Munn v. Illinois

' Motín v. Oct 1876.3 113 term, first in to the order our day preserve jurisdiction; we think that such an omission does not the avoid appeal, and where, it rather under rule is furnishes case the Martin Lessee, 361, Hunter’s and in 1 Wheat. followed Davidson anier, 4 Wall. we relief” im grant “may summary “by such terms the as under the circum posing upon appellants stances be and legal proper.”

As term, was returnable the appeal to some present made, was citation, the attempt serve the appellants have that, order unless supposed we actually completed, the citation, on the appellants cause a returnable Mon- new first next, to be day issued served February appellee date, before that be dismissed. appeal

Munn v. Illinois. powers' every sovereignty, government may regulate Under inherent 1. other, and, necessary citizens toward conduct of its each when for tlie public good, property. shall the manner which each use his own has, powers, England 2. customary It in the exercise of these been from time immemorial, colonization, country its first in this from fer- millers, ries, carriers, hackmen, bakers, wharfingers, innkeepers, common &c.,and, doing, charge in so to fix a be maximum to made for services rendered, furnished, articles accommodations sold. 3 adoption to the time of Down of the fourteenth amendment of the Consti- States, supposed regulating tution the United it was not ihe statutes price use, use, private property necessarily deprived or even the property process owner his without due an law. Under some circum- - they may, change stances but not under all. The does not amendment particular: simply prevents doing in this law States that which operate deprivation. will such as 4 owner to a When the devotes it use which the has an .interest, use, grants he in to the an effect interest in and must interest, public, extent of that submit to be controlled for the may-withdraw good, long grant as common as he maintains the use. He by discontinuing the use. Sights use, to a for its 5 reasonable created law, pannot away process; the common taken without due but law of;conduct, itself, forbid, may, as'a rule constitutional limitations unless changed legislature. great at the The. office of statutes will of developed, remedy adapt defects in common law are changes of time circumstances. legislative, charge 6 limitation of the rate of enactment services iv. VOL. Ct. Illinois: monk v> public employment, or use of in which rendered in a interest, principle in the but oca an establishes new gives a new an old effect to one. business is carried on exclusive and their 7. Where warehouses are situated concern, prescribe reg-~ State, may, within a' as matter of domestic she notwithstanding they them, used instruments those are lations for and, State, commerce; Congress inter-state, engaged until in as aswell in relations, regulations such can be en- acts in reference to their inter-state beyond forced, indirectly operate upon though may even commerce jurisdiction. her immediate may may arise in which it be found 8. The not hold that a case not court does has, affairs, regulating her that a State under the form of own encroached Congress respect in commerce. the exclusive domain of inter-state the first of Constitution of United States 9. The ninth section of the article the Congress, powers respect operates only and limitation the of in as of regulation of affairs. States in the their domestic affects the “ Illinois, assembly general of An Act to entitled 10. The act of give inspection grain, warehousing and of and warehouses 1871, State,” 25, approved April of this to art. the Constitution effect of repugnant of United the Constitution States. is not of Illinois. the State Court Error Supreme Illinois, in contains adopted Constitution and the stor- in reference to the inspection grain, following —: thereof in warehouses age “ —XIII. Article Warehouses. grain or storeñouses or other 1. All elevators where Section for whether compensation, property

property stored not, are be public or declared to ware- be kept separate stored houses. owner,lessee,or every and ot each manager pub- 2.

“Sect. hun- or less than city in town any situated lic warehouse one. inhabitants, make oath shall statements under weekly dred thousand posted law, and the same in keep officer designated some before warehouse; shah in office of such and place conspicuous some shall be examination in such as place file a copy also set shall fortn correctly which statement designated kind ware- each and such every grain amount and grade may be house, such other property stored together therein* are, issued, been and at time have receipts what warehouse and therefor; shall, statement, on outstanding such making be warehouse, such daily changes note posted copy' warehouse; such grain in the quantity grade made not be separate lots shall of grain shipped different grades v. Illinois. Oct. 1876.1 Murar or mixed with inferior superior without the consent of grades, or thereof. consignor owner warehouse, 3. The owners stored or any “Sect. same,

holder for the shall receipt at to exam- always liberty stored, ine such and all the hooks and records of the ware- house in to such property. regard All railroad Sect. 4. other common companies, carriers railroads, shall or on measure at weigh grain where points amount, full receipt he shipped, and shall responsible thereof, of such amount the owner delivery or consignee destination. place 5. All railroad companies receiving transporting “Sect. otherwise, in hulk or shall deliver the same to grain, ..anyconsignee (cid:127) thereof, or elevator or any warehouse to elevator, such or the consigned, provided consignee, or public ware- house, used, can be reached owned, leased, track used, he can such railroad and all railroad company; companies shall tracks, connections to he made permit with their so that any warehouse, consignee, coal-bank, any public coal-yard bemay reached' the cars on sard railroad. It shall he of the duty general to assembly pass 6. .“Sect. to the issue of- laws- false and necessary prevent fraudulent

warehouse- and to full effect to receipts, this article of give Constitution, shall be construed, which liberally so as to protect and And producers shippers. the enumeration of the remedies' herein named shall not be construed to deny the general assem- bly power to other prescribe law such and further remedies be as found expedient, or to deprive any person of existing remedies. common-law “ The Sect. 7. general shall assembly pass laws the inspec- tion of grain, . protection producers, and re- shippers, -of ceivers grain produce.” Illinois,, of -the act of the provisions general of. assembly “

entitled An Act regulate public warehouses the ware- and to housing effect to art. 13 inspection grain, .give State,” the Constitution of this approved April-25, 1871.. so far as the same have direct any bearing upon questions — case, involved in are this as follows: “ 1. Be it Illinois, enacted people of State of Section in represented warehouses, the general assembly, that as Cfc. up.ES Munn v. Ilunois. State, of this shall he

defined in art. 13 of the Constitution A, B, C, as classes, into three to he classes designated divided respectively. “ A embrace all 2. of class ware- Public warehouses shall Sect. elevators, bulk, in stored houses, in which grain or granaries is mixed of different owners or together, grain which a manner that the of differ- is stored in such identity which grain warehouses, ent be such preserved, cannot accurately lots or parcels in cities not less than elevators, or located granaries, being having B inhabitants. Public warehouses of class one thousand hundred elevators, warehouses, or which granaries shall embrace all other bulk, different and in which the owners grain is stored grain shall embrace all Public warehouses class C mixed together. kind is other where stored warehouses places for a consideration. lessee, ware- manager any public 3. proprietor, Sect. A business class shall before required, transacting any house of warehouse, from the Court county in such Circuit procure lessee, license, to transact a such manager permitting proprietor, laws, State, warehouseman under the of this business as publie issued the clerk of said court license shall be upon forth the location and name of shall set written application, warehouse, interested and the individual name each person same, or, if the the management or principal owner ip, - the names of managed by corporation, be owned or warehouse of such shall be treasurer secretary, corporation president, on and stated; authority and the license shall con- give carry class A in business of a accordance duct the warehouse State, and shall revocable said with the laws court, before upon complaint court upon summary proceeding violation of forth particular writing setting any person manner be taken in such satisfactory proof be directed court. provided a license as herein 4. The person receiving Sect. same, a file, the bond to shall with the clerk of the court granting Illinois, surety, of and sufficient good the State with people $10,000, court, of con- to be said in the sum penal approved by a of as ware- duty ditioned for the faithful performance A, and the full and unreserved compliance houseman class of this in relation all thereto. laws ’ “ shall the business a pub- Sect.' 5. who transact Any person as A license lie without first a herein warehouse of' class procuring Oct. 1876.] or continue to such any who shall business after

provided, transact license has been such revoked that he be (save only may permitted shall, to deliver stored in such on property previously warehouse), conviction, $100 be a sum not fined in less than each and such is so carried on; business and the court every day refuse to license,.or renew any new one to whose grant any persons revoked, license has been one within from the time the same year wasrevoked.” - Sect. 15. warehouseman of warehouses of Every class A shall be the- during first week of of each required, January year, in one publish or more if there newspapers (daily, be such) situated, which such published city warehouse or table schedule of rates in the warehouse storage grain be which rates shall during not increased ensuing year, (except provided for in sect. of this act) during year; such rates, them, or reduction of shall published any published apply received grain ; into such or warehouse source person or made, discrimination shall for or directly indirectly, against made any charges warehouseman for the storage of grain. “ The maximum charge storage handling includ- grain, ing cost of shall be for the first receiving delivering, thirty or bushel, cents and for each fifteen days thereof part per two days thereof, after first one-half of one part cent thirty'days, per however, bushel; liable to that dam- provided, grain early damp received, as’ indicated when age, inspection subject and for to two cents bushel the first ten storage days, each per thereof, additional five one-half of exceeding one days part cent bushel.” per per 1872, June,

On the an information twenty-ninth day 111., filed in the Court of Criminal Cook County, against Scott, were, on Munn & alleging they twenty-eighth in said June, city Chicago, day county, warehouse, known as and lessees the managers Elevator,” in then and there North-western stored bulk, of different owners and mixed grain together grain warehouse; the warehouse was located in said contained more than one hundred thou- of Chicago, city inhabitants; transacted business sand they unlawfully aforesaid, warehousemen, without procuring of public Court of said them permitting the Circuit county, license from Ct', 118' v. Munn Illinois. -warebousemen, to transact as under tbe laws of business tbe State.

