518 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
Justices Bradley and Gray and Lamar dissent. Justice Bradley 
finds it a practical overruling of the Granger cases, all of which 
had asserted his own doctrine that the determining of the reasona- 
bleness of rates is a legislative question. 
The concurring opinion. of Judge Miller is interesting. He 
thinks the cases should be reversed because of the refusal of the 
state court to hear evidence as to the reasonableness of the com- 
pany’s rates. He thought it the province of the legislature to fix 
rates, but not arbitrary nor unreasonable ones. He thought that 
when an unreasonable rate was established by state authority the 
remedy was by a bill in equity to set aside the unreasonable action. 
The ‘‘commercial power,’’ to use the established phrase of the 
court, came in collision with the police power once more in ! Leisy 
vs. Hardin, and this time held the field. 
Plaintiffs, citizens and residents of Illinois and constituting the 
firm of Gus Leisy & Co., replevined from A. J. Hardin, marshal 
of Keokuk, Iowa, and ex officio constable, by an action in the 
Superior Court of that city, one hundred and twenty-two one-quarter 
barrels, one hundred and seventy-two one-eighth barrels and eleven 
sealed cases of beer. He had taken it on behalf of the state of 
Iowa in accordance with the provisions of Iowa statutes. 
On agreement of facts, a jury being waived, the court found that 
plaintiffs were a partnership, citizens of Illinois, located at Peoria, 
engaged in brewing and selling beer in Iowa and Illinois; that this 
beer was made by them, put in kegs and cases at Peoria, sealed up 
and a United States revenue stamp of the customs district where 
Peoria is located placed on each package, and to open them the 
seals must be broken; that they shipped the property from Peoria 
to Keokuk; that it was there offered for sale in original packages 
in a building owned by one of plaintiffs by their agent; that de- 
fendant seized the property on a search warrant, issued by a justice 
of the peace in Keokuk upon a sworn complaint charging the 
keeping of intoxicating liquors, in violation of Iowa laws; and 
further finds that the laws mentioned were unconstitutional and 
void; and that on July 2, 1888, the plaintiffs filed their petition 
claiming ownership of the beer, and that the warrant under which 
it was taken was void, as being in violation of section 8, article i, 
of the constitution of the United States, and, filing their bond in 
replevin, obtained the beer. 
1735 U. S., 100 (April, 1890). 
