516 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
issued ; there had been a hearing without a jury, he was found 
guilty of contempt and imprisoned. This proceeding was found 
to be in no respect a denial of equal protection of the laws; the 
right to punish for contempt is found to be inherent in all courts 
of superior jurisdiction, and 
‘‘to accomplish such a purpose as a suppression of the liquor traffic, 
the legislature is warranted in calling on any or all established powers of 
the courts.”’ 
In *Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. vs. Minnesota, the process of 
limiting the principles of the Granger cases continued. In 1887 
the legislature of the state of Minnesota established a railroad com- 
mission and authorized it to establish rates of transportation. It 
required carriers to publish rates of tariff, which were not to be 
changed without ten days’ notice. 
Such charges were to be submitted to the commissioners, and if 
found unreasonable they should change them and should ascertain 
a just and reasonable charge which the carrier should adopt, and if 
the latter should not do so in ten days the commission should pub- 
lish and post it in all stations of the carrier and it should be 
unlawful to charge any other rate than the one prescribed. The 
commissioners were empowered to obtain writs of mandamus and 
of injunction to put rates into effect and to stop all business of the 
carrier until they were complied with. 
June 22, 1887, the Boards of Trade Union of Faribault, 
Farmington, Northfield and Owatonna complained that the charges 
of the railway company for carriage of milk from those places 
to St. Paul and Minneapolis were unjust, being four cents per gal- 
lon from Owatonna and three cents from the other places. The 
commissioners forwarded a copy of the complaint to the company 
on June 29, and required an answer by July 13. On that day the 
parties appeared, and the complaint was investigated. ‘The com- 
mission found the rates unreasonable, and that two and a half cents 
per gallon was a sufficient charge. The company was notified, as 
the law required, in what respect its rates were unreasonable, and of 
the finding to which it was expected to conform. It refused. On 
October 13 the commissioners published and posted their tariff, 
and on December 6 made application by the attorney-general to 
the Supreme Court of the state for writ of mandamus against the 
railroad company to put the reduced rate into effect. 
LAGU nS: 402: 
