Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1892-04-29
ELEVATOR RATES.
The Validity of the Public Ware
house Act Declared by the
Supreme Court.
The Legislature Has Power to Regu-
late Rates For Storage and
Handling of Grain.
The Act Not in Conflict With the
Fourteen Amendment, of the
Federal Constitution.
The Elevator Decision.

The Elevator Decision.
Chapter 126 Of the session laws of
1891 is valid and constitutional enact.
ment, says the supreme court of this
state in IN opinion handed down yester-
day, written by Judge Wallin and con-
CURED in by the full bench.
This action was instituted before
Judge Morgan in the Devils Lake dis
trict, and was entitled State of North
Dakota, OK rel. Louis W. Stoeser We.
Norman Brass, for the purpose of test
ing the statute passed last winter, known
as the public warehouse law. Under
this act the legislature defined that all
persons or corporations who operated
elevators, warehouses or hathouses for
profit were declared to be public ware.
houses within the meaning of tho act.
Such institutions were forbidden to
charge Q than two cents per bushel
for receiving, elevatoring, storing and
insuring a bushel of grain. The charge
Heretofore had been two and one-half
cents per bushel. The statute was penal
in character and prescribed both fine and
imprisonment for it's violation. The
first attempt to test its validity was made
before Judge Templeton at Grand Forks,
in an action against the Minneapolis &
Northern company. This decision was
IN favor of the law, but nothing further
was done in the matter. Later a similar
suit was brought against Brass; who
owned but n elevator in the state.
Judge Morgan likewise said the act was
good and of binding force. J.F. MCGEE,
representing the Minneapolis elevator
interests, took an appeal to the state su-
rreme court and the case was argued at
Fargo in January. The syllabus Of the
court contains the essential points of the
decision and is as follows:
"Chapter 1926 of the session laws of 1891
considered, and sections 4 and II thereof
held to be constitutional in so far as they de-
Tine public warehouses, and in so far as they
prescribe maximum rates of charges for
elevating and storing grain in the public
warehouses as they are defined in section
4 OF the act. Following Mum VS.. Illinois,
% ". SO, 81 .. s. l; People VS.. Budd, III
IL Sup. Ct. Rep. 468.
Held further, that the record does not
raise the question Of the adequacy of the rate
OF charges fixed by section II of the act,
and hence thec case is not II which calls
for a decision of the point whether the
court would in any case assume t. review
lature where it was shown that such rate
was %rulnously small or non-compensatory."
The case was argued solely on the one
point that the legislature had not the
power to fix rates of compensation that
elevator p]roprietors should change for
their services; that by SO doing a con-
fict was had with the XIVth amend
ment of the federal constitution, in that
property was taken "without due process
of law" The question of the compensa-
ton as fixed being inadequate was not
presented and the decision is solely on
the ground that the law making body
possess this power. The decision is
based and follows the two decisions of
the federal supreme court in what is
known as the Chicago elevator cases,
decided in 1871, and the Buffalo elevator
cases, decided about a month ago. The
Chicago case arose under a statute
which in all essential features is the same
as that OF North Dakota, whereby the
large terminal elevators in Chicago were
by constitutional enactment and later by
a statute declared to BE- public ware
houses and as such entitled to receive but
a stated maximum rate of compensation.
The Illinois supreme court decided the
law good and on writ of error the case
was removed to Washington where the
Judgment was affirmed. The Buffalo
case was Of the same general nature and
the law was held valid by the court of
appeals of that state and latter by the
federal supreme court.
Our supreme court have followed
these high decisions and declare our.
statute valid for the reasons set forth by
the highest tribunal of the nation. Chief
Justice Corliss concurs in the Judgment
here announced, but specially On the
ground that a state courts duty is to
follow the federal courts in a question
purely federal. In a concurring opinion
written by himself he says that in his
judgment the doctrine announced in the
Mum and Budd cases is unsound and
that he believes that the dissenting opin-
ions written by justices of the federal
supreme court embody the true concep-
tion of the spirit Of the laws. It may be re-
marked that III both the Mum and Budd
cases the decision of the United States
supreme court was arrived at by a bare
majority only. In the last case decided,
the Budd case, Justice Brewer writes a
very vigorous dissent.
It is now the settled law of the land
that u legislature has the right to pre-
scribe rates of compensation for the ele-
vator business. The next question that
must be taken up is as to the right of q
legislature to fix a rate %inedaquate in
amount, which really amounts to a con.
fscation of the elevator mans property.
If it is coming to the pass that a legisla-
ture has the right to fix the compensa-
tion Of any public business and this rate
is not renewable by the courts, it be-
hooves all good citizens to see that none
but fair men adorn u Legislative halls.
The Brass case will probably be re-