To this information a interposed. guilty plea facts, record, made a of tbe From an statement of part agreed owner, 1862, Munn leased of tbe in & Scott appears Elevator,” tbe and tbe “Nortb-western ground occupied by in that erected tbereon tbe warehouse or elevator grain year, (cid:127) means; ever car- witb own their and capital tbey since and on, elevator, ried said tbe business in of storing handling received, hire, com- for which and as a for charged grain tbey been, tbe rates of bad pensation, storage year and different established tbe elevators year, agreed in tbe and one Chicago, pubbsbed warehouses city month more said in tbe of Jan- printed newspapers city, rates for tbe in each tbe established then year uary year, On tbe next publication. ensuing twenty-eighth day 1872, Munn were tbe June, & Scott managers pro- “ Tbe known as Nortb-western of tbe warehouse grain prietors 111., of different owners Elevator,” wherein grain in Chicago, then in bulk and mixed tbey was stored together; and deliver- on tbe business storing, there carried receiving, from tbe hire, taken a license Cir- without having ing grain them, as managers, cuit Court of Cook permitting County, warebousemen, and without having transact business Court a bond to the filed tbe clerk of tbe Circuit peo- witb Illinois, sects. 3 4 of the of. as required the State ple then, more 25,1871. and for act of Tbe April city Chicago more one hundred thousand before, had than than two years mixed had stored and Munn & inhabitants. Scott grain and with the consent express different owners together, only by owners, or of the of such of such consignee and permission that the should.be having agreed grain, they rates of published storage. act, had said

Munn & Scott- complied respects taken out a li- two had not except first, they particulars: 4; and, cense, bond, sects. 3 and nor as required given second, had storage handling grain charged which were rates established published January, fixed 15. those sect. than higher Opt. 1876.] $ found and fined 100.

The defendants were guilty, of the Criminal of Cook Court County having judgment State, Court of Munn' been affirmed & Supreme — writ, and for error: Scott sued out this assign 5, 3, 4, 1. Sects. and 15 of the statute are unconstitutional and void.

2. Said sections are to the third clause of sect. 8 -repugnant 1, 9, 1, of art. and the sixth clause of sect. art. of the Constitu- States, tion of the United Fourteenth and to the Fifth and Amendments. Jewett,

Mr. with whom was W. C. Mr. John N. Goudy, error. plaintiffs could error take license and plaintiffs safely bond, act, sects. 3 4 of the because give required by would waive question thereby validity 181; Braman, Hill, act. on Lim. Const. Baker v. 6 Cooley 511; Landrum, 548; v. 1 Bush Ferguson Home Ins. (Ky.), Co., Co. v. Ins. 23 Wis. 171. Security third, fifth, fourth, 1. The and fifteenth act, sections of the under fined, which the in error were convicted plaintiffs 8, clause, to the 1, are third art. of the Constitu repugnant § States, tion of the which confers United upon Congress power commerce with nations and foreign sev among 418; eral v. 12 States. Ward Maryland, Wall. Case Tax, 232; 15 id. Gibbons Freight v. 9 Ogden, Wheat.

1; 419; Brown v. 12 Mobile, id. Osbornev. Maryland, 16 Wall. 479; Parham, ; v. 123 8 id. Wilsonv. Blackbird Creek Woodruff 245; Co., 2 Pet. 713; Marsh Gilman v. 3 Wall. Philadelphia, How, Cases, 504; 5 Iowa, 129; License v. Bartemeyer 18 Wall. Miln, York New v. 11 Pet. 102. City of 2. These sections also are to the sixth clause repugnant 9, Constitution, art. sect. which ordains that no prefer- shall given ence regulation commerce or revenue of one State over those ports of another. 3. are also to that They repugnant the first section part 14 of of art. the amendments Constitution of the United States ordains no State shall deprive any person life, due without nor liberty, process deny within its any person jurisdiction equal protection Ct.

120 Munn v. Illinois ; 46-50; Works, Inst. Mur laws: 5 487 Coke’s Webster’s 272; Co., 18 How. Lessee v. Hoboken Land and ray's Imp. Porter, 15; Senderson, v. Hoke Taylor v. 4 Dev. C.) (N. 393; on Hill, 146; Y. v. 13 N. Cooley 4 Wynehamer People, Co., 13 Wall. v. Const. Lim. 351 Green Bay et seq.; Pumpelly 129; v. 166; Johnson, 2 Gardner Harr. J.) Sinnickson v. (N. note, 13 Wall. Ch.162; 2 also cases cited Johns. Newburgh, Kinzie, 1; 1 How. 179; Biddle, Bronson v. v. 8 Wheat. Green 290; Whitehead, 16 311; Lim. v. on Const. Walker Cooley Saunders, 144; Hooker, 314; 21 Ind. Ogden v. v. Wall. Rowley 172; 259; 2 v. Longstreet, (Mich.) 12 Wheat. Willard Doug. 707; not within v. 3 How. and are Ewing, Lessee Gantly's of the State: 4 Black. Com. the limits of the police 157; 162; ed.), ix. on Const. Bentham part (Edin. Cooley 149; 572, 577; Co., I. & M. Railroad Lim. v. 27 Vt. Thorpe 84; Kent, 340; I. Cush. 2 Com. v. 7 Alger, Com. People & 307; Co., Mich. Lake v. Rosehill Cem M. Railroad 9 View 120; News, Barb. Co., Benson v. Mayor, Chicago Legal Adams, 449; Broom’s 245; v. Cow. Y.) Vanderbilt 7 (N. Maxims, 357. Legal future, use of do not property

They existence, in error of but plaintiffs deprive of law. used them passage Wyne for years prior-to 378; Cush. N. Com.v. 7 Alger, 13 Y. (Mass.) hamer v. People, 129. 84; Iowa, v. 18 Wall. Bartemeyer authorities are directly point against The following 393; on Const. Lim. Doe ex of such exercise power: Cooley 490; Baird, 1 Dana Webb v. Buford, v. (Ky.), dem. Gaines 17; of regard usury, 6 Ind. examples legislation it: mills, hackmen, &c., are not ferries, justifying precedents 47, 48; on Bac. Abr. 188 1807); Angell Highways, (ed. 7 §§ Clair, 508; Hart, St Willes, Mills v. County Birset v. of 369; Chambers, 15 Abr. 23 Ill. Vin. 2 Gilm. Bundy 197; v. 398; Gardner, 195. Six v. Bulst. to the sections in are provision

The question repugnant Amendment, that no State shall deny any per Fourteenth of the laws. the equal within jurisdiction protection son 391; 2 Lim. Heirs on Const. v. Walley's Verg. Kennedy, Cooley 554. (Tenn.) 121 v.

Oct. 1876.] of Illinois in The Constitution regard provisions do warehouses not affect v. Railroad questions. Company 511; McClure, 10 Wall. v. id. 8 Rouse, Home Friendless of 430; v. id. 139. Rouse, Washington University n Illinois, Fdsall, K. of James contra. Mr. Attorney-General 1. statute is not a commerce within the regulation Constitution. 8 Parham, v. Wall. purview Woodruff 148; 123; 479; id. 16 id. Lott, Mobile, Hinsons. Osborne v. 73; 8 How. Louisiana, Nathan v. Rens. v. Saratoga People & ; 1; Co., 15 Wend. 135 Gibbons 9 Wheat. Railroad v. Ogden, 36; 16 Wall. Cases, Slaughter-House Gilman v. Philadelphia, 713; 102; 3 id. 11 Pet. Miln, New York v. v. Crandall City of 35; Nevada, 6 Wall. 12 Wheat. State Brown v. Maryland, 419; Cases, 5 How. 504. License 2. If the statute is in sense a of inter-state regulation commerce, it to that class exer belongs powers cised the State in the absence of conflicting congressional v. Board legislation. Cooley the Port Phila Wardens 299; 12 How. ; v. Gilman Wilson delphia, Philadelphia, supra 245; 2 Co., Pet. v. Blackbird Creek Marsh State Crandall v. Nevada, ; Cases, License supra supra. 3. The statute is not to that clause of the Consti- repugnant tution of one prohibits giving preference ports over those of another.” That clause a limitation imposes powers Congress.

