Budd v. New York

BUDD, v. NEW YORK.- 517 of the Case.

Statement v. NEW YORK. BUDD OF THE OE STATE NEW YORK. ERROR TO COURT BUFFALO, SUPERIOR YORK ex rel. v. WALSH. NEW ANNAN NEW YORK ex rel. PINTO v. WALSH. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE OF NEW YORK.

ERROR STATE. February 644, 29, 1892. Nos. November 719, Argued 17,18,1891. Decided 1888,chap. provided (Laws 581) An act of the York New receiving, weighing . elevating, maximum for and dis- charging grain bushel; five-eighths of one cent a should exceed .and that, handling grain by' floating means of and station- elevators, propellers, ary the 'ocean lake vessels or vessels or steam- boats, required ships, pay ,of canal and should actual cost trimming shovelling leg unloading, of the elevator when to. Held, trimming cargo loading; legitimate the act when exer- police affected pub- .of the State over a business cise with a interest, States, of the United the Constitution lie and did not violate and was valid. case, 113, to, 94 S. adhered and its The of Mann v. U. reviewed application the state courts considered. in cases decided in. Minnesota, Railway Chicago &e. Co. v. U. S. The decision explained. places apply.to having Although did not less than the act of York New deprive persons places 130,000population, owning elevators in it did not more, equal protection 130,000population laws. follows: was as court, as stated case, of the State of New the 9th of June, On governor the laws New York an act, chapter approved York houses the two which had been legis passed act “An three-fifths entitled regulate lature, being present, fees and trimming, receiving, weigh elevating, charges means of stationary floating ing discharging grain in these The act was elevators this State.” warehouses receiv words: Section 1. The maximum charge elevating, floating1 means of weighing grain by ing, discharging TERM, 1891. n Statement of the Case. in this elevators warehouses State shall not stationary For rates, exceed namely: following elevating, receiving, one cent a grain, five-eighths-of weighing discharging means of In the bushel. floating handling grain or elevators, the lake vessels and propellers, stationary shall be boats, or and canal ocean vessels steamships, actual or .to cost of trimming shovelling pay required when and elevator unloading, trimming cargo leg 2. or when violating pro loading. Any person persons § thereof, of this act, shall, visions adjudged conviction a and be fine of not of a misdemeanor, punished guilty hundred and and costs thereof. less than two dollars fifty ,of the the violation 3. injured by provisions Any person § for and he sus this sue recover act, may may any damages said tain violating provisions. against person persons 4. act shall not town, This to any village, city, apply § than one hundred and thousand less thirty population. having take effect 5. This act shall immediately.” § an indictment which .had On the 26th of November, the. of Erie New York, been found County. grand jury Taiman of sessions of that J. Budd, the court county, against for and fees for receiving elevating, receiving, weigh- charging into and from a and elevator stationary discharging grain ing of said warehouse, statute, contrary provisions came on for before a criminal term of the trial, Court Superior Erie Buffalo, County. in the indictment was, Budd, Buffalo, the 19th of on of the "Wells September, being manager which was elevator and elevator, warehouse for receiving Buffalo, discharging grain city city being a municipal corporation duly organized pursuance laws of of New York State having population . of 130,000 did receive, elevate and pwards people, weigh from called the Oceánica, propeller Yalley Transportation Company, body corporate, Lehigh bushels of 51,000 corn, the of said com- grain into the said Wells pany, elevator, exacted unlawfully from said for company, elevating, receiving, weighing

BUDD v. NEW YORK.

Statement of the Case. said the sum one cent corn, bushel, grain discharging exacted from said and also shovelling company, leg 51,000 of said bushels of elevator, unloading over and 1000 bushels corn, thereof, $1.Y5 every the actual cost of such above shovelling. set forth in were

The facts the indictment proved, counsel to instruct the defendant’s the court requested jury render verdict of" on the acquittal, ground prose- on was founded a statute conflict both cution and with of the United States that of Constitution New rendered services York; by Budd, State to fix for which statute assumed price, in their that neither the nor nature; them, persons rendering the elevator received question, any privilege and that not a such elevator was ware- legislature; declined to and received license. The court direct house no a of and the defendant verdict acquittal, excepted. court that it was claimed the'

The by charged jury that the defendant had violated statute prosecution more one cent bushel for ele- than of charging five-eights a. and and. vating, receiving, discharging grain, weighing than the actual cost of more trimming shovelling charging that to the of the elevator, unloading' propeller; leg find and that the should constitutional; jury the statute was if indictment, in the the defendant as charged guilty The defendant adduced. had been believed facts which instructed the which that of the jury to excepted part, an of the defendant exacting guilty that find they might of the elevator, for excessive rate leg shovelling they might instructed jury also which part rate for exacted convict the excessive defehdant having the grain and "discharging weighing elevating, receiving, corn. of charged

The in a guilty verdict jury brought a defendant pay and the court sentenced indictment, committed to stand thereof, fine of default $250, and,'in for a exceeding Erie period common of County jail The-defendant appealed fine. each dollar of said one day TERM, Statement of the Case. term of the general Court judgment from Superior of which affirmed Buffalo, He then judgment. appealed to the Court of of 'New York, which affirmed the Appeals Superior Buffalo; Court.of latter .judgment . court afterwards entered a judgment making judgment , the Court The defendant then Appeals judgment. sued from a error out this writ directed to the court Superior Court Buffalo. of the Court of Appeals reported Y. 1. It was delivered

N. by Andrews,- whom Judge Earl, Danforth and Huger Judges Finfeh Chief'Judge concurred. Peckham Gray dissented, Judges Judge Gray tp Peckham opinion, dissenting Judge giving adhering he which the case gave dissenting opinion People N. Y. 34. Walsh, ’ 22d of On the on June, oath was made complaint aWalsh, before Andrew police justice city Brooklyn, that on the York, New one Edward preceding day Annan, resident of that violated the city; provisions chapter of New York of 581 of the laws from the by exacting more than of one cent five-eighths bushel for complainant per elevating, receiving weighing, boatload discharging from a to an canal-boat steamer, ocean exacting and its owner canal-boat more than the actual cost .of trimming shovelling elevator, leg the. ocean steamer more than actual against cost charging services rendered trimming cargo, float- being Annan, elevator was owner one of the ing part On this Annan arrested and complaint, agents. brought before the who took case police justice, testimony Annan to the of -committed of the sheriff custody county of answer the court of before a ses- Kings, special (cid:127) in the sions of writs of habeas city Brooklyn. Thereupon and certiorari were Court of corpus granted by Supreme the State of New York, of return- Annan, on application able-before the term of instance; that court the first general a thereon, but on and Annan hearing writs dismissed to the of was remanded the sheriff. The of custody opinion BUDD v. NEW YORK. .521 (cid:127) Argument for Plaintiffs Error. term is Annan 50.Hun, reported

the general appealed which, of affirmed order to the Court Appeals, gen- Y. forth N. for the reasons set in the eral term, in the casé of 117 N. Y. Budd, judgment was afterwards made judgment Court Appeals Annan sued out a writ of error from this Court. Supreme York, Court directed to State of New court, Supreme in the were had case of Like the foregoing proceedings him Francis E. that he Pinto, one being charge against more than exacted from five-eighths complainant a one cent bushel receiving weighing cargo of per into of which he was lessee stores, from boat the Pinto grain elevator' on the same stationary manager, being New York, land had exacted Brooklyn, city more than the actual cost-of trimming shovelling leg out from this court a writ of Pinto sued the elevator. Court of State of error to the New-York. Supreme and Mr. William JST. Mr. F. Dykma/n Tracy Benjamin in error. and Pihto, Annan plaintiffs of New York are I. elevators Floating port private. n (cid:127) not are interest, are affected any public

They they of rates. are They comparable regulation about, which are machines moved the country threshing horse machines farm to another one power. both but in case labor each there is element pre- property, dominates.

