UNITED STATES. 



753 



preme Court of the United States in recent 

 years have been of greater general interest 

 and importance than those raised by the so- 

 called " Granger cases." One of the most im- 

 portant of these was that of Munn and Scott 

 against the State of Illinois. The issue raised 

 was whether the General Assembly of Illinois 

 can, under the limitations upon the legislative 

 power of the States imposed by the Constitu- 

 tion of the United States, fix by law the maxi- 

 mum of charges for the storage of grain in 

 warehouses in Chicago and other places in the 

 State having not less than 100,000 inhabitants, 

 in which grain is stored in bulk, and in which 

 the grain of different owners is mixed together, 

 or in which grain is stored in such a manner 

 that the identity of the different lots or parcels 

 cannot be accurately preserved. It was con- 

 tended that such a law was repugnant : 



First, to that part of section 8, Article I., of the 

 Constitution of the United States, which confers 

 upon Congress the power " to regulate commerce 

 with foreign nations and among the several States." 



Second, to that part of section 9 of the same ar- 

 ticle which provides that "no preference shall be 

 given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to 

 the ports of one State over those of another." 



Third, to that part of the Fourteenth Amendment 

 which ordains that no State shall " deprive any per- 

 son of life, liberty, or property, without due process 

 of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdic- 

 tion the equal protection of the laws." 



In considering the last point, Chief Justice 

 Waite, who delivered the judgment of the Su- 

 preme Court, conceded that the 

 Government has no power to 

 control rights which are purely 

 and exclusively private ; but it 

 may regulate the conduct of its 

 citizens, one toward another, 

 and the manner in which each 

 shall use his property when such 

 regulation becomes necessary for 

 the public good. " In the exer- 

 cise of this power it has been 

 customary in England from time 

 immemorial, and in this country 

 from its first colonization, to 

 regulate ferries, common car- 

 riers, hackmen, bakers, millers, 

 wharfingers, innkeepers, etc.^; 

 and in so doing to fix a maxi- 

 mum of charge to be made for 

 services rendered, accommoda- 

 tions furnished, and articles sold. 

 To this day statutes are to be 

 found in many of the States 

 upon some or all of these subjects, and we 

 think it has never yet been successfully con- 

 tended that such legislation came within any 

 of the constitutional prohibitions against in- 

 terference with private property. With the 

 Fifth Amendment in force, Congress in 1870 

 conferred power upon the city of Washington 

 to regulate ... the rates of wharfage at pri- 

 vate wharves . . . the sweeping of chimneys, 

 and to fix the rates of fees therefor . . . and 

 VOL. xvn. 48 A 



the weight and quality of bread (3 Statutes, 

 687, section 7); and, in 1848, to make all 

 necessary regulations respecting hackney car- 

 riages, and the rates of fare of the same, and 

 the rates of hauling by cartmen, wagoners, 

 carmen, and draymen, and the rates of com- 

 mission of auctioneers (9 Statutes, 224, section 

 2). From thin it is apparent that, down to 

 the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth 

 Amendment, it was not supposed that the 

 statutes regulating the use, or even the price 

 of the use, of private property, necessarily de- 

 prived an owner of his property without due 

 process of law. Under some circumstances 

 they may, but not under all. The amend- 

 ment does not change the law in this par- 

 ticular. It simply prevents the States from 

 doing that which will operate as such a dep- 

 rivation." 



In the case of the United States . R. G. 

 Hazard, the Circuit Court of the United States 

 for the district of Ehode Island has decided 

 that a person who failed to make return of 

 his income, under the law of Congress, but 

 who paid the tax as assessed by the United 

 States assessor, with the added penalty of 60 

 per cent., is liable for any deficit in the tax in 

 case the amount so assessed was less than the 

 actual income. 



In the two cases brought by the Bank of 

 Kentucky and the Planters' National Bank 

 against the Adams Express Company, the 

 Supreme Court of the United States has de- 



8MITH80NIAN INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON. 



cided a question of interest and importance to 

 the general public viz., that express com- 

 panies are liable for loss of poods caused by 

 the negligence not only of their own servants 

 but also of the railroad company employed to 

 carry the goods; and that the stipulation m 

 the receipt given to the shipper, that the ex- 

 press company will not be liable for losses 

 caused by fire, does not exempt the company 

 from liability for losses by fire arising from 