4. The statute does not of their deprive persons 541; without due of law. on process Const. Cooley Lim. Cases, v. Phila Slaughter-House supra; Mayor Sharpless 166; Pa. St. Barb. Grant v. Courter, Y.) (N. delphia, 232; 55; 11 Met. Commonwealth v. Commonwealth Tewksbury, 84; v. 7 Cush. Barrett, Police v. Met. Board (Mass.) Alger, ; 34 N. Y. 667 Iowa, 18 Wall. 133. Bartemeyer 5. Warehousemen for the the manner the storage grain is conducted at are em business in a Chicago engaged public business In ployment, distinguished ordinary pursuits. carriers, a similar to common regard they occupy position “ office,” who are held to exercise a sort of have public duties to N. J. Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants public perform. v. -122 Gfc- Bank, 344; 6 How. Railroad 24 Penn. v. Company, Sanford 381; Bernard, ; St. v. Ld. Coggs 2 909 C. N. W. Raym. & Co. v. Ill. 56 Railroad 377. People, carriers,

Like common are law to receive required by from all store the same terms grain persons, equal 101; 821, Stat. Ill. conditions. 1874), Rev. (of p. § Johnson, 2827; Martin, 288; 5 v. Burr. Low v. Ill. Ross 18 Wilkins, v. & Steinman 7 Watts S. 468. (Pa.) the. use Although ownership private, sense; strict, hence, a legal may public adjudicated cases, wharves,” terms roads,” “public “public “publib “ warehouses,” houses,” and occurrence, are public frequent be the although property may subject private ownership. 32; Black, 523; Dutton v. 1 Ives v. 51 Strong, Ill. Hartley, 16 Olcott v. The Wall. 678. Supervisors, 6. Whenever person sustains pursues public calling, relations to the that the must of people necessity him, deal and are under moral duress to submit to his he is then, terms if unrestrained in order to prevent and an of his abuse he position, extortion price may charge for his services law. regulated Commonwealth v. 1; Duane, Mass. ; 98 State v. 5 Jones L. Perry, C.) 252 (N. “ Abr, 258; Nixon, Carriers,” State v. id. D.; Bac. tit. Mur Co., 272; Lessee et al. v. Hoboken Land and ray's Imp. How. Shawcrass, 17; v. 185; Kirkham T. R. 2 Peake N. P. C. 415; Saunders, 10 M. & W. v. Ogden 259; 12 Wheat. Mills v. 53; Commissioners, 4 Ill. Taiman, Trustees Schools County 13 id. 37. If warehousemen in grain em- Chicago “pursue office,” exercise sort of and sustain

ployment,” such relations grain consigned " market the world must greatest necessa- grain hands, their pass through Illinois, virtue rily of its unquestionable internal com- merce, enact laws maximum rates of prescribing storage. offered for sale in storage grain the markets aof State most to its internal or pertains clearly domestic com- merce. 128 Munn v. Illinois.

Oct. 1876.] Waite delivered the opinion Mr. Chubb Justice court. is this the determined in case whether be

The question can, the the under limitations upon of Illinois general assembly of the Constitution the of States imposed by power legislative States, maximum law the United the charges fix by warehouses and other in Chicago places in .grain, storage hundred thousand than one inhabi- not less the State having “ bulk, in and which the tants, is stored grain in which grain is or which is mixed stored grain of different owners together, lots different parcels such a manner that identity cannot accurately preserved.” — is that such a law is claimed repugnant

It that, 1, of sect. art. Constitution of 1. To part “ reg- which confers States upon Congress United nations the several among ulate commerce with foreign ” States; of sect. 9 the same article which 2. To that provides part shall be no of com- given by any regulation preference one State over those of merce of revenue to ports another;” ordains that of amendment 3. To part life, shall liberty, deprive any person nor

without due within its any person process deny of the laws.” the equal protection jurisdiction the last of will consider first. objections We these statute is to be constitutional. The courts presumed Every unconstitutional, unless is not to declare one to it ought doubt, will of the so. there is legisla- If. expressed clearly be sustained. ture should no definition “deprive,” contains word Constitution To determine in the Fourteenth Amendment. sig-

as used nification, therefore, the effect to ascertain necessary or a like it, when in the same con- usage given employed nection. the Consti- of the amendment is new in

While provision States, the powers tution of the as a limitation upon United States, civilized It is old as a government. principle form, if not in Charta, and, in substance found Magna Ct. the constitutions that have been from nearly quite time time of' the several States Union. adopted by By Amendment, it was Fifth introduced into Constitution of the States as a limitation United national powers Fourteenth, the as a government, by guaranty against any encroachment an of upon acknowledged right the citizenship by of the States. legislatures n the of When the United Colonies from people separated Britain, Great the form, substance, but not the they changed their retained the government. purposes They govern- ment all British Parliament, the the powers through constitutions, their State or other forms of social under- compact, to to effect such as deemed give practical they necessary took for the common and the life good All security property. which retained committed the to their powers they respec- States, unless in tive terms or reserved express implication to themselves. when it was found to Subsequently, necessary a national for national government part establish purposes, the powers the States and of the was States people United States United the the. people granted as States. This a further limitation the grant operated upon States, so that nowthe States powers governments except all of the Parliament of such possess powers England, been United have States reserved as delegated The reservations are shown in the people people. pro- hibitions of the constitutions. becomes a member of he When one society, necessarily parts - which, some as an privileges rights individual “ others, his relations to he retain. A might

affected body defined in politic,” Constitution of preamble aptly Massachusetts, is a social whole compact by people citizen, covenants with each and each citizen with the whole shall the com certain laws for be. people, governed by mon This does good.” not confer whole peo power upon ple to control which are rights private, purely exclusively' 143; Co., v. R. B. but it does Railroad 27 Vt. authorize Thorpe establishment of citizen laws each to so conduct requiring himself, and so use his own as not unnecessarily another. This is essence injure very government, v. Illinois. Oct. 1876.] maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non in the has found expression which, come source police powers, this From Icedas. Oases, in the License Justice Mr. Chief Taney said less than the more or powers are gov- nothing 5 How. . . that is to . . . . say, inherent sovereignty, ernment every these Under men powers things.” the power govern its citizens one towards conduct of regulates'the government his own each shall use another, prop- and the manner becomes necessary regulation when erty, from it has been In their exercise customary England good. colonization, its first in this immemorial, and time country hackmen, bakers, millers, ferries, carriers, common to regulate &c., fix so a maximum doing innkeepers, wharfingers, rendered, made for services to be accommodations of charge are to be sold. To statutes furnished, and articles day, some or all of the States these subjects; found in many has never been contended think it successfully and we yet of the constitutional came within prohibi- such legislation With interference private property. tions against force, 1820, conferred Congress, Amendment Fifth . . “to . the rates of of Washington city upon wharves, . . . the sweeping chimneys, at private wharfage therefor, . . . and the of fees weight fix the rates and to 3,-Stat. 587, 7; and, 1848, sect. to make bread,” quality respecting hackney carriages all regulations necessary cartmen, same, rates of fare of hauling by rates the rates of commission carmen, and draymen, wagoners-, 224,, auctioneers,” id. sect. 2. 9 that, this, to the time of the down adop- it apparent From Amendment, it was not that the Fourteenth supposed tion use, use, even the price pri- statutes regulating an owner of his property deprived property necessarily vate some circumstances of law. due Under without process not does under all. The amendment change but may, the States doing it in this prevents law simply particular: as such a deprivation. that which will operate which as to the us to principles This inquire brings determine rests, that in order we may this power regulation Look- effect. what without operative what is within and Cfc. Münn law, from whence came the then, to the common right ing, we find that when the Constitution protects,' puhEc "interest, ceases to be a is “affected with property Hale sáíd Lord Chief Justice wás juris .This only.” privati in his treatise De JPortibus than two hundred ago, more years been Tracts, and has with- Maris, Law accepted 1 Harg. in the law of as an essential element out objection become clothed since. does public ever Property with_ja conse- in manner to mate it of interest when used a public and._.affe.ct.. large. therefore, When, the„_uo.mmunity quence, has an his to a use in which the one devotes he, effect, interest interest, an grants use, must submit to be controlled the extent of the interest he has thus cre- common good, use; his ated. He withdraw discontinuing may grant by but, use, he must submit so as he maintains long control. Thus, ferries, Lord Hale in his De as to treatise Jure says,

Maris, Tracts, 6, of fran- the' a Law king Harg. common that no man set aup chise or privilege, ferry mind, time out of without a a prescription passengers, for his He make a own use charter from king. ferry not for the common use all the the use of but family, it doth in because conse- subjects king’s passing way; tend to a common and is become a quence charge, thing pub- toll, use, interest man for his lic and every passage pays common to be under charge, every ferry ought viz., attendance at due times, give regulation, toll; order, take but if he boat in due reasonable keep fail he is finable.” if one owns the soil and land- in these So stream, of a he them for on both banks cannot use ing-places such terms and of a purposes public ferry, except upon time to time conditions as impose; politic may body this and because the common that all good public ways requires n This shall be under of the authorities. the control public or this connection of the who privilege king, prerogative is another name to the represents politic, only' gives body for his but for the profit, people primarily protection welfare-. promotion general Munn v. Illinois. Oct. 1876.] And, Hale, as to Lord in his wharves again, wharfingers, Maris, cited, treatise De Portibus already says: “ man, town, A a or for Ms own private advantage, may, port crane, set or take what rates he and his cus- may 'wharf up can for cranage, tomers for he agree wharfage, housellage, pesage; do, viz., doth no more than is lawful man to makes wharf, most of his If the have king own. ... subject unto that come to that must come and port un- persons lade or lade their as for the because are goods they purpose, wharfs ... because there is" king, licensed no only other in that as it fall out is port, wharf where port newly erected; there be that case cannot arbitrary excessive taken &c., duties for can neither be cranage, wharfage, pesage, they rate; an enhanced to immoderate but the duties must reason- moderate, able and settled license or charter. though king’s For and crane and now wharf other conveniences are affected interest, with a cease to be they privati ; as juris if a man set out a street in land, new on his building own it is interest, bare now but is affected longer aby interest.”

