Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Nebbia_v._New_York/Dissent_McReynolds
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:01:14+00:00

Document:
must take into consideration the amount necessary to yield a "reasonable return" to the producer and the milk dealer. . . . The fixing of minimum prices is one of the main features of the act. The question is whether the act, so far as it provides for fixing minimum prices for milk, is unconstitutional . . . in that it interferes with the right of the milk dealer to carry on his business in such manner as suits his convenience without state interference as to the price at which he shall sell his milk. The power thus to regulate private business can be invoked only under special circumstances. It may be so invoked when the Legislature is dealing with a paramount industry upon which the prosperity of the entire State in large measure depends. It may not be invoked when we are dealing with an ordinary business, essentially private in its nature. [p542] This is the vital distinction pointed out in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (285 U.S. 262, 277). . . .
If she relied upon the existence of emergency, the burden was upon the State to establish it by competent evidence. None was presented at the trial. If necessary for appellant to show absence of the asserted conditions, the little grocer was helpless from the beginning — the practical difficulties were too great for the average man.
On the other hand it asserted — "This court should consider only the legitimacy of the conclusions drawn from the facts found."
Thus, we are told, the number of dairy cows had been increasing, and that favorable prices for milk bring more cows. For two years, notwithstanding low prices, the per capita consumption had been falling. "The obvious cause is the reduced buying power of consumers." Notwithstanding the low prices, farmers continued to produce a large surplus of wholesome milk for which there was no market. They had yielded to "the human tendency to raise too many heifers" when prices were high, and "not until seven or eight years" after 1930 could one reasonably expect a reverse trend. This failure of demand had nothing to do with the quality of the milk — that was excellent. Consumers lacked funds with which to buy. In consequence, the farmers became impoverished, and their lands depreciated in value. Naturally, they became discontented.
The exigency is of the kind which inevitably arises when one set of men continue to produce more than all others can buy. The distressing result to the producer followed his ill-advised, but voluntary, efforts. Similar situations occur in almost every business. If here we have an emergency sufficient to empower the Legislature to fix sales prices, then, whenever there is too much or too little of an essential thing — whether of milk or grain or pork or coal or shoes or clothes — constitutional provisions may be declared inoperative, and the "anarchy and despotism" prefigured in Milligan's case are at the door. The futility of such legislation in the circumstances is pointed out below.
Wolff Packing Co. v. Industrial Court, 262 U.S. 522, 537. — Here, the State's statute undertook to destroy the freedom to contract by parties engaged in so-called "essential" industries. This Court held that she had no such power.
May the State, in order to prevent some strong buyers of cream from doing things which may tend to monopoly, inhibit plaintiff in error from carrying on its business in the usual way, heretofore regarded as both moral and beneficial to the public and not shown now to be accompanied by evil results as ordinary incidents? Former decisions here require a negative answer. We think the inhibition of the statute has no reasonable relation to the anticipated evil — high bidding by some with purpose to monopolize or destroy competition. Looking through form to substance, it clearly and unmistakably infringes private rights whose exercise [p554] does not ordinarily produce evil consequences, but the reverse.
Williams v. Standard Oil Co., 278 U.S. 235, 239. — The State of Tennessee was declared without power to prescribe prices at which gasoline might be sold.
New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 277. — Here, Oklahoma undertook the control of the business of manufacturing and selling ice. We denied the power so to do.
Regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action. But fixation of the price at which "A" engaged in an ordinary business, may sell in order to enable "B," a producer, to improve his condition has not been regarded as within legislative power. This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation — it amounts to the deprivation [p555] of the fundamental right which one has to conduct his own affairs honestly, and along customary lines. The argument advanced here would support general prescription of prices for farm products, groceries, shoes, clothing, all the necessities of modern civilization, as well as labor, when some legislature finds and declares such action advisable, and for the public good. This Court has declared that a State may not, by legislative fiat, convert a private business into a public utility. Michigan Comm'n v. Duke, 266 U.S. 570, 577. Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 271 U.S. 583, 592. Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553, 563. And if it be now ruled that one dedicates his property to public use whenever he embarks on an enterprise which the Legislature may think it desirable to bring under control, this is but to declare that rights guaranteed by the Constitution exist only so long as supposed public interest does not require their extinction. To adopt such a view, of course, would put an end to liberty under the Constitution.
Munn v. Illinois (1877), 94 U.S. 113, has been much discussed in the opinions referred to above. And always the conclusion was that nothing there sustains the notion that the ordinary business of dealing in commodities is charged with a public interest and subject to legislative control. The contrary has been distinctly announced. To undertake now to attribute a repudiated implication to that opinion is to affirm that it means what this Court has declared again and again was not intended. The painstaking effort there to point out that certain businesses like ferries, mills, &c. were subject to legislative control at common law, and then to show that warehousing at Chicago occupied like relation to the public, would have been pointless if "affected with a public interest" only means that the public has serious concern about the perpetuity and success of the undertaking. That is true of almost all ordinary business affairs. Nothing in the [p556] opinion lends support, directly or otherwise, to the notion that, in times of peace, a legislature may fix the price of ordinary commodities — grain, meat, milk, cotton, &c.
Also — "With the wisdom of the legislation we have naught to do. It may be vain to hope by laws to oppose the general course of trade." Maybe, because of this conclusion, it said nothing concerning the possibility of obtaining increase of prices to producers — the thing definitely aimed at — through the means adopted.
But, plainly, I think, this Court must have regard to the wisdom of the enactment. At least we must inquire concerning its purpose, and decide whether the means proposed have reasonable relation to something within legislative power — whether the end is legitimate, and the means appropriate. If a statute to prevent conflagrations should require householders to pour oil on their roofs as a means of curbing the spread of fire when discovered in the neighborhood, we could hardly uphold it. Here, we find direct interference with guaranteed rights defended upon the ground that the purpose was to promote the public welfare by increasing milk prices at the farm. Unless we can affirm that the end proposed is proper, and the means adopted have reasonable relation to it, this action is unjustifiable.
Not only does the statute interfere arbitrarily with the rights of the little grocer to conduct his business according to standards long accepted — complete destruction may follow; but it takes away the liberty of twelve million consumers to buy a necessity of life in an open market. It imposes direct and arbitrary burdens upon those already seriously impoverished with the alleged immediate design of affording special benefits to others. To him [p558] with less than nine cents it says — You cannot procure a quart of milk from the grocer although he is anxious to accept what you can pay and the demands of your household are urgent! A superabundance, but no child can purchase from a willing storekeeper below the figure appointed by three men at headquarters! And this is true although the storekeeper himself may have bought from a willing producer at half that rate, and must sell quickly or lose his stock through deterioration. The fanciful scheme is to protect the farmer against undue exactions by prescribing the price at which milk disposed of by him at will may be resold!
conflicts with views of Constitutional rights accepted since the beginning. An end, although apparently desirable, cannot justify inhibited means. Moreover the challenged act was not designed to stimulate production — there was too much milk for the demand, and no prospect of less for several years; also, "standards of prices" at which the producer might sell were not prescribed. The Legislature cannot lawfully destroy guaranteed rights of one man with the prime purpose of enriching another, even if, for the moment, this may seem advantageous to the public. And the adoption of any "concept of jurisprudence" which permits facile disregard of the Constitution, as long interpreted and respected, will inevitably lead to its destruction. Then, all rights will be subject [p559] to the caprice of the hour; government by stable laws will pass.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.