524 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
stops as Congress wills. The justices who had dissented in Leisy 
vs. Hardin were justified in concurring in the decision but not in 
the reasoning of the Chief Justice. 
In * Budd ws. New York the question in the Granger cases again 
came up with substantially the same result, the state law of New York 
fixing a maximum charge for elevator rates being sustained in the 
federal Supreme Court as it had been by the New York Court of 
Appeals. The noticeable thing now is the extent to which such 
statutes had prevailed, and the extensive citation of them and of 
state courts sustaining them which Judge Blatchford gives in the 
opinion of the court. They are from Ohio, Illinois, Alabama, 
Wisconsin, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Indiana, 
Nebraska, Mississippi, Maryland and New Jersey. 
He holds that what was said in the case of Chicago & St. 
Paul Railway Company vs. Minnesota, that a hearing must be al- 
lowed as to rates, applies only to those fixed by commissions and 
not to those fixed directly by the legislature ; but he does not ven- 
ture to rest the case on this distinction, but rather upon the fact 
that no effort was made to show that the rates established by the 
state were unreasonable. Judge Brewer’s dissenting opinion did 
not attack the reasonableness of the rates, but the fundamental 
right to establish any. 
He thinks it an invasion of rights of property, as the monopoly, 
if there was one, was not created by law, and could be broken at 
any time by any one who chose to engage in the business of 
elevating grain: 
“That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control 
of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neigh- 
bor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neigh- 
bor’s benefit; second, that if he devotes it to a public use he gives to the 
public a right to control that use; and, third, that whenever the public 
need requires the public may take it upon payment of due compensa- 
tion.” 
It would seem that Justice Brewer at that moment recognized 
no right to take property in an emergency, no right of regulation 
for the sake of public order and convenience, no right of taxation, 
no general government control. 
There is other authority as to the nature of property. Franklin 
was hardly a radical, but he ? wrote in 1783: 
17143 U. S.,517 (1892). ? Letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783. 