This statement of the law Lord Hale was cited with ap- and acted Lord at the probation upon by Kenyon beginning in Bolt v. 8 T. R. 606. present Stennett, century, And the same has been held as to warehouses and warehouse- 527, In East, men. Aldnutt v. decided in Inglis, the London Dock had appeared built ware Company houses in which wines were taken in store rates of as the and the owners charge company might agree upon. Afterwards the obtained under the company authority, general act, to receive wines from before the warehousing importers duties were was, importation upon paid; question whether could rates for such charge arbitrary storage, must content with a reasonable compensation. Upon — Lord said : point Ellenborough (p. 587) favored, There no doubt that the general both principle man fix every law what he justice, price pleases his it.; or the use of but if own for a particular pur- have and make pose resort to premises them, use of and he have a if in them that monopoly purpose, Ct. Munn Illinois. must, he as an equiva-

he of that monopoly, will take the benefit reasonable terms. lent, it on attached to perform duty is, this is, whether, company by as then circumstanced question the act which they act with combination of the warehousing state of constituted, existing the actually with were originally London, alone the ware- have they in the whereby things port not, the doctrine of wines, be they according these housing a Hale, compensa- themselves to reasonable Lord to limit obliged him, And, whenever tion for according such warehousing. a legal the benefit of having casts accident of time upon party he is the in a as where port, monopoly landing goods which happens to receive goods owner of the authorized wharf only erected, he confined to take reason- in a be port newly built able for the use of the wharf.” — further on :

And (p. 539) and for the commod- It is that there exists the place enough for this warehousing of the pur- virtual ity question monopoly attaches, Lord as laid on which the of law down pose, principle Hale in the referred to from J>e Portibus Maris passage [that as the sense as includes well law already good quoted], of the subject.” — J., Blanc, said :

And in the same case (p. 541) Le “ Then, to be private property, these warehouses admitting them, that the discontinue this company might application in the have made terms first they might they pleased what instance, have, this yet question now having, they monopoly, is, clothed with a whether warehouses be not private property and, so, if attaches upon of law them. public right, principle then, con these privilege, being present wines bonding warehouses, is fined the act of Parliament company’s is for the not the and shall not privilege public, shall not be they attach on monopoly, good rent ? But this upon bound to an but a reasonable pay arbitrary rent resist their demand for warehouse company having record that the limit; and, within it does not follow confined though um-easonable, in fact fixed do choose rent them is of raising ques insist on reasonable for the purpose- being taken to be therefore, the bemay tion. For this question purpose, be rent. But though claim an unreasonable they may whether Hale attaches Lord laid yet down private property, principle v. Oct. 1876.] affected inter it, private property that when and, of its dedication case privati only; it ceases to juris est this, cannot take arbitrary the owners purpose to such duties, the duties must reasonable.” but excessive thus the words of these eminent have We largely quoted think, because, find common as we we expounders are the we the legislation supports them principle in a learned Lord Hale was once said Of now examining. — American judge,

“ his scan on of words rights prerogative, they In even England, Charta; and if had been found much care as they Magna as in with ascertained, do not themselves to trouble once meaning the (N. 536, 6 note. further.” Cow. Y.) search times, same came under in later the consideration In principle of Alabama. That court was called the Court Supreme upon, to whether the to the 1841, in of power granted decide city the of to bread was unconsti weight Mobile price “ tutional, and it contended would interfere with of citizen lawful trade or in the the pursue calling ” dictate; said, but the court the mode his might judgment “ . . . for this on the of there is motive interference part individuals, or the lawful actions of the legislature in shall be unless such mode which private property enjoyed, interest, or affects the is em calling public private property in a manner affects the which-directly ployed body peo State, in this this are Upon principle, tavern-keepers ple. licensed; . . . Court is at least once County required,, the rates of settle the same innkeepers. year, Upon prin is founded the control which the has legislature: ciple always mills, establishment and ferries, exercised regulation roads, and other kindred Mobile bridges, turnpike subjects.” Yuille, 3 140. Ala. n. s. v. source comes the

From same regulate' carriers, of common which was done in charges England William the third ago year reign Mary, long and continued until within á recent period. comparatively in the we find And first statute pre- following suggestive — amble, to wit: 9

VOL. IV. 130 Munn v. Ct.

" And earners, whereas divers and other wagoners combina themselves, tion have raised the amongst prices carriage goods rates, to excessive many places great the trade: injury Stat, it, therefore, enacted,” Be &c. 3 & 24;§ W. M. c. Large (Great Britain), 481. office,

Common carriers exercise a sort of and have duties to is interested. New perform Jer Bank, Nav. sey Co. Merchants' How. 382. Their business is, therefore, interest,” affected with a within the mean doctrine which Lord has so Hale stated. ing forcibly But need we further. been said go Enough already that, to show when use, devoted to a private property it is It remains subject public regulation. ascertain whether error, the warehouses these plaintiffs there, business which is carried on come within the operation principle. For this we as true purpose accept statements fact contained brief of elaborate one of counsel of the in error. From these it the plaintiffs great appears pro- and West North-west sends ducing region grain by and rail to water where the of it is Chicago, greater, part vessel the for to seaboard the shipped transportation by by Lakes, is and some of it Great forwarded by railway Vessels, extent, Eastern . . . to in some are loaded ports. harbor, the and sailed St. the Lawrence di- Chicago through to . . . The received Europe. in rectly quantity grain] [of has made it in the world. market greatest grain Chicago This business has created a demand for which means by stored, immense can and be handled or these quantity grain have warehouses, been found in are grain commonly elevators, called because the is from the boat or elevated grain car, steam, bins into the by operated machinery by prepared for its bins, from a like elevated process, reception, by into the vessel car which to . . . In this it on. carry way traffic north between the citizens largest country west and the citizens of the on the Chicago country lying coast north Atlantic is in passes Washington grain the trade in elevators of In this through Chicago. way is carried on the inhabitants of seven grain eight Oct. 1876.] Munn v. five of the States with four or lying of the West on States

great com- of inter-state seashore, and forms part largest or elevators warehouses these in States. grain merce 300,000 structures, are immense holding Chicago are time, to size. 1,000,000 at one according They bushels , . . strength. into bins great divided large capacity side and the on one the river harbor are located They run other; through tracks on the grain railway car, be demanded vessel, or boat to from car to them has found It been pre- the course of business. impossible to a this owner’s rise given serve each grain separate, of differ- which the grading, by grain inspection system number of mixed, issued ent owners is and receipts kind, redeemable in like are bushels which negotiable, business was in- mode of demand. This conducting upon and has more than grown years ago, augurated twenty immense have found impracti- proportions. railways elevators, and forbids the such cable to own public policy carrier; has, of such business the ownership transaction individuals, therefore, who have been embarked private to such business as a and devoted their industry their capital pursuit.” that, it must also be borne mind although this connection In fourteen warehouses adapted there were Chicago business, and owned about nine persons, thirty particular them, controlled and that charged business firms prices were as have been from storage year year received and established different elevators ware- agreed and which have been annu- in the rates houses city Chicago, or more in said in one newspapers printed city, published ally in each as the established rates month in the January year, next Thus it then such ensuing publication.” yéar facilities which these all through that elevating apparent of the “of seven or States West” eight great productions vast “ to of the on the sea- four or five States on must way pass ” ” “a virtual be monopoly. shore may if it difficult to see such circumstances why, Under miller, or the or the inn- carrier, ferryman, common baker, cartman, or the or the or the wharfinger, keeper, Munn v. Illinois. Ct. hackney-coachman, pursues exercises employment “ office,” a sort of these in error do not. plaintiffs They stand, tc use counsel, of their again language the very commerce,” and take toll from “gateway all who pass. “ Their business most tends to a common certainly charge, is become a interest and use.” thing bushel Every “ toll, for its grain which is a passage common pays charge,” and, therefore, Hale, to Lord such according warehouse- every “man to be under viz., ought that he . public regulation, . . take but reasonable toll.” if business can Certainly, any interest, clothed with a and cease to be juris privati this has been. not be It made so only,” by.the operation of the statute, Constitution Illinois but it is facts.

