The patron of husbandry., 1879-07-26
FROM TENNESSEE.
Upton COUNTY


Supreme Court in the Granger Cases" that went
to said Court by appeal from the State Courts of
Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota, and re-
ported in 4 Otto, vol. "a, U. S. S. c., regulating,
by the Legislatures of those States, the rates of
fare and freight on rail roads within the borders
of said States at maximum rates, have concluded
to give more succinct and extended account of
them, in order that the membership of our Order,
who have not the book, may be able to have
more comprehensive and extended account of the
cases in point without filing many papers for
future reference. And in doing so, | do not wish
to cast any reflection on ADLER pens which have
written on the subject, but which, as think have
not gone as far into the matter the merits of
the cases, from my stand point, would seem to
Justify
In April 1871, the Legislature of Illinois passed
law regulating the storage of grain in the ware
houses of the State, establishing a maximum
charge for the storage and handling of grain.
Laws, 1877, p. 100.
Also requiring the warehouseman to file bond
of 100000, with good and sufficient surety for
the faithful performance of his duty as public
warehouseman." .ss-. -. .a
See R. S., chap. ia, sec. 90, p. $40. -t.s..
And the party failing to comply with section
eo "shall on conviction, be fined in not less
than 500 nor more than $500 for each and every
day that such business is carried on"
R. S., 1874, chap. 114 sec. Ioo,p $40.
The firm, in Chicago, ILL.,, disregarding the laws
of the State, continued to transact business in
open violation of the law. AS sequence, they
were indicted and prosecuted by the State At
torney. The State Supreme Court sustaining the
validity of the law, declaring it constitutional, the
defendants appealed to the y. S. Supreme Court.
The case came up for hearing in the October
Term, 1876, under the caption: Ira T. Mann and
Geo L. Scott, Plaintiffs in Error, VS.. The People
of the State of Illinois, Mr., Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Said the Court: Looking, then, to the COM
mon law, from whence came the right which the
Constitution protects, we find that when private
property is affected with public interest, it ceases
to be juris privati only.
ssThis was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale more
than two hundred years ago, in his Treatise, ''De
Portibus Maris," and has been accepted without
objection as an essential element in the law of
property ever since .. .....-. f...-. ..e ,+
property does become clothed with public
interest when used in a manner to make it OF pub
lie consequence and affect the community atlarge.
When, therefore,, one OcNOtcS hls property 10 u
use in which the public has an interest, he in ef-
feet grants to the public interest in that use
and must submit to be controlled by the public
for the common good to the extent OF the interest
he has thus created.
ale may withdraw his grant by di continuing
the use, but so long he maintains the use, he
must submit to the control" e
ssThere is no doubt that the general principle
is favored both in law and justice, that every man
may fix what price he pleases upon his own prop
erty, or the use of it; but if for particular pur
pose the public have right to resort to his prem
ses and make use of them and he have monop-
oly in them for that purpose, if he will take the
benefi. of that monopoly he must as an equiva-
lent, perform the duty attached to it on reasona-
bic terms zsztt 3si i sz-t1Er ssE-G
"It matters not in this ease that these plaintiffs
in error had built their warehouses and established
their business before the regulations complained
of were adopted. What they did was from the
beginning subject to the power OF the body poll
tic TO require them to conform to such regulations
as might be established by the proper authorities
for the common good. They entered upon their
business and provided themselves with the means
to carry it on subject to this condition"
"Itis insisted, however, that the owner of prop
ertv is entitled to reasonable compensation for
its use, even though it be clothed with public
interest, and that what is reasonable is Judicial
and not legislative question.
GAS has already been shown, the practice has
been otherwise In countries where the common
law pre- walls 1t has been customary from time i'm
memorial for the legislature to declare what shall
be reasonable compensation under such circunl-
stances, or, perhaps more properly speaking, to
| fix maximum beyond which any charge made
would be unreasonable.
ssOf the propriety of legislative interference
within the scope of Legislative power, the legisla-
ture isthe exclusive Judge
| Saws Chancellor Kent. "But though property
be thus protected, it is still to be understood that
| the lawgiver has the right to prescribe the mode
and of using it, far as may be necessary
to prevent the abuse of the right, to the injury
annoyance of others, or of the public" See
| Otto, vol. "a, U. S. S. c., beginning p. II3.
"Peik VS.. Chicago s. Northwestern Railway
| Co, in Mum VS.. Illinois, supra, p II3, and Chi
| cago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. VS.. 10
wa, SUPRA p. IS, we decided that the State may
limit the amount of charges by rail road compa
nies for fares and treghts, unless restrained BY
| some contract in the charter"
! Then to understand what would be a restraint
see Chicago Burlington " Quincy R. r. Co. VS.
/ Iowa.
/ "In the absence of any legislative regulation
upon the subject, the courts must decide for it
as they do for private persons, when controversie
! arise, what is reasonable. But. when the legsla
| ture steps in and prescribes maximum of charge
| 1t operates upon this corporation the same
/ does upon individuals engaged in similar bust
| ness. It was within the power of the company t,
call upon the legislature to fix permanently thi
limit and make it a part of the charter; and, if
was refused, to abstain from building the road an.
establishing the contemplated business. If tina
had been done, the charter might have presente'
contract against future legislative interference
But it was not" See Otto, vol. "a, U. S. S. c
1 p. I55. -
1 Now. Bro. Worthington, on these decisions tn
farmers of Tennessee intend to secure the passag
of law in the Forty second Legislature establish
ing maximum rates of fares and freights on tn
rail roads in this State, sunless restrained b
some contract in the charters" f
Also establishing by law the maximum charge
on cotton and other farm products, when store
: in sheds or warehouses.