We are our Mr. Annan’s status study by.deci- helped the. the New York Court of status sions of fixing Appeals trade. his fellow-laborers -the grain Y. 122 a canal-boat owner was QlarTc,

In Fish N. held not to a common carrier. The- arose over case as- boat, of the' lost plaintiffs cargo sinking owner was hable serted that defendant canal-boat 'the abso: he because, said, .lutely negligence, Avithout.proof-of case, turned on whether was a common carrier. The whole he was carrier. private the steamboat which York that settled New also' TERM, 1891.

522 Argument Error. Plaintiffs in the canal-boat is not common carrier. tows Alexander v. 13 Wend. Greene, Hill, 9; 331; Catón v. Wellsv. JRunmey, 2 Y- Wav. N. 204. Co., Steam elevators shore are stationary along Brooklyn Weimore v. 42Go., Gas

wholly private.. Brooklyn Light Y. Y. N. 106 N. 129. 384; Hmemeyer, Those Woodruff the cases wharves front of but elevators, enunciated that distinctly principle riparian owners could exclude the public.

It is not that all handle conceivable who merchandise York rail to New shall be held to be brought quasi public, limited for have their services, because prices has been built merchandise carried over way by permis- sion and under a charter the State. The fact that granted by. the one is a on land, maintained way by grantee appointee and the other a maintained sovereign, waterway, not alter the under sovereign, discussion. But principle does if the law even were or can be limited to carried grain through it is canal, certain that the canal does not with a impress character those who are merchan- engaged carrying y. dise it. Fish v. 122; Clark, N.'-Y. Wells through Steam Wav. 2' N. Co., 204; Y. Alexander v. Greene, Hill,

. II. This law cannot be defended ground determine in an act may what are rates ana .equal reasonable. . the face this act

Hpon true intent and appears nature, aim. had shown that Experience was most grain easily moved and handled where the' economically bill lading under him which the canal carrier his bound transports cargo his deliver out of his boat cargo and to therefor, pay where the delivered the to the ocean cargo carrier, who, owner in his bore the turn, expense the' stowing grain against But the voyage. canal-boatmen, this be unjust, conceiving secured this act'a provision they shall only pay shovelling and for leg elevator, only actual cost labor; it is enacted also that ocean carrier shall the'actual required cost pay labor involved in his stowing cargo.

BUDD v. NEW YOKE.

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error. hire men, the elevator owner must results superin- ' for its results, and be all tend responsible their labor (cid:127) for he can what he without compensation, charge only pays cannot be therefore, for labor. The a law, out defended rates are reasonable. It is a law determination what equal of the several contracts involved in terms mov- prescribing It who shall It much enacts how pay. grain. provides ing contribute. each shall for* owner compels pay him and done all the done for work for work part canal ocean carrier. is III. This law unconstitutional even if be conceded or ” “ elevator, the Ceres is common or determined that would at the more than furthest do no lower very of an elevator owner to those of a railroad' company rights common carrier. Milwaukee ds /St.Pcml Rail- other Chicago, un- 418. that decision we 184 U. S. Since Minnesota, wap it to be of this that‘a law court, derstand the settled doctrine control the the function- of the State to prices exercising railroad and others common carriers subject charged reasonable, be order that their may like charges regulation, forms and machinery must judicial provide judicial at least must leave of the ques- determination question that an courts, for an examination attempt tion open and de- rates machinery judicial without- regulate providing unconstitutional is constituted courts jurisdiction priving and void. á of New York judi-

It follows that unless the law permits fixed the rates cial into the reasonableness investigation United .States. is in violation of the Constitution also or not always ques- Whether a statute is constitutional is, legislature whether tion question power —that ' the act, matter-of case, the particular respect is to be the manner in-which accomplished object limits the constitutional it has within mode enacting kept case the constitutional conditions. observed courts this is answered the affirmative question áre not into exercise liberty proper inquire been has discretion must assume that legislative power. They TERM, 524- Argument for Plaintiffs Error. exercised. If evidence was it must be properly required sup- that'it was before the when the act was posed if to warrant the any special finding passed, required act it would seem passage particular passage' itself of the act be held to such might equivalent finding. Lim. 222. Cooley’s Const. n ” “ . The matter whether raises subject' question floating are within elevators The manner legislative jurisdiction. in'which its is to be that a means object accomplished” matter” within “subject may concededly legislative and the law be void for defect methods jurisdiction, o"f This in The court, Milwaukee ds accomplishment,. Chicago, Paul held the Case, St. Minnesota law 'unconstitutional and such a defect, void for viz.: an to exclude the just attempt courts over the jurisdiction reasonableness question and this defect rates, of method we is, contend, equally fatal to the New.York law.

IY. As to the of this court Munn v. judgment 94 IT.S. we 113, submit, very great respect mediaeval rules and instances were allowed too influence great in that When was and judgment. England mainly pastoral commerce, with her and trade agricultural country, their all sorts burdensome restrictions were infancy, imposed the individual for-’ paternal theory government of trade. But even at supposed these times and benefit in the midst of this mediaeval the course darknéss, towards, was freedom. In the latter judges part eigh- teenth there century was' to the false general awakening theories which had these permitted impositions. England Adam Smith’s' work was great followed .by many repeals vicious regulations, entire cessation of new re- straints. In France the edict of Louis XYI liberated trade from restrictions. In America the corresponding Declaration . set forth the Independence men inalienable of all right life, liberty pursuit ; is, of'happiness among other things to" right enjoy acquire property. pf That the essence is in its use and in right' .of property; for use others is obvious. Without alienation 525 v. NEW BNDD YOKE. Argument for Plaintiffs in Error. tbe valueless. Chief

these Justice illusionary right . sale, us that tax the Marshall since long taught is to tax the itself. Brown v. Wheat. Maryland, 419. The same in Weltonv. Mis- proposition repeated ' U. S. Mr. Justice Field souri, 215, delivering v. unanimous court. See Wynehamer People, also. Y. In the 98 Y. 106. Jacobs, N. matter N. 318; Our that our whole commercial shows Constitution history between the old' fixes wide- new; great gulf, mediaeval detail of darkness, between permitted every life to be and modem freedom of We action. one’s regulated, not think the Munn Case estimated do judgment of the old its from condemnation system, separation truly drawn' hew, consequent argument weakness.óf from mediaeval times. Mr. Waite made of his Chief Justice basis . judgment “ in time immemorial and in this

custom from England country colonization to common ferries, carriers, from regulate first bakers, etc., and in hackmen, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, fix a maximum of to be made services so doing furnished and articles-sold.” accommodations rendered, the custom or the We right very respectfully deny regu- Limitations, late the bread.- Cooley’s Constitutional price n. Mobile n 36 Am. Alabama, S. C. 3’; Yuille,- 131-; Dec. the miller. the toll which first,

Mills regulated because to was a fran- take was prescribed, grind grain might without not be done king chise permission might 15 398; Yiner’s lord of the manor. Abridgment, or the Mix v. 136; Limitations Constitutional (5th ed.) Cooley’s 2 195. Gardmer, Bulstr. trade which It is a have

Hackmen monopoly. Jegal and con- but which can licenses law prohibit suppress, hire, from exclu- vehicles trols instead. The ply n right (cid:127) but wholly natural stands streets is right, sive the. has to'pre- from of course right which State,

acquired Constitu- it creates. Coqley’s scribe terms privilege' ed.) tional Limitations 136. (5th TERM, 1891.