alsoWe are not to overlook that, the fact permitted for some reason, Illinois, when their people Constitu- they revised 1870, fit tion to make it saw of the assem- duty general laws bly pass protection producers, shippers, 7; receivers art. sect. grain produce,” sect. 5 article, the same railroad require companies receiving in bulk or otherwise to deliver transporting grain elevator to which it same might could consigned, be reached track that was or could be used by any such and that all railroad should company, con- companies permit tracks, to be made with their nections so that ware- any public house, &c., be reached the cars on might their railroads. This indicates clearly very during twenty years had which this business been peculiar assuming present “ immense had occurred which led proportions,” something that remedies whole such as body people suppose are abuses virtual usually employed prevent monopolies not be here. For our might inappropriate we must purposes that, if assume a state of facts could exist would justify did exist when the statute legislation, now actually under consideration was For us the is one passed. question not of If no state of circumstances could power, expediency. statute, such a void, exist then we declare this one justify because excess of the But State. if legislative power could, we must it did. Of presume legisla- the'propriety Munn v. Illinois. Oct. 1876.] within the scope legislative power, interference tive exclusive is the judge. legislature moment that no is a matter of can it any precedent

Neither this. It is conceded statute like that be found a precisely of recent has been is one origin, growth the business it it is And must and that great importance. rapid, already is a business which the whole also conceded that it be therefore, It a interest. has a direct and positive presents, well-established case long-known application science, and this statute extends social principle simply to new of commercial law so as meet this development progress. to is no to these owners There compel attempt grant pub- but to their lic interest in their declare obligations, an use manner. if it in this particular they these error had matters not in this case that It plaintiffs established their business before the built their warehouses and did was of were What adopted. they regulations complained to from the politic beginning subject body to such be estab- them to conform regulations might require the common authorities for lished good. They proper with the themselves their business entered upon provided on to this condition. If did not means to it subject they carry interference, to such should wish to submit themselves with an interest in their concerns. have clothed the public to them that does to same the'proprietor principle applies and as him it has never been of a hackney-carriage, supposed from statutes or be- that he was ordinances exempt regulating had established he his horses and cause carriage purchased before the statute or the Avas his business ordinance adopted. hoAvever, insisted, oivner of is entitled It use, be reasonable for its even though interest, is a clothed what reasonable and not a question. legislative judicial shoAvn, been been other-

As has already practice countries ha3 Avise. In where the common law prevails, been immemorial for customary legislature .time under such declare what shall be a reasonable compensation circumstances, or, fix more perhaps properly speaking, maximum made would unreason- beyond charge Ot. Münn v. Illinois.

able. contracts, mere Undoubtedly, mat- relating interest,- tbe ters 'wbicb has no wbat is reasonable must ascertained But this is because judicially. tbe legis- too, lature bas no control over such a So, contract. in matters interest, do tbe wbicb affect and as to wbicb legislative exercised, control be if there are no may statutory regulations tbe courts must determine upon subject, wbat is reasonable. Tbe fact is tbe to controlling power at all. If that regulate exists, tbe to establish tbe maximum of as one of tbe charge, fact, means of is rule, In regulation, implied. common-law wbicb tbe to reasonable, be is a requires itself charge regulation as to Without it tbe owner will, could make bis at price. rates terms, to to bis tbe compel yield use. forego

But a mere common-law of trade or business regulation statute. A no changed by person bas no vested interest, in rule of tbe common law. That is any one of only law, tbe forms of and is no more sacred than municipal other. wbicb have been created tbe Bights common cannot law be taken without due but away process; itself, conduct, will, tbe rule law at tbe changed whim, tbe even at of tbe unless legislature, prevented by. Indeed, bmitations. tbe office constitutional of statutes great is to defects in tbe common law as are remedy they developed, it and to to tbe of time and changes circumstances. To adapt tbe limit rate of services rendered in a em- charge or for use tbe in wbicb has an ployment, interest, is wbicb existed before. only changing regulation It establishes no new in tbe but new principle gives to old effect an one. that this is a abused;

We know wbicb but power maybe no its existence. For argument against protection abuses tbe must resort to tbe legislatures against polls, people tbe courts. After what bas been said, it is to refer already unnecessary to tbe effect of the other of tbe length Fourteenth provision viz., Amendment wbicb that no State shall relied.upon, within its tbe any person jurisdiction deny equal protec- tion of tbe laws.” cannot be claimed that this Certainly, tbe State from tbe fares hackmen or tbe prevents regulating Och 1876.] Illinois. Munn v. in unless does the same Chicago, thing

charges draymen But, as been other within jurisdiction. place every has. business of warehouses seen, depends regulate power hackmen and same power regulate principle upon par- cannot be done in one case this and what draymen, be done the other. ticular cannot the effect statute of the come now to consider

We commerce. Congress on in the case of the State Tax It was said very properly “it is not Gross 15 Wall. thing every Railway Receipts, it,of within commerce that amounts to a affects regulation The warehouses of these the Constitution.” meaning on situated and their business carried exclu error are plaintiffs are used within the limits the State of sively They en those as well as those as instruments engaged commerce, but are more in inter-state' necessa gaged itself than or the cart of commerce dray rily part the. them, which, would be transferred one rail but for grain con become road station another. Incidentally they may commerce, but so. not Their nected inter-state necessarily concern, and, until is a of domestic thing certainly, regulation relations, the acts in reference to their inter-state State Congress them, over even exercise all the of powers government though may in so commerce outside its upon doing may indirectly operate do not that a immediate case not arise We jurisdiction. say under State, it will found the form of in which be that regu affairs, has the exclusive its own encroached domain lating upon commerce, in to inter-state but we do respect Congress say that, record, us in this facts are represented upon has not been that done. wit, that. the statute in its objection, remaining 1, 9, to sect. art. the Constitution form is

present, repugnant States, of the because it gives preference United ports another, be the. one State over those disposed limitation, as a remark that single provision operates only of the affects respect the States powers Congress, of their domestic affairs. in the regulation conclude, therefore, the statute in is not We question States, and that of the to the Constitution United repugnant Ct. there is no error in the In judgment. this case upon passing we have been unmindful of the vast importance involved. This and cases of a kindred character questions were us before more than a most eminent coun- argued year ago sel, a manner of their well-earned worthy reputations. We advisement, have cases under in order that kept long their decision be result our maturo might deliberations.

Judgment affirmed. Strong Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice dissented. I am to dissent from the de- Mr. Justice Field. compelled case, cision of the court in this and from the reasons upon is decision founded. The principle opinion is, subversive of the proceeds majority my judgment, heretofore rights believed protected by constitutional interference, guaranties against legislative in conflict with the authorities cited in its support.

The defendants had constructed their warehouse elevator means, in 1862 with their own leased them upon ground and from that time until the infor- purpose, filing them mation had transacted the business of against receiving for hire. The rates of storing grain storage charged by them were established with the own- annually by arrangement ers of different elevators and were Chicago, published month In 1870 State of Illinois January. a new adopted constitution, and all elevators or storehouses where grain or other stored for a whether the compensation, not, stored are declared to be separate kept pub- lic warehouses.”

In an April, act to legislature passed warehouses, these thus to be declared public, and of and effect warehousing to this inspection grain, give article of the warehouses, Constitution. that act By Constitution, defined were classes, divided into three first of which warehouses, elevators, embraced all or granaries in cities located less than one hundred thousand in- having habitants, bulk, in which was stored in and of grain grain different owners was mixed or stored in such manner together, Oct. 1876.] v. Illinois. not be accu- lots or could of different parcels identity of the To this class the elevator defendants

rately preserved. of the maximum act charges prescribed belonged. the warehouse was allowed lessee, or managér proprietor, the cost for and including

to make handling grain, storage it, the first for any thirty days delivering receiving fifteen thereof, and each part for succeeding days any part thereof; the Circuit Court him to required procure ware- business as a license to transact of the county in the of the houseman, a bond to the State and to people give of his $10,000 for the faithful duty sum performance penal class, for his full and the first as such warehouseman in relation all laws with unreserved compliance the Circuit Court license was made revocable thereto. The of such laws. violation summary proceeding person transacting And imposed upon every penalty class, of the first without warehouseman business as a public license, in such business after first continuing procuring revoked, $100 not less than or more had been license the business was thus on which for each $500 than day to refuse for one also authorized court was carried on. The one to license, or to a new any person to renew grant year The maximum of had been revoked. charges license whose act for the storage receipt grain prescribed had from that which the defendants previously was different been the owners of the and which had agreed charged, were extended required More periods storage grain. the same What than gave charges. them they formerly for the first twenty days storage, charged formerly they for the first them to allowed charge thirty days act only for each what succeeding formerly charged they storage; the act allowed them to the first charge after twenty, ten days fifteen alter the first for each succeeding days thirty. defendants, had a to use their own they deeming desired, not inconsistent such manner as use, to a of others like equal right denying fix for the use of their prioes legislature it, in connection with refused to with the their services comply the bond out the license and required, act taking giving Münn v. Illinois. Ct. but continued to on the business for receiv- and to charge carry as had been storing accustomed ing grain prices they and as had been between them and the charge, agreed owners of the For thus their business with- grain. transacting license, act, out a were procuring required by they prose- fined, cuted them was affirmed judgment against of the Court State. Supreme therefore, The is one im- question presented, greatest — whether it is portance, within the a State competency fix the which an individual the use receive for of his business, own in his and for his services private in connection with it. declaration Constitution of that private used for shall be deemed in-

buildings private purposes public stitutions, does not make them so. The receipt storage in a erected grain means for building private that purpose does not constitute the a warehouse. There is building public in the magic used con- language, constitutional though vention, which can one, business into change private public or alter the character of the in which the business is building , transacted. A tailor’s a shoemaker’s would still retain shop character, its even the assembled wisdom of the private though declare, State should ordinance, act or that by organic legislative such a was a place and that the workmen public were workshop, tailors or shoemakers. public public One at- might well colors, nature of tempt change them a new by giving The defendants designation. were no more warehouse- public men, as observed counsel, than the justly merchant who sells merchandise to the merchant, is a or the blacksmith who shoés horses for the is a black- ; smith and it awas notion that strange them so by calling would be under control. brought legislative — divided, Supreme Court true, it is — three to two of its members has held that this legislation exercise of State legitimate business; over authority States, Court of the Supreme United two of its members has decided dissenting, there is in the nothing n States, Constitution of the amendments, United its recent is, therefore, It diffidence I impugns with validity. the soundness of the presume question decision. Münn v.

