complete answer
to those who have claimed that the
grange policy was policy of spoliation
and robbery. It was harsh policy. a
foolish policy in the extreme to which
it has been carried for brief season,
but it was undertaken on a just princi-
| pie, that the great agricultural industry
of the western States had paramount
interest in the manner which railroads
and grain elevators were managed. The
chief justice, in applying this principle
to the grain warehouses, had less OBJ
vious instance of the requisite degree of
publicity to give it force than he would
have had il the case had formally in
cluded the railroads. But he had no
difficulty in showing, from the manner
Of conducting tho business, that all the
grain traffic Of the greatest grain mar
ket in the world passed through these
warehouses, controlled by nine firms.
In the language Of their own counsel,
they were "the very gateway of com
merce," taking toll Of everything that
passes, levying, in the words of Lord
Hale, "a common CHARGE" and Justly
liable to common regulation. It mat
tiers not that the warehouse antedated
the legislation, they could not antedate
the power to legislate. Again, the de-
Termination of what is reasonable
charge is by all precedents within tae
legislative prerogative; in private con-
tracts it is q judicial function, but not
so in these matters which the legsla-
ture may regulate. The power to reg
ulate 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
inviolabiliJy Of contracts, was not ad.
vanced in the warehouse case. it main
ly rested on the clause in the fourteenth
amendment forb idding any State to de-
prive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law.
The power of congress to regulate COM
merce was alleged, to which the clear
answer was that the States retained
their internal powers, in the absence of
any exercise Of the federal jurisdiction.
The Dartmouth college doctrine was ad-
vanced before the supreme court, how
ever, by Mr.. Stoug hton, in certain Wis
consin cases against the Chicago and
Northwestern railroad, but does not
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 u road chartered by the
territory of Wisconsin, with the power
to make rates, was not organized till
long after the establishment of the
State. The court held that the con.