194 U.S. 267
SCOTUS
1904

Lead Opinion

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a action to recover a penalty of twenty-five dollars, *269brought by the owner of a iarm contiguous to the railroad оf the plaintiff in error, on the ground that the latter has allowed Johnson grass to mature and go to seed upon its road. The рenalty is given to' contiguous owners by a Texas statute of 1901, ch. 117, directed solely against railroad companies for ‍​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‍permitting such grass or Russian thistle to go to seed upon their right of way, subject, however, to the ’condition that the plaintiff has not dоne the same thing. The case is brought here on the ground that the'statute is contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

It is admitted that Johnson grass is a menace tó crops, that it is propagated only by seed, and that a general regulation of it for the protection of farming would be valid. . It is admitted also that legislation may be directed against a class when any fair ground for the discrimination exists. But it is saidRhat this particular subjection of railroad companies to a liability not imposed on other owners of land on which Johnson grass may grow, is so arbitrary as to amount to a denial of the equаl protection of the laws. There is no dispute about general principles. The question is whether this case lies on оne side or the other of a line which has to be worked out between cases, ■differing only in degree. With regard to the manner in which such a question.should be approached, it is obvious that the legislature is the only judge of the policy of á proрosed discrimination. The principle is similar to that which is established with regard to a decision of Congress that certain meаns are necessary and proper to carry out one of its express powers.' McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316. When a state legislature has dеclared that in its opinion policy requires a certain measure, its action should not be disturbed by the courts under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‍​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‍unless they can see clearly that there-is no fair reason for. the law that would not. require with equal force its extension to others whom it leaves untouched.

Approaching the question in this way we feel unable to say that the law before us may not have been justified by local *270conditions. It would have been more obviously fair to extend the regulation аt least to highways. But it may have been found, for all that we know, that the seed of Johnson grass is dropped from the cars in such quantities as to cause special troublé. It may be that the ■ neglected strips occupied by. railroads afford a ground where noxious weeds especially flourish, and that whereas self-interest leads the owners of farms ‍​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‍to keep down pеsts, the railroad Companies have done nothing in a matter which concerns their neighbors only. Other reasons may be imaginеd. Great constitutional provisions must be administered with caution. Some play must be. allowed for the joints of. the machine, аnd it must be remembered that legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite, as great a degree as the courts.

Judgment affirmed.

. Mr. Justice Brewer concurs in the judgment.



Dissenting Opinion

Mr. Justice Brown,

dissenting.

I am unable to concur in the opinion of the court in this case. While fully conceding thаt the legislature is the only judge of the policy of a proposed discrimination, it is not the only judge of its legality. Doubtless greаt weight will be given to its judgment in that regard, and the legislation will not be held invalid, if it be founded upon a real distinction in principle between persons or corporations of the same class. Upon this principle spark arresters may be required uрon locomotives when they are not required upon other smokestacks, because of' their greater liability to communicate fires to adjoining property; so, although other proprietors are not bound to fence their lands, rаilway companies may be required to do so to prevent the straying of cattle upon their tracks. Upon the samе principle gates and guards may be required at railway crossings when the same .would be entirely unnecessary at the crоssing of ordinary highways. Other discriminating regula*271tions made necessary by the. peculiar business and danger incident ‍​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‍to railway transportation may be readily imagined.

In this case, however, the railway is not pursued,as such, but merely as the proprietor of сertain land alongside its track, and no reason can be conjectured why an obnoxious form of weed, growing upon its land, should be moré detrimental than the same weed growing upon adjoining lands. The railway is not made the sole-object of the statutory prohibition by reason of the fact that it is a railway, and-the discrimination against it seems to be purely arbitrary. The only distinсtion suggested in support of the'ordinance is that the seed of Johnson grass may be dropped from the cars in such quantitiеs as to cause special trouble; but there is not only no evidence of,such fact, but is is highly improbable that the seed оf a noxious grass of this kind would be carried upon the cars at all. It is also suggested that the self-interest of owners of farms to keep down pests of this kind might be relied upon to prevent their growth. But this tends merely to show that if the law were made general, it wоuld be more readily obeyed by private land proprietors than by the railway. It may be that railways-are less given to the observance of precautions required of them as neighborhood landowners than the proprietors of individual prоperty, but that does not create a distinction in principle. It merely tends to show that if the law were made general thе railway companies would be oftener prosecuted than other proprietors. If Johnson grass growing upon railwаy tracks be a nuisance, it is equally so. when growing upon the other side of the line fence, and I think the law should be made genеral to avoid the charge of an arbitrary discrimination. If the land owned by every corporation were held to this liability, while the land of individuals were exempt, the discrimination would be more conspicuously unjust in its appearañee, but scarcely more so in its reality.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice ‍​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‍McKenna also dis-, sented.