Oct. 1876.] was, other legislation among grounds, The validity court as in conflict in the State being provi assailed which declares that no of the State Constitution sion person life, without due' shall deprived liberty, pro and with the Fourteenth Amend cess of provision a similar ment of the Federal Constitution which imposes held, the action of the court restriction State. The State substance, in that the constitutional was not violated provision not so as the owner was of the title and long deprived posses and that it did sion of his to the legislature property; deny to make all needful rules the and regulations respecting the use in enjoyment property, referring, support the to instances of its action in inter the position, prescribing . est on ferries and establishing regulating public money, mills, tolls, the the public fixing compensation shape and in bodies to the delegating power municipal regulate of hackmen and charges draymen, weight price In this court the also bread. was assailed on the legislation same our the clause of the ground, jurisdiction arising upon Amendment, that no State shall Fourteenth ordaining deprive life, without due any person, liberty, property process But it seem from its that the court law. would holds opinion its that loses character when something private property in such a as to be useful. The doc employed way generally “ trine declared that becomes clothed with a public property used in interest when a manner to make it of conse public ” affect the- at and from such quence, large; community the is deduced to control the right legislature clothing and to the use of the determine property, compensation n Hale, for it. the owner receive Sir Matthew When the of the law in his as affected sages day, spoke property interest, from that cause to be by public ceasing Juris is, to be held solely, ceasing merely private privati referred to the owner to dedicated right, they property by pub uses, use lic or to of which was granted property or in connection with which were special privileges government, dedicated, thus or some conferred. was Unless property held with the bestowed government of so either time prescription long by specific grant Ct. Munn v. imply grant was not originally, affected property interest so as to be taken out of any public category held in But it is not in property such sense private right. any ” “ the terms with a interest are clothing property used in this case. From the nature of the business under con sideration— the sense in which storage grain which, — the words used, can business, is a in which the pub lic are interested are interested in the storage other soil, manufacture, products in articles of it is clear that the that, court intended to declare one whenever devotes his to a business which useful to the pub “— — lic, affects the community large,” legislature can which the owner receive for use, and for his own services in When, connection with it. therefore,” court, one devotes his says to a use in which interest, he, effect, has an grants an use, interest in and must submit to be controlled common extent of the inter good, est he has thus created. Pie withdraw his dis grant may use; but, use, the so as be maintains the continuing he must long submit to the control.” The used the defendants building was for the court, in such storage grain: storage, says interest; has an defendants, public therefore the devot ing building have an storage, granted public use, interest in that and must submit to have their compensa tion regulated by legislature.

If this be sound law, if there be no either in the protection, which our principles upon founded, republican government or in the prohibitions of the Constitution such invasion against rights, all business in the State are property held at the of a of its mercy majority legislature.

has no greater interest in the use of buildings storage than it has in grain the use of for the residences buildings families, nor, indeed, interest; like so an any thing great and, to the announced, doctrine according may legislature fix the rent of all tenements residences, used for without refer- ence to the cost of their like erection. If the owner does not the rates he prescribed, cease his houses. He renting granted court, an interest in the use of the public, says Oct. Munn 1876.] and he his withdraw

buildings, grant by discontinuing use; but, use, so as he maintains he must submit long to the control.” The is interested in the manufacture cotton, woollen, fabrics, silken construction of in the of books and machinery, printing publication peri- odicals, and in the of utensils of making every variety, useful ornamental; indeed, there an or busi- enterprise hardly ness the attention and labor of considerable engaging por- tion of the in which the has not an interest community, in the sense in which that is used term the court in its opin- ; ion and the doctrine which allows the to interfere legislature with and which the owners of charges property thus shall use, is, make for its the rates at employed which all these different on, kinds of business shall be carried has never asserted, before been aware, so far as I 'am by any tribunal in the judicial United States. court, doctrine of the State that no one is deprived within the inhibi- constitutional meaning

tion, so as lie retains its title and long and the doc- possession, trine of court, that, whenever one’s is used in such a manner as to affect the it beeom'es community large, that fact clothed with a interest, and ceases juris to me to privati for all useful only, appear destroy, pur- poses, constitutional All that is efficacy guaranty. beneficial in arises from use, the fruits of that use; and whatever deprives him person deprives them all that is desirable or valuable in the title and If possession. the constitutional extends no further than to guaranty prevent of title and deprivation and allows a possession, deprivation use, use, fruits of that it does not merit the enco- miums it has received. Unless I have misread the history the provision now constitutions, into all our incorporated State the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments into our Federal Constitution, and have misunderstood it has the interpretation received, it is not thus limited in its and thus scope, impotent for It has a good. much more extended than either operation court, State, or Federal has to it. it is given provision, observed, under the as places same protection life liber due no State can Except process Gy. Ct. of either. The has been

deprive any person provision supposed to secure to individual the essential conditions for the every and for that reason has not been hereto- happiness; pursuit fore, be, and should construed in or restricted never narrow any sense. life, No shall or deprive any person liberty, prop- law,” due the Fourteenth Amend- without erty process says “ life,” used, to the as here ment Constitution. the term By existence. The more is meant than mere animal something limbs its extends to all those inhibition deprivation against life is faculties which equally enjoyed. provision of an mutilation prohibits body by amputation out of an the destruction arm or or the leg, putting eye, the soul com- other any organ body through municates with the outer world. The deprivation life, life, but of whatever one with God given every its for is growth prohibited provision enjoyment, if be not frittered question, judicial efficacy away by decision. the term as used in the something By liberty,” provision, is meant than mere from restraint more freedom physical one to where the bounds It means freedom prison. go choose, manner, not inconsistent with and to act others, as his dictate for pro- equal rights judgment may is, motion of his such callings happiness; pursue his as be most suitable to avocations develop capacities, them their highest give enjoyment. for the The same liberal construction which required pro- of life and in all in which life and tection particulars liberty, value, are of should be protection any applied liberty State, under If the of- pretence private property. legislature reason, other can for the or for public good, providing determine, owner, to which the consent of the the uses against devoted, shall be or the prices private property uses, owner shall for its it can him receive prop- deprive act for its confiscation erty completely special If, instance, destruction. owner prohibited which was using designed, building purposes it is to retain of little that he is consequence permitted Illinois, Oct. 1876.] v, or, title and lie is to as if take compen- possession; compelled sation its use than the to which he is sub- less expenses is, its he all jected by ownership, practical purposes, deprived of the as as if the had ordered property, effectually legislature his If it forcible be admitted that dispossession. legislar has ture control the extent over the of any compensation, becomes a mere discretion. matter legislative The amount fixed will destruction partial operate value of the if it fall below the amount which the property, and, owner contract, would obtain as a practically, complete destruction, if it be less than the its cost possession. retaining is, There indeed, the constitu- no value under protection tional to the does extend use income provision, as well to its title possession.

