58 THE AGRARIAN CRUSADE 



But the court declared that it had long been cus- 

 tomary both in England and America to regulate 

 by law any business in which the public has an in- 

 terest, such as ferries, common carriers, bakers, or 

 millers, and that the warehouse business in ques- 

 tion was undoubtedly clothed with such a public 

 interest. Further, it was asserted that this right 

 to regulate implied the right to fix maximum 

 charges, and that what those charges should be was 

 a legislative and not a judicial question. 



In deciding the railroad cases the courts applied 

 the same general principles, the public nature of the 

 railroad business having already been established 

 by a decision in 1872. 1 Another point was in- 

 volved, however, because of the contention of the 

 attorneys for the companies that the railway char- 

 ters were contracts and that the enforcement of the 

 laws would amount to an impairment of contracts, 

 which was forbidden by the Constitution. The 

 court admitted that the charters were contracts 

 but denied that state regulation could be considered 

 an impairment of contracts unless the terms of the 

 charter were specific. Moreover, it was pointed 

 out that contracts must be interpreted in the light 

 of rights reserved to the State in its constitution 



1 Olcott vs. The Supervisors, 16 Wallace, 678. 