526 Argument Plaintiffs in Error. To control have a is a franchise, ferry governmental is based on boat for the fact that the to nse a ferriage right must come state the conditions of which grant, prescribes Maris, the use. Sir Matthew De Portibus Hale, quoted by "Waite, Chief 106 N. Y. Starin, 1; .Justice 126; Mayors. p. Commissioner, Mills St. Clair Illinois Scam- v. (3 County Taiman, Trustees c&o.v. 27. 53; mon), That wharves are the rule and wharves private public from C. J. Waite’s exception, may proved quotation Munn v. Illi- text, Sir Matthew Hale’s De Portibus Maris. H; nois,' 94 S. In New wharves are York, 127. Brooklyn Wetmorev. 42 N. Y. Wood- 384; Cas Brooklyn Co., "private. if v. 106 N. Y. 129. And it is doubtful ware- Umemeyer, ruff houses are that State. In re Eureka Warehouse public 96 N. Y. Co.,

In medioeval times common and common-farriers carriers alike bound to their art on show demand, practise it. Jackson v. 332. The distinction Shower, Rogers, skill between carriers was known of old. Hut- private cited in ton v. Nisi 4Ó1. This dis- Osborne, Prius, Selwyn’s tinction is still in the law.- v. Sackrider, Allen preserved Y. 49 N. 341; N. Fish Y 122. Clark, (cid:127) There was case or a then, wharf, where always, every or an or a warehouse, inn, carrier was to be alleged common, a of fact to be viz.: Had the determined, question done the or had individual’ acts his antecedents and concomitants his services give public rights-to the use of his We affirm that this property? right have it established in court evidence that the individual is sérvice is a and is property right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

The the Chief Justice in Munn v. dis- Illinois', of this element in' the that it authorities by poses adjudging is a favor of-the legislature; question presuming decided has- that all who are within law -legislature- of the law were at its -in the terms date á common or public and fit subjects-for regulation employment, prices. question York here in of New law attempts regulate v. BUDD NEW YORK.

Argument for Plaintiffs Error. in cities of over viz.: New 130,000 all elevators population, and Buffalo. It in declares that all York, effect Brooklyn are cities and shall be elevators. We elevators these that no state of circumstances can contend exist this justify all the doctrine of the cases, within we ask that statute, and, declared It is it be void. this law the impossible-to justify n Case. relied Munn The elements of precedents are in almost case within individual every wholly publicity control. and there cannot be in York has not been New

There No man and situation as existed no set of such Chicago. can fix toll tax

men in New York a rate of and thus com- merce. There will be of New York a always port Our elevator is differ- radically competition. floating genuine and in ent from Munn’s warehouse in itself its surroundings. void if- This law is unconstitutional and because decides

V. not free that Annan’s elevator is therefore private, control without due law. governs legislative all 130,000 elevators cities having population, regulates held that no law, evidence Court, the-Supreme construing before the could be considered. Court of .The magistrate Y. New York N. said: (117 621,) Appeals opinion, are of “We of 1888 constitutional statute as Whole, which, cases although may comprehend standing not alone, must interference, might justify legislative yet they rule enacted governed by general legislature.” We take at this we a case com- is, contend, issue Ours point: inter- statute, prehended yet legislative justifying rule that if one case ference, we submit the true single falls within the and concomitants statute whose antecedents do not the law is void. coercion, .People' justify legislative Marx, v. Y. 454; N. Y. v. 35 N. 8. 377; King, Morgan C.. 91 Am. Dec. 98 Y. Ervinds 58; Jacobs, 98; In the Matter N. 499; Am. Hurtado Penn. G. 55 266; St. 8. Appeal, Dec. S. 516. II. California, (cid:127) States VI. This of the United law violates .Constitution

in that it to and elevator owners equal refuses takes from of the laws. protection

[00] TERM, Opinion Court. in this cities of less than act owners elevators 130,000 By their left free to make while in inhabitants bargains, own. are are constrained to take 130,000 they cities over population rate. thé statutory 130,000 than inhabitants is

Yonkers is a less so city York The former Island New adjoins City City. Long' it the East River, from only by separated latter — feet wide narrow two hundred perhaps sepa- creek — In'Yonkers rates Island City. Brooklyn Long Long elevator, or in Rochester owner is Albany island City, in Buffalo New York are free, while Brooklyn, <j>f their freedom. law Such elevator deprived deprives of the owners cities of the laws. protection larger equal Santa 722;. The- Railroad Tom 13 Red. Clara Gases, Rep. S. Railroad, 394; v. U. Southern Barbier County Pacific Missouri, S. v. 120 IT. S. 68. 27; v. 113 IT. Cownolly, Ha/yes . for in error. Mr. Clinton Budd, Spencer; plaintiff Hyland in 644 J. for in error Mr. A. the defendants - 645. brief for the Mr. filed a defendants Quinby T. George error 719. after delivered cáse, Justice Blatchfokd, stating

Me. of the court. the opinion cases is whether this

The -main involved these question to its in Munn U. S. will adhere v. court decision v. York, Budd, Court of New People Appeals of 1888 did Y. that 581 of the laws N. held chapter violate the constitutional protecting'private guarantee of the but was police legitimate exercise property, interest. with a State over affected business ' that Budd, held charge regard against indictment .statute; than for was more rate elevating exacting' of/ to the for that shovelling, .as overcharge, alleged proved; n BUDD NEW YORK.

Opinion' of the Court. was that tbe carrier for each compelled $4 pay appeared was 1000 bushels of shovellers’ charge grain, was that which the work union, union performed, the use for latter’s steam elevator, shovel, paid $1Y5 each 1000 The court held for bushels. that there was no error to the as to the submitting jury question overcharge intention of the statute was confine the shovelling; ” actual cost outside labor required; violation of the act but particular proved; as the verdict and that, sentence justified by proof even if the for' overcharge elevating, alleged overcharge ' made out, was not Court shovelling ruling Superior Budd. Of of Buffalo could not have course, this prejudiced court, these can Federal cases, consider only questions involved. of

It is on behalf statute of Budd, the the claimed, of York is unconstitutional, State New because to contrary 1 of the Fourteenth' Amendment the of section to provisions of States, the Constitution the United the citizen depriving his due of of without that it is uncon- law; property the maximum stitutional receiv- fixing elevating, and of means and weighing discharging grain by ing, floating elevators and at of warehouses one cent stationary five-eighths and in á bushel the citizen to make forbidding any profit upon use of the his or and that the labor; of police power the State or is extends business which devoted its owner a. to the to the of the by public, grant demand use. is claimed on of its behalf Annan right Pinto the elevators of floating stationary port York New are not affected with private property, any public interest, to the of rates. regulation the is “Trimming” canal-boat,..spoken statute, another, from is done shovelling grain one".place or with shovels; longshoremen scoops “trimming” it is when ship’s cargo stowing securing loading elevators are boats. Some voyage. are Floating primarily scows,and have to be towedfrom steam place place tugs; but the are When the elevator majority propellers. .floating ’ VOL.cxmi —34 TERM, 1891/