This court has held heretofore that a con instances many stitutional intended provision protection rights of should be construed. It so held liberally numerous cases where it has been called to upon give effect to the the States from provision legislation prohibiting contracts; con impairing obligation provision being the. strued itself, to secure from tbe direct attack not contract only but all the essential it incidents which value enable give its owner Thus, Kinzie, to enforce it. Bronson reported Howard, 1st of was held that an act the legislature Illinois, to a months twelve within which giving mortgagor redeem to sale, from a mortgaged judicial its sale for less than of its prohibiting two-thirds appraised value, was void as executed applied mortgages, prior It was contended, act, passage. support affected did not remedy mortgagee, impair contract; but the court that there was substan replied difference tial between a law retrospective declaring particu lar contract to be void, and one whichJ took abrogated it, away enforce or incumbered the remedy remedy conditions that rendered it useless or impracticable pursue And, it. to the constitutional the court referring provision, said, Mr. Chief speaking Justice that “it through would Taney, unjust .men framed who memory distinguished it, to that it barren and suppose mere designed protect- was Ct. Munn v. busi without any operation practical right,

abstract aas of the Con was of life. It adopted part ness undoubtedly and useful It to maintain stitution for a purpose. great contracts, to secure their execu faithful the integrity Union, them this under by placing protec tion throughout of the would United States. And tion the Constitution court, circumstances, this under depart but ill become any used, and to sanction a the words meaning plain and would whieh right distinction between remedy, the. and mere words illusive nugatory, render this provision re and form, no no producing practical affording protection sult.” v. Green Wall. Bay Company, Pumpelly

And That case arose of the court equally emphatic. language declares, the consti- Wisconsin, constitution of which like not States, all the that' shall tutions of private nearly property this use without and taken for just compensation; be one’s land a dam constructed held that the court flooding ,-river within under a law of the State a across taking to made to the and required prohibition, court, thus The of the land flooded. speaking through owner — Miller, said: Justice Mr. result, if, in con unsatisfactory It be a curious and very would law, understood to have always of constitutional

struing provision indi of the security for adopted rights been protection the com as received government, vidual against statesmen, commentators, as mendation of placing jurists, the common on that beyond law principles subject just them, or control it shall ordinary legislation change power that, if the refrains from the conversion held absolute government it can real to the uses of the its value destroy property public, extent, can inflict entirely, any irreparable permanent injury can, effect, it to total destruction without making subject because, word, in .the sense of the it is compensation, narrowest for use. a construction taken Such would pervert on the citi into restriction of the constitutional provision rights zen, as those stood the common instead of the gov rights ernment, and an invasion make it authority in the of the had under no pretext good, which warrant .of our ancestors.” practices laws Munn v. Oct. 1876.] citations, case, views in these to this expressed applied would render the constitutional invoked the de- provision uses,' income, fendants them in the effectual to protect revenues of their well as its title and property, possession. The construction the State court and given actually court makes the in the provision, language Taney, protec- “to tion a mere barren and abstract without right, any practi life,” cal the business of and renders it illusive operation upon form, mere words no nugatory, affording protection result.” producing practical of the over of the citizen under

the constitutional is well defined. The State guaranty may uses, take upon just compensation being made therefor. It take a of his portion may property by way of taxation- for the It support control government. the use and of his so far possession be neces- of others, sary protection and to secure to rights them the use and of their equal The doc- enjoyment property. trine that each must one so use own as his not to his injure — — sio wtere tuo ut is alienum non Icedas the rule neighbor which member of must and his every society possess enjoy and all secure essential to this common property; legislation is a exercise of equal State enjoyment legitimate authority. in cases where be to arrest Except may property destroyed or the or conflagration be taken under the ravages pestilence, of an immediate and pressure overwhelming necessity pre- vent a of the State over the power calamity, prop- citizen does not extend such limits. erty beyond is It true that the which secures to all legislation protection in their of their equal use rights, enjoyment prop- an almost infinite embraces of' Whatever erty, variety subjects. order, morals, affects the health the commu- peace, good comes within-its one must use and nity, scope; every enjoy his to the restrictions which such property subject legislation State, which, What is termed the imposes. police power it, from the often used would one language respecting suppose to be an undefined and element' in irresponsible government, can interfere with the conduct individuals in their inter- other, course with each and in of their the use so far property, VOL. IV. Ct, these to secure objects. compensation required may or not rights the owners having any special property, it, in connection with de- may from the government

privileges it, forms use, services in union with its or for their own mand for for that no element of consideration regulations prescribing State, or in a If one construct building city, purpose. State, exercising delegated municipality the uses thickness for its walls to be of sufficient require may mate- ; inflammable it forbid intended employment may his construction, as not to so endanger safety rials its hall, theatre, church, it as a if or designed neighbors; for so as to'afford means of facility ample egress, may prescribe in it accident; forbid the it in case of may storage escape material; it or other explosive may nitro-glycerine, powder, to remove vegetable decayed require occupants daily matter, which would otherwise accumulate engender animal disease; and business exclude from it all occupations may In- infect the air. to disturb the or calculated neighborhood the use of deed, end of there respect regulations having prescribed, legitimately order, health of their safety, object peace, good of their thus to all the equal enjoyment securing community, evident these : but regulations establishing or the use of to the owner for that compensation it, is not a in union with any impor- his services matter not affect the sum another does : it be one tance whether enforce- mode of to its respect utility regulation/either ment, manner, the whole round in like through One go, municipal, authorized legislation, regulations instance will and in no under what is termed police power, of his for the use of the owner find that he It is them. influence in has establishing property the conferred or government where some by right privilege use owner, he can in connection the or upon municipality the use of his means of which with his or property property, him, or he is rendered more to thereby enjoys.an valuable to be received others, the over advantage compensation to matter of Submission him becomes legitimate regulation. con- cases is an of implied the regulation Oct. Münn v. 1876.] dition of the State, the of grant, exercising power the prescribing determines the conditions compensation, only which its concession shall be the When privi- enjoyed. ends, the of ceases. lege regulation Jurists writers on law find exer the authority cise of this of the the numerous police power regula tions which it stated, the prescribes doctrine already one must use and with the every enjoy property consistently others, of use and them of rights equal enjoyment their State,” of the the property. police power says. " Vermont, of Court extends the Supreme protection lives, limbs, health, comfort, and of the quiet persons, pro tection of all maxim, the State. to the sic property According Icedas, tuo which, utere ut alienum non of universal being appli cation, must, course, it of be within the of legislative range action to the mode and manner in which one may every define to injure so use his own as not v. others.” Rutland & Thorpe Co., Railroad 27 Vt. 149. “We think it a settled Burlington of out the nature of well-ordered civil principlagrowing society,” Massachusetts, Court of holder says Supreme- every title, however be his unqualified property, may absolute holds under the -of that his use it shall implied liability injurious to the others an equal enjoyment having equal to the their nor right enjoyment injurious property, rights community.” Commonwealth Cush. 84. Alger, Commentaries, In his after afforded speaking protection the Constitution to private Chancellor Kent says:—

“ But be thus still though to be protected, under- stood that to' mode law-giver prescribe it, manner of so using necessary prevent abuse far right, others, or injury annoyance the public. The government may, by general regulations, interdict such uses create would nuisances become dangerous lives, health, or comfort of the peace, citizens. Unwholesome trades, slaughter-houses, senses, the. operations offensive to deposit powder, application cars, steam-power propel materials, with combustible building dead, and the burial all be interdicted the-niidst of dense massesof pop- Ct. v. 148' every person rational ulation, principle and on the general his and that not to neighbors, injure so to use ought property his interests general be made subservient must private interests Kent, 340.- the community. of show The citations Italics in these citations are mine. case, the what I have stated to be the regulations already authorizes State, which the in the exercise of its police power, use of are independent entirely .respect property the use, or for services any question compensation with it. owner connection business of is of the There the character nothing interference which defendants warehousemen called nuisances; Their are of in this case. buildings complained and upon their grain infringes occupation receiving storing others, no infects not no disturbs neighborhood, rights air, and in no others from prevents using enjoying respect their as to them seem best. The legislation property of absolute less than a bold assertion question power nothing and busi its the State to control at discretion property he shall receive. citizen, ness of and fix compensation condition which upon The will of the made legislature of his just the owner shall receive the fruits property labor, That reward enterprise. govern industry, ment,” be free where can be deemed to scarcely says Story, the will left are dependent upon property solely rights j The fundamental without restraint. legislative body that the of a free seem require maxims rights government be held sacred.” should personal- liberty private-property Leland, 2 of the court in Pet. 657. The decision Wilkeson will. license to this case legislative unrestrained gives ' in the counsel several mentioned argument, instances fixed in which aiid court legislation opinion, the use of their may-receive parties services, the views I have -do not militate against State, over the expressed ferries, cases of bridges, citizen. were mostly They and of inter- hackmen, of'wharfingers, draymen, turnpikes, on- cases, interest In these except est on money. was some shall special I presently money, notice^there Oct. 1876.] Munn v. Illinois. one, State or I municipality; granted by

privilege that the has ever contended State had not suppose, which such the conditions should privilege prescribe no The State such cases exercises greater right enjoyed. than an individual exercise over the use of his own may prop- when leased or loaned to others. conditions The erty or which the shall be stated implied privilege enjoyed being is, course, no its authorizing grant, right legislation their enforcement. The impaired by recipient privilege, effect, with the conditions. It matters stipulates comply conferred, not how limited the privilege acceptance implies an assent to the of its use regulation it. which the hackman and privilege have drayman streets, to the use of stands on the not allowed to the public teams, coachman or laborer with a constitutes sufficient ordinary warrant for the of their fares. In the case regulation of the. warehousemen of no or Chicago, conferred right privilege them; government upon hence assent of theirs can interference with their alleged any justify charges use their property. from the Hale, Matthew quotations Sir far writings so court,

from do supporting positions recognize interference even to the extent government, which I have admitted to be legitimate. state that the They franchise merely of a public belongs cannot be used ferry king, him, license from or except subject time out prescription mind; when and that has a subject wharf license or from the king, dedicated his having wharf private as in the a case of street him public, opened his through land, own he must allow the use the wharf for reasonable Thus, and moderate in the first charges. which is quotation his Maris, taken from treatise De Jure Hale that the says king “ a franchise or no man privilege, set may up a for all common without a ferry passengers time prescription out of mind or charter from a He make king. a ferry for his or the use of own use but not family, for the com- use mon of all the subjects king’s passing because way; doth tend to a common consequent is become charge, a use, interest and man for his thing every passage Ot Munn v. Illinois. toll, a which is a. common pays charge, every ought ferry viz., to be under a at attendance public regulation, give times, order, due boat in due and take but reasonable keep toll; for if fail in who he these he is finable.” Of one course, obtains a license from to establish king ferry, toll,” man must take it on for his a- every passage pays indeed, toll, and, condition that he sub- reasonable charge only to such as the ject prescribe. regulations king may J)e In the' second is taken from his treatise quotation, — Maris, Portibus Hale says: man, town,

