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

The Winona & st. Peter Railroad company vs..
: Blake ct al; error 10 the Supreme Court OF
Minnesota, No. ~. McGratli, receiver, VS..
C0'afoa''; error to Circuit Court tor the Dug
trict OF Minnesota.
AS in the former case the rail road was by
its charter bound TO carry when called upon as
>mmon carrier, and charge onlf reasonable
rates; these are incidents os the occupation i'm
which II was authorized to engage. The casa
10 held TO fall within the decision decided mt
The same time, and stated above. In No. "a il
ts held the question is Tie same and the decis-
ion ia affirmed in both cases.
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion.
Justics Field disAented in sl the Granger
eassf. and with permission of the court will
hereafter Tile IN opinion.
| The court goes still further and de.
cides that the Iogislature.of q State has
q right to control the grain warehouses
OF the State. and fix the maximum of
their charges tor storing grain 1t
says:
| In the Supreme Court to. day the Chief JUST
ice read The opinion OF the court in the case OF
| Mum Scott against the people of the State
| Of llIinois, the principal Granger casn, afirm-
ifi2 the right OF the State to fix by law the
| maximum OF charges for storage OF grain i'm
| v arshouse at Chicago and other places in the
Stat. having not less than 100, 600 inhabitants,
l in which grain ia stored In bulk and in Which
grain OF different owners is mix ID together, tr
III which grain liz stored In such manner That
the identity of diff rent lots or parcels cannot
| be accurately preserved, as provided by the
legislature. In the course ofthe opinion tho
court says: "ln countries where the common
law prevails ii has been customary from time
inmemorial for the Legislature to DE- clare what
shall be reasonable compensation under such
circumstances or, pe'baps, more properly
speaking, to fix the maximum by and which
any charge made would be reasonable. Un-
doubleday in more private contracts, relating
to matters in which the public has no interest.
what is reasonable must be ascertaided jndi-
ciaI.y, but this is because the Legislature has no
control over such contract. So, too, in mat
tiers in which legislative control may be exor-
cissd Ifthere are no salutorY rsgula ions upon
the subject the court muA. determine which il
reasonable. The controlling fact Ia the pow CIR
to regf,latat all. II taat exists the right to es-
tabIish the maximum OF charges, as one Of the
means ofre9nlation, Ii implied. III fact the
common law rule which requires the charge
% b. reasonable is itself REGULATE on as to price
Without ii the owner could make lis rates a
will and compel the public to yield 10 his
terms or forego their use. The conclusion is
that the Law il not repng nant to the constitu-
ton OF tile Unted States AID that there i no
error in the judgmen
Who will talk about communism Eana
J aggrarianism nowg
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 lthc people
I had rights which must be respected. and
|. the result ha . been that we hear no more
, ofthose outrageous charges for freight
I which once disgraced some Of our rail-
> roads, and which provoked ard justified
: the popular excitement we hare re-
: ferred to-
J We are grateful to the Supreme Court
> sf the United States for that decision
Any other conclusion reached by them
J would have dragged civilization back
ward one hundred Years, and hava cs-
sablished d-spotism which could only
have bssn ovsrthrown by bloody revo
4 Intion.