Opinion the Court.' the canal- her, and makes fast alongside ship arrives the other of the made fast on side is boat carrying grain “ of the elevator,” called the A wooden tube, long leg elevator. the' in the lowered from tower statute, is and spoken canal-boat that its lower end enters the hold so elevator ” “ low- the elevator is The in the midst grain. spout the elevator is hold. The . ered into ship’s machinery canal-boat, elevated out of the motion, then set is grain into the elevator, received discharged weighed lifted in “buckets” an endless The is fastened to grain ship. and down in the of the elevator. The belt which moves up leg is buried that the buckets »lower end of the so leg grain in it. the belt each bucket are As moves, goes submerged up and at the end of the in the elevator full of upper leg, grain, contents into the receives the tower, empties hopper would trimmed ceaseunless was operation grain grain. it is carried as fast as the buckets. shovelled leg up by all There is who shovel grain gang longshoremen “ of the hold of canal-boat to the of the elevator,” parts leg buckets that the. covered at the so may always . This lower end of leg. trimming shovelling leg. when is that the canal-boat elevator,” unloading, part which the elevator owner is to do at the work required cost;” actual . the Budd and Pinto elevator was a cases, stationary the Annan land; case, one on elevator. floating case, the Budd Court held that the words i.In Appeals “ used in the were intended cost,” statute, actual to exclude any the elevator sum for the use beyond charge by specified, t}ie in of its and of machinery ordinary shovelling, expenses (cid:127) and to confine the to the actual it, cost of operating charge labor for and the outside required trimming bringing grain and that elevator; to the of statute leg purpose be evaded and defeated if could the elevator owner were easily and services, for use of separate permitted charge sum the steam shovel which be be- might agreed upon him and the tween shovellers’ and under union, color thereby, for use of his steam exact from the shovel, of charging BUDD v. NEW YOEK.

Opinion' of the Court. carrier a sum for the rate beyond fixed elevating therefor by the statute. Court of in

The Appeals, JBudd its-opinion con case, toas fully question sidered whether had under the constitution of the State of power, New York, a maximum prescribe elevating grain by stationary owned elevators, individuals or who had corporations appro their to that use in and were priated property engaged business; it answered the in the affirmative. inquiry also reviewed the case of Munn v. Illinois, U. S. 113, arrived the conclusion that held this court there in in that case was exercise of legislation question lawful and did not that clause of the Four power, legislative infringe of teenth Amendment to the Constitution United States n that no State shall of life, provides deprive any person without due and that law;” liberty in that similar to, case was legislation question the act from, State distinguishable principle New York. to Munn v. Illinois, Court said regard Appeals that case was raised an individual question elevator warehouse in erected for,

owning Chicago, with which he had connection carried the business on, elevating storing grain, many years prior passage the act also to the of the amend- question, prior adoption ment to constitution all eleva- declaring warehouses, tors and where or other stored The warehouses. Court of compensation, Ap then cited the ex rel. etc. v. B. & A. cases of R. People peals R. N. N. Y. B. Co., 569; O'Reilly, 509; 70 Y. Bertholf v. Y. 111 N. 132 and Co., E. S. R. R. v. B. S. R. R. ; Co. People v. v. which Munn N. Y. Illinois 418, as cases King, it could not been referred to said that over it, rule and Illinois without subverting disregard Munn its own decision in v. King, principle People certainly not without deliberate of its expressions disregarding many Munn v. Illinois. approval principle Court examined the whether further Appeals question

53a TERM, 1891.

Opinion of the Court. for regulate legislature power elevat- carried on individuals the business where was by ing grain, fell within police their own scope upon premises, in was necessary statute question and whether power, that, while no It affirmed welfare. general business, private resided in the prescribe legislature regulate fix conducted, it should be under which- the conditions or interfere with freedom of or services of commodities price merchant, manufacturer, while the artisan contract, are left to our under laborer, system pursue government, interests their own untram- for their own way, provide (cid:127) and restrictive how- which, burdensome regulations, melled by are inconsistent times, rude and with common ever irregular conditions and there liberty, might special constitutional yet the business of circumstances elevating grain brought common and the law which, within practice by principles control and free legislative regulation justified governments, that the statute would be constitu- case, so in the particular law and statute, which, the control' common ; by tional that carriers, common conclusive was exercised over was upon regulate charges point' right use did not de- connection with services whether there case legal pend every question or whether special governmental privileges pro- monopoly, that there were elements of been bestowed; pub- tection which’ business affected licity elevating grain peculiarly found interest; with that-those-elements to the commerce and extent of the its relation business, nature of .the State and monopoly enjoyed country, practical - bushels grain those that it; 120,000,000 about engaged the business come Buffalo from the annually "West; lake and- Buffalo is connected elevating .grain mainly a,t York in New -the received canal-'transportation; grain 1887- River, during Erie and Hudson by way Canal (cid:127) bushels, season of 46,000,000 exceeded canal navigation, amount received during excess of the very largely same vessels; river and coastwise period by rail- that, canal-boats- lake vessels to elevation grain-

BUDD v, NEW YORK.

Opinion of the Court. takes at where there are Buffalo, place or thirty forty eleva- tors, that a stationary floating; large proportion cereals of the surplus country passes elevators at through Buffalo and finds its the Erie Canal and way Hudson through River to the seaboard Hew whence it York, is distributed to the markets of the that the world.; business of elevating to,the anis incident business of grain the ele- transportation, vators instrumentalities in the being indispensable business of the common and in a carrier, broad sense the work performing of located carriers, 'to the being upon waters of the adjacent State, of transferring the lake ves- cargoes grain sels to the- or from the canal-boats, canal-boats to the ocean vessels, an essential service in thereby trans- performing that their ; means the of portation transportation grain by fromjhe water lakes to the seaboard is upper rendered possi- ble that the business of ; thus has a vital rela- elevating grain tion to commerce' in oné of its most important aspects; excessive made in the every course transporta- tion of is a tax' commerce; upon has a public interest that no exorbitant shall be deep exacted at charges business point, upon that whatever transportation; the usefulness of the Erie Canal as a impaired highway commerce involved the interest. public

The Court of said in view of Appeals that, the foregoing circumstances, business of exceptional elevating 'grain affected awith within the interest, Lord language Chief Justice his treatise De Hale, Portibus Maris, (Harg. Law Tracts, that the case fell within the 78;) principle common, the business of permitted legislature regulate carriers, interest on hackmen, the use ferrymen .was, money;, business of underlying principle certain kinds holds such a relation inter peculiar est that there is it the superinduced upon right regu lation and ; that the court-.rested the

to control and elevator the nature and regulate changes upon extent of the business, the existence of a virtual monopoly, the benefit derived from the Erie Canal’s creating business (cid:127) .the interest to trade and making possible, commerce, TERM, 1891.