“A for his own in a may, advantage, port crane, rates he and his cus- set wharf take what up ; for he tomers can agree cranage, wharfage, housellage, pesage do, viz., than no more is lawful for man to makes the doth wharf, If the most his own. have king subject that come and un- persons unto which to that must come port lade or lade their as for because are the goods the purpose, licensed the wharves or because there is no only by king, in that fall out a other wharf as it where port, port newly erected, in that case there be taken and excessive cannot arbitrary &c.; duties for neither can be en- cranage, wharfage, pesage, they rate, hanced to an immoderate but the duties must be reasonable moderate, settled the license or charter. though by king’s and and crane and other are affected For the wharf conveniences now interest, ; a cease to juris privati with jrablie only land, a if a man set out street new on his own it is now building interest, is affected .bare but the longer private public by interest.” is, wharf, of which that if one have a

The purport public by dedication, the his own he must from or license government for use. reasonable its its dedicar exact compensation only By use, a wharf is as much under com- tion to the brought to as it mon-law rule reasonable would be subjection charges or the crown. if established licensed All by originally owner, to use an individual as in dedicated ease the street, once, for falls at force of of land a the dedi- park cation, the under law the governing property appropriated by for similar purposes. government doubt

I do not the of the encomiums Sir justice passed upon Oct. 1876.] Munn v. Illinois. Hale as a learned but I am unable

Matthew jurist his day; his observations fer- upon public perceive, pertinency wharves, found in ries his treatises on The. Rights Sea,” on Ports of the of the Sea’’.and “The to the questions Illinois, law of presented warehousing undertaking received the owners of when that is used for property, private purposes. cited in support ruling authority principal Bench, decided Alnutt v. court is that of Inglis, King’s case, East. 'But that so nr 12 far sustaining reported establishes, in the doctrine that my judgment, ruling, every use, his for or for what- one has right charge property, unless he in connection with it some he ever enjoys pleases, others; from the accorded government privilege right then it decides what is above stated in the even quo- submit, Hale, from Matthew must so Sir that he tations long to reasonable rates. In he retains right privilege, case, London Dock under certain acts of Parlia- Company, ment, the exclusive right possessed receiving imported goods warehouses before the duties were into their paid; whether the was bound to receive them company question reward*,or whether it could reasonable fix its for a arbitrarily case, Justice, In Lord Chief compensation. deciding, —said: Ellenborough, favored, is no doubt that the' general There both in principle fix man he every what justice, price pleases law it; if, but or the use of his particular own purpose, to resort and make premises have use of them, he have if he monopoly purpose, will them must, benefit of that he take the as an monopoly, equivalent, attached to it on terms.” reasonable perform duty And, to the conclusion the that warehouses coming company’s invested with the of were he monopoly privilege-,” the must confine held that law itself to take rea- company rates; added, sonable if the crown should thereafter to the extend more think privilege to it».advisable generally other so that the would be re- persons places, a choice of strained warehouses for the exercising purpose, be enfranchised from the restriction the which might company Munn v. Illinois. Cfc. attached but, to a so as its warehouses were monopoly; long the which could be resorted to for that only places the purpose, was bound to let the trade company have the use of them for hire and reasonable reward. The other of the court judges their placed concurrence in the decision the upon ground the business, company possessed legal monopoly having warehouses where could be only goods imported lawfully received without of the duties. From this previous payment case it where some appears privilege bestowal of the in connection with the government enjoyed that it' is affected with a interest any proper sense of the terms. It is the conferred with public privilege the use of the ip which creates the interest it. property

In the case decided Alabama, Court of where Supreme bakers, Mobile to license power granted and to city bread, was sustained so regulate weight far as price concerned, of the bread regulating no weight question was made as ‘to the 3 Ala. right regulate 137. price. There is no doubt of the competency prescribe bread, of a loaf of as it weight declare what may weight shall constitute a or a ton. I pound power 'deny '’.But under our to fix the any legislature which government price one shall receive for his kind. If the article, can be exercised as to one articles, as to all from a calico prices mansion, to a every thing, gown city be the direction. subject legislative Other instances of a similar character doubt, may, cited of interference with the attempted legislative rights The act property. Congress mentioned court, is one of them. There Congress confer undertook upon city Washington power rates wharves, at and the fees for wharfage chim- sweeping Until some authoritative is had neys. adjudication these adhere, similar I must provisions, notwithstanding leg- islation, to that those who own my opinion, have the fix the use, will allow right compensation they and that those who control services have a to fix the com- at which will rendered. pensation chimney- think, claim I all the sweeps may, safely Oct. v. 1876.] can obtain In tbe for tbeir work. absence of by bargain services, contract for or allows law any only reasonable but what is a reasonable price compensation; considerations, case will price depend upon variety and is not a matter determination. for legislative tbe interest practice receiv regulating by legislation able for tbe use of wben considered with to money, reference is tbe assertion of a of tbe to origin, right government control tbe extent to wbicb a it privilege granted by may exercised and tbe ancient common law it was enjoyed. By unlawful to take use who did tbe all any money money: usurers, so were called a term of and were great reproach, church; to tbe if, censure of tbe after tbe exposed death of a discovered been that be bad a usurer person, whilst bis chattels were forfeited to tbe and bis living, lands king, escheated to tbe lord of tbe fee. No action could be maintained on for tbe use of because of tbe any promise pay money, unlawfulness of the contract. tbe common law thus Whilst all interfered, Parliament and made it condemned lawful usury, to take a limited amount of interest. It was not tbe tbe could fix tbe theory legislature arbitrarily compensa tion wbicb which, one could receive for tbe use of property, law, tbe was tbe general of hire for subject compensation, acted, Parliament but in order to confer a wbicb tbe privilege common law denied. Tbe reasons wbicb led to this legislation exist; have since ceased to and if tbe originally long legislation in, is still is because a persisted in the long acquiescence exercise of a wben it was assumed power, especially rightfully instance, in tbe first received as sufficient evidence generally of its continued lawfulness. 10 Bac. Abr. 264.*

There were also the/ ancient com- recognized England, by mon certain tbe lord of tbe privileges belonging manor, wbicb out of tbe state of tbe tbe condi- grew country, tion of tbe and tbe between him and people, existing relation * interest, per 13 Eliz. statute of e. which allows ten cent recites ” usury, sin, being God, detestable; forbidden tbe law of stat- the' Eirst, cent, reducing eight per provided ute of 21 James the that noth- rate ing point practice usury in the law should be construed to allow the — conscience,” religion introduced, said, bishops, satisfy a clause it is who would not vole for the bill without it. Munn v. Illinois. Ct. under the his tenants feudal these was "the 'system. Among of the lord to all the tenants within his manor compel their corn at his mill. one, therefore, No could set grind aup license, mill the license crown, except by unless he claimed the prescription, right by presupposed crown, course, from the lord cr and, of with such grant license went the the tolls to be received. right Woolrych Waters, on the Law c. of Mills. Hence originated doctrine which at one time obtained in this generally country, that there could no be mill to corn for the grind with- public, out a or license from the still, authorities. It is grant I believe, asserted in some States. This doctrine being recog- nized, all the rest followed. The to control right the toll to control the accompanied establishment of the mill. It no comment to out the requires radical point differences between the cases mills and interest on money, that of the warehouses No Chicago. prerogative privi of the crown to establish warehouses lege was ever asserted at the common law. The was, of a warehouseman at business business, common and is so in its nature. It private it, connected with nor did the special privileges law ever extend to it than it extended to any greater all other protection business. Moreason can be assigned justify legisla business, tion with the of that interfering legitimate profits an would equally justify intermeddling business of least, man in the soon, so as his every community, business useful. became generally

I am that the opinion judgment Court of Supreme Illinois should be reversed. Strong.

Mr. Justice When judgment case was announced direction of a court, majority known well brethren that I did not concur in my it. had been It my purpose but I prepare dissenting opinion, found no time for the and I was reluctant to dis- preparation, in such sent a case without reasons. Mr. Justice stating my has now can, Field stated them as as I and I concur in fully what he has said.

Case Details

Case Name: Munn v. Illinois

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Mar 18, 1877

Citation: 94 U.S. 113

Docket Number: 99

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS