The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1897-06-01

opinion. It is doubtful if a more inn
portant one has been delivered by that
court in recent years than this negative
it then and there put upon this at
tempt by one of the great monied
combinations of the country to Teverse
the immemorial law that the public
has the right to regulate charges IN all
matters affected with a pubic use:
The court pointed out that the very
learned and just Lord Chief Justice Sir
Matthew Hale, centuries ago had laid
it down in his Treatise De Jure Maris,
that the sovereign could regulate the
conduct end tolls of public ferries and
in his Treatise De POrti6Ws Norris had
laid down the same as the rule of the
common law as to wharves and wharf
myers and as to all other property and
avocations affected by a public inter
est, " and cited many English and Amer
lean decisions, recognizing this to be a
true statement of the we'll settled claw
of the land" The court in that case
well says that in all such matters, 1.-THE
controlling fact is the power to regu-
late at all. II that exists the right to
establish the maximum OF charge as
one Of the means of regulation, is i'm
piled. In fact the common law rule,
which requires the charge to be rea
sonRble, is itself a regulation al to
price. Without it the owner could
make his rates at will, and compel the
public to yield to his terms, or
forego the use g q = To limit the
rate of charges for services rendered
in a public employment or for the use
Of property in whick the public has an
interest, is only charging a regulation
which existed BEFORE" and, therefore,
the court declared that it is not "a
taking of property without due pro
cess of law" The court further said,
1--WE know that this is a power which
may be abused, but that is no argument
against its existence. For protection
against abuses by legislatures, the PEG,
must resort to- the polls, not to the
courts" This is a
VERY PLAIN AND STRAIGHTFORWARD DEC
TAXATION
of the immemorial law and if that
court under tremendous pressure has
since intimated that the courts might
supervise legislative action if the rates
should aver be such as to destroy the
value Of property, it has eve in
fringed upon its declaration that the
people, through it's representatives in
the law making body, could prescribe
rates, and the court, in fact, has never
ventured to set aside the legislative
rates in q single case ever brought be.
fore it as unreasonable, nor has it fixed
the precise line at which it would
assume to intervene.
By all the decisions the right to fix
rates being not a judicial but @ legisla
tive power, to be exercised by the legis,
lature itself or through q commission
created by it, it logically follows that
as the court said in this case, and re-
affirmed in Budd vs.. New York, 143
U. s. SIC. the remedy for a harsh exer-
else of the power Of it should ever
happeD) is a recourse to the people at
the ballot box, not to the courts. For
an unWise or oppressive use of it's
powers, the legislature isnot subject to
the supervision of the judiciary which
is merely a co ordinate branch of the
government. 1t is only when the
legislature does an act-whether wisely
or unWisely-Which is not within the
scope of its powers, that the courts
can declare it unconstitutional.
In this same case (Munn vs. Illinois)
the court further holds that the provis-
ion in the 14th Amendment that no
State shall deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws' has no application, for Ger
tainly" it says, cit cannot be claimed
that this prevents the State from regu-
lating the fares OF hRCkmen or the
charges of draymen in Chicago unless
it does the same thing in every other
place in its Jurisdiction" This rule
has since been reiterated in Dow VS..
BeidelmanI125 q. s. $50.
Some time has been given to the con-
sideration of
MUM VS.. ILLINOIS,
as it is the leading one, in which the
force of great combinations Of capital
was brought to bear to remove the an
cient landmarks which protected the
people from excessive and unreason,
able charges. No case has been more
often cited since and approved. If at
common law the public had a right to