Opinion Court. relation, .and welfare of the business col-- cases, analogous State, legislation practice legislative case justifying an exceptional lectively creating regulation. which the said that to- further the^criticism had been subjected mainly

case Munn v. proceeded Illinois and definition of the construction a limited and strict under our reason, little system that there was power; police (cid:127) close narrow interpretation of government, placing so as on restricting hamper scope police power, n necessities varying dealing legislative power arise circumstances knd the new calling society and that interest; no .public intervention the (cid:127)legislative the by serious invasion of constitutional guarantees legislature the time of could withstand for searching'influence long sure to come later the which was sooner public opinion,, have however been and law, might side of order justice, n swáyed or whatever aberra for a time prejudice, by passion course. tions have marked its might have referred to an- these we as We views which regard of Hew so far York, the Court of nounced they as by Appeals (cid:127) sound and the of statute as the validity question, 'support (cid:127) just. the of Munn v. constitution Illinois, Illinois, adopted in article follows: “All eleva 13, 1, section

1870, provided or other is stored for storehouses, tors or where grain, stored be whether the property kept compensation, sepa ” and are declared to be not, warehouses; rated or 25, 1871, act of Illinois of approved April 1871-72; of divided Illinois, of Laws (Public p. 762,) of li into three' classes, prescribed taking warehouses fixed and a maximum bond, and the of'a cense charge, giving for to class A, for Warehouses storing handling belonging and .im cost receiving delivering, including grain, or not fine on for not the license .a conviction taking posed Scott were convicted Munn and indicted, bend. giving fined, for Out-the license and not not taking giving - rates handling grain bond, charging storing v. BUDD NEW- YORK.

Opinion Court. established the act. 6' of the those Section than higher be the should warehouseman every duty act provided be ten- receive for class A to storage any grain might Scott were the to him. Munn and dered lessees. managers as was named such statute. warehouse, of public of Illinois affirmed the Court having judgment Supreme on the the. statute of them, conviction against ground a valid and constitutional Munn enactment, Illinois was v. out.a writ of error from Illinois, sued this 80, People, they sections and contended court, provisions violated Illinois statute of charged having of 8 of article to the third clause were repugnant § of 9 of article the Constitution of

sixth clause TJpited § Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of that States, and Constitution. in Munn

This delivered court, opinion being and there Chief dissent Waite, Justice being published two considered justices, carefully question Illinois statute to Fourteenth Amend repugnancy ment. that under the inherent said, powers government the conduct every sovereignty, government regulates of its citizens one towards manner which another, each shall his own use when such becomes regulation property, ” their exercise it that, “.'in necessary public good; been has from time immemorial, customary England ferries, this from its com colonization, first country regulate mon carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, inn-keep etc., and in fix a to be ers, so to made maximum doing charge services accommodations articles rendered, furnished, “ be found sold.” It was added: To this statutes are to day, some or all these we States many subjects; think it that has -never been contended such yet successfully came within of the constitutional legislation any prohibitions interference announced against private property.” its conclusions down to time of that, adoption Fourteenth it that statutes Amendment, was supposed reg or use, use, even private ulating price property an owner of without due his necessarily deprived TERM, 1891.

Opinion the Court. a was devoted to when law; that, private property- that Munn and to was use, regulation; public public warehouse, business of their pursued Scott, conducting office, exercised a sort of public á employment public did a common carrier, miller, ferryman, sense as the same cartman or coachman; baker, hackney wharfinger, inn-keeper, and took commerce that stood very gateway they “ to a that their business tended who from all passed; toll had,become a interest thing public common charge,” was common the toll on charge; use.; grain Justice such Hale, to Lord Chief every that, -according ” under a viz.: public regulation, warehouseman ought toll.” but reasonable “take that-he that the business held Munn court

This further the whole had a direct was one which in question Illinois extended that the statute of interest; simply positive of commercial a new as to meet prog- law so development no owners there was compel attempt ; ress an interest in their property, grant warehouses if used in their particu- to declare obligations but Munn and Scott had not that that it mattered manner; lar their business before and established their warehouses built that, of were adopted; complained regulations what was reasonable interest, clothed’with being but a was not for its use judicial, legislative compensation law where the common in countries prevailed, that, question; immemorial for-the from time legisla- it had been customary under be a reasonable what should compensation ture to declare maximum to fix a circumstances, beyond such that the warehouses of unreasonable; made would’be and their business were Illinois Scott situated Munn in that that the warehouses State; on exclusively carried itself than commerce no more necessarily part but for would be trans- which, cart them, dray that their another; railroad station from one regula- ferred until that, of domestic concern; awas Congress tion thing their the State relations, interstate in reference might acted over even them, all powers though of.government exercise YORK. NEW 537 BUDD v. Opinion the Court. of commerce ontside it indirectly npon

in so doing might operate 9 of of that the provision immediate jurisdiction; § United States operated 1 the Constitution article not and -did af- limitation as a Congress, powers affairs. The of their domestic fect States regulation final act of Illinois was was, the court conclusion States; of the United and. to the Constitution not repugnant affirmed. was the judgment Mr. Justice Erad- 700, U. S. Cases, 747, Fund

In Sinking concurred in was one who opinion who justices ley, said: Illinois, case, in Munn v. of the court “ speaking as the extent of there police power inquiry and we held that affected; is cases where interest a matter of-such or business becomes an when employment common as create interest importance in other when words, or burden becomes citizen; Avhichthe citizen is to re- monopoly, compelled practical of which a tribute- can exacted from the sort, by meai\s community, regulation legislative power..” was said in a this dissenting opinion Sinking Although Fund it shows what Mr. Justice Gases, Bradley regarded in Munn v. decision Illinois. principle ' Water Works v. U. S. Valley Schottler, Spring 347, “ it is this court said: That within the gov ernment to which water shall be sold prices regulate sale, one a virtual we do who enjoys monopoly doubt.. That is-settled what was decided on full consider question 113. As ation in Munn v. 94 U. S. was said in that Illinois, such do not of his case, regulations deprive' person without due of law.”

In Wabash S. 557, &c. Co. v. U. Railway Mr. Justice who had concurred Miller, judgment Munn v. of- the Illinois, referred, delivering said: That court, case, case ques presented tion of a en citizen, or private unincorporated partnership, free from business any gaged warehousing Chicago, claim of or contract under act right incorporation State and free from the of continuous question whatever, TERM, 1891.

Opinion of the .Court. several States. And in that the case transportation through court the it was with which presented question, 'decided, a whether one in in which all the public business, engaged had a to his could be service, public right require regulated by in acts of the exercise this function legislature public far limit the amount so as to public duty, charges should be made such for services.”

In v. U. it 680, Dow S. was said Beidelman, 686, by Mr. Justice in of the court, in delivering Gray, opinion 'that Munn v. after Illinois doctrine that court, affirming the common or other law carriers by persons exercising public more than reasonable could not employment compen- within their that it sation for sendees, shall be reasonable declare what to. compensa- tion such for more services, or, properly' perhaps speaking, fix would a maximum which made be un- beyond any charge limit the rate of said that to services reasonable,” charges in rendered or for the use of employment, public in which the has an was interest, public reg- changing before, ulation existed established no new principle but a new effect to an law, old one. only gave In &c. Railroad Co. v. 134 U. Chicago Minnesota, S. 418, said Mr. it was Justice in 461, his Bradley, by opin dissenting in Mr. Justice ion, which Mr. Justice Gray Lamar con that the decision of the court in curred, that case practically Munn but overruled v. Illinois did of the court ; opinion nor did refer to Munn v. so, say we are Illinois; decision case S. will opinion is, U. as be hereafter shown, from the quite distinguishable present cases. nn It is thus that this court has deci- adhered to the apparent in Munn v. sion Illinois to the doctrines announced of the court in that cáse; and those doctrines have since been enforced in the decisions of the repeatedly courts States. v. 30 Ohio St. Railway Railway, 604, 616, 1877, Munn v. said, Illinois: “When the owner of citing prop it to a use, devotes public he, effect, to'

erty grants BUDD NEW YORK.

Opinion of the Court. such, to the extent of sub- use, use, must, interest an the common as good, controlled public, mit use.” That was decision maintains the as he long of Ohio. Commission Court Supreme 34 Ohio St. 582,

In State v. Gas Company, was cited v. Illinois approval, holding Munn it to a devotes use which owner where in-, in effect interest, have an he grants - of that terest in such the extent use, must; interest, to be controlled common submit public, good, maintains and the court added that in. as he the use; so long v. Illinois was Munn warehousemen principle applied that in and it was héld that storing grain; engaged receiving to rates their of were subject legislative regulation; charges force that with to corporations greater principle applied to franchises' be exercised were invested with to when they subserve the interest. in

The of v. Illinois, Ruggles Court Supreme People, v. cited Munn 69 Illinois, 256, 262, 1878, People, Illinois, as Illinois, in Munn v. that it affirmed 80, was holding to fix the maximum was assembly general competent warehouses for individuals storing, charges keeping public when such that, too, persons handling shipping grain, but State, as were, derived no had spefci&lprivileges business State, of the exercising storing citizens for individuals. handling grain in Mavis v. The State, 68 Alabama, Court Supreme a unlaw statute held

Alabama, 1880, declaring that 58, after sunset move, -within certain ful, counties, transport 'cotton day, and before of the sunrise succeeding it from but the owner to.remove seed, permitting purchaser not unconstitutional. the field was to- place storage, -was such that statute despotic Against argument to be as tan interference with the of private property rights effect, tamount, its ownership practical deprivation the statute law,” without due said that court control sought only regulate transportation a mere cotton one condition was it,of police particular TERM,

Opinion of tlie Court. to which there was no constitutional regulation, objection, Munn Illinois. "It added, citing object statute was to traffic in the regulate staple agricultural so as to State, product prevent prevalent .evil, which, do much to law-making power, might demoralize labor and to agricultural destroy legitimate profits agricultural pursuits, public detriment, at. within least territory. specified In Baker v. The State, Wisconsin, 368, 373, 1882, Munn v. cited Illinois was approval by Supreme Court of as Wisconsin, of Illinois holding warehouses., regulate public warehous within ing State, inspection enforce and that such regulations. was not by penalties, legislation in conflict with of the Federal any provision Constitution.

The Court of in Nash v. Appeals Kentucky, Page, cited Munn Kentucky, 539, as applicable to the case of the of tobacco warehouses in the proprietors and held that the Louisville, character of the city business of the tobacco warehousemen of a public employ ment, such as made them in their and their subject, charges mode of to' business, conducting legislative regulation control, of the sales of having practical tobacco monopoly at auction.

In 1884, the Court of Supreme Girard Pennsylvania, Co. v. Southwark Storage Co., 105 Penn. St. 248, cited 252, Munn v. Illinois as of a involving rights private person, and said that the involved of this court principle ruling was, where the owner of such aas warehouse it devoted to a use in which the had %an he in interest, public effect to the interest such granted use, public must, to the therefore, extent thereof, submit to be controlled by for the common as he maintained good, long that use. v. 136 Sawyer Paris, 239, Mass. 1884, Supreme that,

Judicial Court of Massachusetts said better nothing established than the to make what power are called' in what regulations, police declaring manner prop- v. NEW: YORK.

BTJDD Opinion Court. with carried a on, and business shall used enjoyed be

erty oí tbe benefit even community, order view good with the full to extent interfere some enjoy- may though no is. compensation although ment private property, Munn v. Illinois inconvenienced; ato so person given of the common law which the rules was cited as holding'that or established, had time to time been declaring limiting from themselves use or might to enjoy property, .right (cid:127) as occasion require. might changed in Brechbill v. 1885, of Indiana, The Court Supreme a which held that statute Randall, Indiana, 528, valid file the clerk of to persons selling patent rights required with an affidavit a county patent, genuine copy had on State sell, ground ness authority of its to make protection police regulations and the court cited. fraud and citizens against imposition; v. 1 llinois as Munn authority. 1885, WebsterTele Nebraska,

The Court Supreme a held that when 126, Case, Nebraska, corporation phone demand, a or assumed and undertook person supply public made commerce necessary requirements by such dem'ánd must be as a country, public telephone, .such and Munn to all without discrimination;- alike, supplied the court. Illinois was cited prevailing party The defendant a assumed-to act in was corporation, and had under which was extent public, capacity great it did taken want or necessity, satisfy although statute possess any monopoly special privileges in a it was held that, business territory; yet given had a nature and of its business, character very monopoly of the business which it said that no transacted. court statute had been courts in deemed aid necessary holding that where undertook to person supply public company Ja demand, was affected mint interest,” with all alike who a like and nob dis situation, supply occupied criminate in favor of or any. against

In Stone v. & Miss. R. Co., Yazoo Valley Mississippi, 607, cited Court Mississippi, of. Supreme TERM, 1891. 542 Opinion of tlie Court. Munn v. Illinois as of 'warehouses deciding regulation owned individuals, storage grain, private in situated domestic concern and Illinois, thing per to and as State, tained State to affirmingr'the right the business of one in engaged regulate employment in that business consisted and trans therein, although storing in immense- its transit from the quantities ferring markets of the world. fields production The State, In Hockett v. Indiana, 250, 258, 1885, . Indiana Court of held a statute of the State Supreme maximum which a which com price prescribed telephone should use its was constitu telephones pany and that all the tional, instruments contemplation legal used, in the transaction of by telephone company appliances to a it's business were dévoted and the use, became thus devoted legitimate subject regu legislative Munn lation. It cited v. Illinois as a case leading support of that and said that that case had been: proposition, although of comment its as criticism, authority pre cedent remained unshaken. This doctrine was confirmed Co. v. Central Union Telephone Bradbury, Indiana, 1, and in in the same Central Union Co.v. year, Telephone State, Indiana, 194, 207, latter -case 1888, cited Munn v. Illinois was the court. & Potomac Co.v. Balto. Chesapeake Telephone & Ohio Co., 399, Maryland, was held

Telegraph that'-the telephone vehicles telegraph who and those owned or them controlled could intelligence, no more refuse the functions which perform impartially had assumed to than a as a discharge railway company, common could carrier, refuse to .rightfully duty perform and that full public; the State legislature power regulate services of telephone companies, to whom parties facilities be The court should furnished. cited Munn v. said that could no longer controverted that the of a State had full regulate control, .at least within reasonable limits, public used employments connection therewith; BÜDD- v. NEW YORK.

Opinion of the Court. of-the the in the telegraph telephone doing operation business was the instruments employment, public general were devoted used to a use and appliances property public the in had an interest; such that, public being thus the owner devoted to case', use property public submit to have that use and must employment regulated by for the common authority public good.

In the in Court New in Delaware Chancery 1889, Jersey, & Co. v. Central Stock Yard c. Railroad N. J. Co., it was held that had 50, 60, Eq. power warehousemen declare what services should render to the and to fix be demanded compensation public, might and the court cited Munn for such v. Illinois as services; that warehouses for the holding properly storage bé as far in their must so nature as to be regarded public and that when a citizen control, devoted subject legislative to a the’ his use which an he public interest, effect to the interest in that use, granted public rendered himself control, use, by body politic. In Zanesville v. Ohio St. Gas-Light Company, said,

it was Court of that the Ohio, by Supreme principle was well that where .established, the owner of de it to a use in which the votes have an interest, he effect to the an interest in such and must use, grants to the extent of that interest submit be'controlled by to. he for common as as maintains the use; good, long

and that such was the decision Munn point Illinois. n We must maintained in Munn v. Illinois principle regard and we think it covers the established; firmly present to the for cases, respect charge elevating, receiving, weigh as well as to the 'and respect discharging grain, ing to the of the elevator leg shovelling trimming when loaded. If the when cargo and trimming loading, do the by shovelling chose, they might shovellers or scoopers owned A steam-shovel a steam-shovel. use hand, might fur- it is and the operating elevator owner, by TERM, 1891, Opinion Court. and if the elevator; nses scooper -tíished engine use owner he the elevator steam-shovel, pays it.of the ele- the statute to the

The answer suggestion that the business make is forbidden any profit owner vator made is that of the elevator leg shovelling of Budd, in the case York of Yew Court Appeals intended to statute, used cost,” words actual the sum owner, elevator beyond exclude any charge by in shovelling his machinery for the use of specified the and to confine charge it, of ordinary expenses operating for trimming labor of the outside required to the actual cost. and that ;-- the elevator the to the leg grain bringing defeatéd evaded-and could be of the statute easily the purpose the services, to elevator owner was separate if the permitted which sum of his steam-shovel for the use any and to charge between himself the shovellers’ be agreed might under color of. of his use thereby, charging union,and of the 'carrier a sum for to exact steam-shovel, elevating the the rate fixed statute. beyond by the act of Yew are of Ye to the is not to Fourteenth Amendment York contrary of the United and does not States, Constitution deprive law; of his without due citizen is the maximum it which act, fixing charges, specifies, nor it unconstitutional, is so not limiting it to the actual cost and that is a thereof; proper shovelling exerpise of the of the State. police power the cases us the business of ele-

On before testimony is a interest, business grain .charged vating who it on a relation to the those carry community occupy that, to owner, of common carriers. The elevator analogous retains in his fact, for an custody grain appreciable time, because he receives into his custody, weighs period then and his is thus analo- it, it, discharges employment that of a In the actual state warehouseman. gous to the of Yew York and business passage grain city on the seaboard the use of would, other without eleva- places BUDD v. NEW YORK.

Opinion of the Court. elevator at tors,, Buffalo is a impossible. practically lint- chain of in the to the transportation seaboard, harbor in the of New York is a elevator like link in the trans- sea. The abroad by elevator charges by portation m%de at influence destination grain on the price point that influence seaboard, prices extends abroad which The elevator is devoted goes. places who owner, to a use in engages business, has an interest, he must submit to be controlled for the common legislation by public good.

It is contended the briefs for the in error in the plaintiffs Annan and Pinto cases that the business of the relators handling grain wholly private, subject regula- tion and that law; received from the State no no and nó charter, stood before the privileges immunity, law on a with the'laborers to shovel footing they employed n and were no more than other regulation grain, But individual these same facts existed community.

Munn v. Illinois. that case, parties offending individuals, business, without doing private private any priv- the State. Not ilege monopoly granted .them affected with a business public interest, elevating grain but that it the records show besides is. actual'monopoly, and to incident to business being transportation a and of a carrier, common thus character. The act quasi-public of the is also constitutional exercise as an police power State.

So far as the statute in is of regulation commerce, question on the is of commerce waters of the only regulation St^te within the of New York. limits of that operates only and is no-more as a of State, obnoxious interstate regulation commerce than was the of Illinois statute to ware- respect in Munn It is of the same character houses, v. Illinois. with laws to within the State, navigation imrespect navigation laws rates within State, other regulating wharfage kindred laws.

It is'further under the of that, contended decision this court 134 U. S. Minnesota, &c. Co. v. Railway Chicago

VOL.. CXLIH 36 — TERM, 1891.

Opinion of Court. to is a as whether of elevator question, judicial fixing charges that the or statute must not; are reasonable permit of for settlement that, judicial charges; by provide under rate is fixed and consideration, statute arbitrary is as to whether that rate is reasonable all precluded inquiry not. of of this is a the decision court But this misapprehension that of Minne- case, in the case referred fin established a railroad Avare- an act which sota passed Court of State had commission, Supreme house the act the rates as charges providing interpreted recommended and railroads, by the transportation property final and should be conclusive commission, by published and that Avere and reasonable there to what as charges, equal to reasonableness such be no as could judicial inquiry in answer to an for a A railroad application rates. company, contended that such rates mandamus, regard the State Court as it Avasnot allowed unreasonable, and, of its on the ansAver, testimony question support put rates, this held stat- reasonableness of such court in conflict United States, Constitution ute was .the due of its without company depriving it of the laAvs. of law, depriving equal protection different case from under the That AAdts statute very one York in this instance rate of here, ISTeAV question fixed See Mer Spencer directly by legislature. charges 125 U. S. What said in the chant, then in 134 U. S. had reference the case before court fixed a commission court, appointed charges an act under a under Constitution legislature, Ayhich that all common State provided corporations, being “ and reasonable should be bound on carriers,’ carry equal all under statute Avhich terms,” proAdded charges carrier for the made common passen transportation should be and reasonable.” equal gers as to the "What was Said 134 U. S., the opinion ques- the reasonableness of .the rate one for tion of being had no to a case where the reference investigation, judicial BUDD v: REW YORK. 547

Opinion of the Court. tbe Not was rates are directly by legislature. prescribed in Munn in the statute of Illinois v. that the case but Illinois, Railway court in laid down this Wabash the doctrine was &c. that it 568, 118 U. S. was the Illinois, o. v. right C a State to establish limitations of railroad power to fix the which would price carry pas companies and that was of the same freight, question sengers that involved to be made character as fixing charges business. So, too, Dow warehousing persons engaged said that it v. 125 U. S. was within Beidelman, 680, 686, declare what should rea- be a legislature power ¡ for the services sonable persons compensation exercising fix a maximum or to which beyond public employment, any would, made be unreasonable. after v.

But Dow v. Munn 94 Beidelman, Illinois, citing & v. U. S. Railroad 113; Quincy Iowa, Chicago, Burlington & Northwestern 94 U. S. Peik v. Rail 162; 155, 161, Chicago Milwaukee & St. Paul 94 U. S. Rail way, 164, 178; Chicago, S. Winona & St. Peter 179; road v. U. Railroad Ackley, Stone v. 94 U. S. Wisconsin, v. U. S. Blake, 180; 181; Illinois 526; v. 108 U. S. Railroad Illinois, Ruggles Central 108 U. S. Stone v. Farmers' Loan & 541; Trust U. S. Stone v. Illinois Central Co., 307; Railroad, U. S. and Stone v. New Orleans & Northeastern Rail 347; the doctrine 116 U. S. road, recognizing legis lature itself fix a maximum may beyond any charge would rendered in a services unreasonable, respect or for the use of which the employment,- has an interest, proviso power such and is not of limitation or is not without limit, regulation or a services destroy, power compel doing reward, take use without or to private property process due without or without law, just compensation circum- tnat it if it would under court saicl had no means, any rate fixed stances have the power,” determining that it did in that was unreasonable, case confiscation of there had been such prop- appear due law, of it as amounted to a without taking erty ' TERM, 1891.' 548 Field, Brown, ¡-Brewer, Opinion

Dissenting JJ. of denial the of protection had been any equal that there or laws. the not the records do show that the before us, the cases

In or that unreasonable, are the statute prop- fixed by charges or that law, due there taken without has ’been erty the even laws; the denial of equal protection has been any we could determine the maxi- if under circumstances any was unreasonable. the mum rate fixed- legislature 128 U. S. in Smith, 179, Co. v. Banking Georgia Mr. Justice Field, delivered court, the opinion in had numerous instances court said that adjudged this .the to of State prescribe of a railroad carriage company persons charges absence limits, within its contract merchandise to the limitation carriage to.the contrary, subject or conditions reward, without amounting not required use without just compensa public taking not amount to a done does and that what is regulation tion, commerce. or interstate foreign for the error that contended

It is further plaintiffs the Fourteenth be- Amendment, violates statute question owners the from the elevator equal cause takes protection which in that it 130,-. have laws, places applies not does which more, places apply population and thus .130,000 less than operates have population, against The cities of the State. owners larger elevator law on all elevator owners in 130,- having places operates equally we'do how more; population perceive they of' laws, within the are equal protection deprived of the- Amendment. Fourteenth meaning n Judgments affirmed. with whom Beewee, Me. Justice concurred Justice Me. Mjj.1 Justice Beowst, Field dissenting. I' dissent' from these cases. judgment main inis, which rest my proposition upon judgment, unsound. is' the doctrine Munn radically BUDD v. NEW- YORK. Brewer, Bield, Opinion: Brown,

Dissenting JJ.' That as declared is, reaffirmed. S.U. syllabus,and in that case: When, in the one therefore, stated opinión, use to a an devotes his has interest in that interest, effect, he, grants be controlled must submit to use, interest extent of the "he has thus

common good, elaborate discussions of the. created.” The question in that cases when case, present dissenting opinions the Court of the State of under consideration Appeals ^n more than a Hew forbid York, seem anything general n of the that it declaration óf dissent. The vice doctrine is; the a interest in use the same public property upon places is use of devoted to a basis as property. Property public use and the use is one the when, which when, only public the its has wit, State, public organized capacity, right one .which all the and, therefore, to create and maintain, and The to demand- share in. use have a is right public, public create and the individual it, because the may creating public - the the The it is tanto work of State. doing thereby pro creation of all is Railroads are highways public duty. high build If an does The State .them. individual may ways. the He he is tanto work the State. work, pro doing The the

devotes to a use. State his doing property public not fixes the the use. does lose the right price work fix the because an individual undertakes to voluntarily price, use from a do the work. But this is different very public in the There is interest use. scarcely any property public use no Ho man liveth unto whose has interest. public no the touch of himself is man’s alone, beyond property manner extent of another’s welfare. Everything, ic is whose others, whose use affects the property well-being use the Take, instance, has interest. public of that are store little All village in. village. public of the interested in the interested it; quantity quality the time which it at on and their shelves, prices, goods it is in which in the way and closes, and, opens generally, in the Does it follow use. interested short, managed'; That ? these matters has a control that village public right' TERM, 1891. (cid:127) Brewer, Meld, Brown, Opinion: Dissenting JJ. which, is also small store village, is true single establishment mercantile great city. true largest does not business principle. The magnitude change individuals but interested, be more larger public, There may who has a merchant small ware- still country public. are wont farmers house in which store neighboring their shipment grain preparatory occupies potatoes same, elevator in as the ISTew largest position proprietor in each case an interest York. The has use, public more and no less. I cannot the same no interest, bring my- that when the owner of has self to believe his property by made a certain his skill industry, money piece value to he has himself thereby many, deprived large full over it which he had it was of when com- dominion little nor can I believe control value; paratively over one’s of business is all dependent benefited it. the extent to the matters in which the has the most interest, Surely of food and can it be that are clothing; yet supplies reason of this interest State fix the at which may price the butcher must sell his or the vendor of meat, boots are his Men endowed their Creator with shoes goods? “life, certain unalienable rights, liberty pursuit ” and to secure,” these create, happiness; grant rights are instituted. That which man has governments he retains control of, to these honestly acquired subject full that he First, limitations: shall not use it to his neighbor’s n injury, and that not mean that it does he must for his use. benefit; that if he it second, devotes to a neighbor’s public he use, to to control that use; and, gives public right that whenever the third, needs require, public may take it of due upon payment compensation.

It is that there is a suggested and that that monopoly, justifies legislative interference. There are two kinds of one of monopoly; law, the other of fact. The one exists when exclusive áre Such a privileges granted. monopoly, law which creates alone can break-; the creation of being law justifies control. A legislative of fact one monopolv any

BUDD v. NEW YORK. Brewer, Field,

Wssenting Opinion: Brown, JJ. and there is no can.Break, legislative necessity interfer- ence. It exists his where one money labor any fur- nishes facilities for which no one business else has. A man in a suitable for offices. He puts up city only building it but business; has therefore is a monopoly monop- can who, one break like fact, business any oly means into a similar his Because of building. puts courage to be thus feature, broken, easily monopoly may - at which he will lease his price regulate ? theré are no exclusive here, offices So, privileges given are not If these elevators. upon public They ground. one can build the field another; is is

business profitable, and all the all the elevators,' competition may open.for of fact and If there be a is one not desired. be monopoly, individual -of and one law, can.break. which'any is to me odious. The theory government paternal n utmost and the individual, fullest'pos- liberty possible him and his is limitation sible both.the property, protection of one If regulate price government. may and'duty or the not a service, compensation which is service, not' kind which is devoted of one the use it not with reason use, equal regulate may -'why to be service, of all compensation paid price -if Backward” is so, all And use of “Looking property? nearer than a dream.

(cid:127) the statute in in these because- cases, I .dissent especially effect compels service without any compensation. ^[*] provides “shall service elevator seeking parties cost of or shov- the actual trimming pay required when the elevator trimming unloading, elling leg or is work shovelling This trimming when loading.” cargo, of. n It work counsel. is performed in the briefs fully explained on the -vessel shovels,. with hand-scoops by longshoremen ' regu are the' They unloading receiving grain. ah independent lar but elevator; engaged employ1 ... and skilful performance careful one whose service, yet through into and transfer the successful essential to com the elevator full The service required elevator. TERM, 1891. Brewer, Opinion: Field, Brown, Dissenting JJ.

pels employ superintend work proprietor' these For this work longshoremen. employment, and for the superintendence, responsibility proper of their the act work, performance says proprietor the elevator shall no receive he can compensation; that which he the actual .out, cost. I had only pays supposed n that no man could be required service to an any render other individual some without compensation. in the Pinto Case,

'Again, Mr.-Pinto is appears owner of a built oh stationary elevator, It is private grounds. not oh devoted to a use, grounds public right like way of a railroad There is to indicate on company. his nothing ' a to dedicate his .part purpose uses. So far public as it is to make the business of an possible elevator a purely he has business, done-so. It will not do private .to say an elevator is one transferring through step transportation; that,, .therefore, are they and. common quasi carriers, ‘discharging public duty, control. are not carriers in They sense any proper of the term. facilitate so does the They may. box- carriage; ing packing goods transportation. engineers, firemen, and all the brakemen, thousands of of a employés railroad are the business of company helping transportation; but are all common carriers their because work simply ,tends to facilitate the business of transportation; may their ? legislature regulate wages .do

But, as I I not care said, to enter into extended dis- cussion of the matter. I believe time is not distant when- the evils from this of a on resulting assumption part to determine the government compensation ré- may mac cieve for the use of his or the of his property, performance per-, sonal will become so services,' that the courts will apparent hasten to declare that can government prescribe compensation when it grants creation of special privilege, when the corporation, which is rendered service service, is in fact devoted to a use. Me. Justice Field and Me. Justice Beowk concur me in this dissent.

Case Details

Case Name: Budd v. New York

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Feb 29, 1892

Citation: 143 U.S. 517

Docket Number: 719, 644, 645

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS