[123]*123Mr. Chubb Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
The question to be determined in this case is whether the general assembly of Illinois can, under the limitations upon the legislative power of the States imposed by the Constitution of the United States, fix by law the maximum of charges for the storage of .grain, in warehouses at Chicago and other places in the State having not less than one hundred thousand inhabitants, “ in which grain is stored in bulk, and in which the grain of different owners is mixed together, or in which grain is stored in such a manner that the identity of different lots or parcels cannot be accurately preserved.”
It is claimed that such a law is repugnant —
1. To that, part of sect. 8, art. 1, of the Constitution of the United States which confers upon Congress the power “ to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States; ”
2. To that part of sect. 9 of the same article which provides that “ no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce of revenue to the ports of one State over those of another;” and
3. To that part of amendment 14 which ordains that no State shall “ deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
We will consider the last of these objections first.
Every statute is presumed to be constitutional. The courts ought not to declare one to be unconstitutional, unless it is clearly so. If. there is doubt, the expressed will of the legislature should be sustained.
The Constitution contains no definition of the word “deprive,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment. To determine its signification, therefore, it is necessary to ascertain the effect which usage has given it, when employed in the same or a like connection.
While this provision of the amendment is new in the Constitution of the United States, as a limitation upon the powers of the States, it is old as a principle of civilized government. It is found in Magna Charta, and, in substance if not in form, in [124]*124nearly or quite all the constitutions that have been from time to time adopted by the several States of' the Union. By the Fifth Amendment, it was introduced into the Constitution of the United States as a limitation upon the powers of the national government, and by the Fourteenth, as a guaranty against any encroachment upon an acknowledged right of citizenship by the legislatures of the States.
■ When the people of the United Colonies separated from Great Britain, they changed the form, but not the substance, of their government. They retained for the purposes of government all the powers of the British Parliament, and through their State constitutions, or other forms of social compact, undertook to give practical effect to such as they deemed necessary for the common good and the security of life and property. All the powers which they retained they committed to their respective States, unless in express terms or by implication reserved to themselves. Subsequently, when it was found necessary to establish a national government for national purposes, a part of the powers of the States and of the people of the States was granted to the United States and the people of the. United States. This grant operated as a further limitation upon the powers of the States, so that nowthe governments of the States possess all the powers of the Parliament of England, except such as have been delegated to the United States or reserved by the people. The reservations by the people are shown in the prohibitions of the constitutions.
When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights - or privileges which, as an individual not affected by his relations to others, he might retain. “ A body politic,” as aptly defined in the preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts, “ is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be. governed by certain laws for the common good.” This does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely and exclusively' private, Thorpe v. R. B. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 143; but it does authorize the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government, and [125]*125has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non Icedas. From this source come the police powers, which, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the License Oases, 5 How. 583, “ are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty, . . . that is to say, . . . the power to govern men and things.” Under these powers the government regulates'the conduct of its citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each shall use his own property, when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good. In their exercise it has been customary in England from time immemorial, and in this country from its first colonization, to regulate ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, &c., and in so doing to fix a maximum of charge to be made for services rendered, accommodations furnished, and articles sold. To this day, statutes are to be found in many of the States upon some or all these subjects; and we think it has never yet been successfully contended that such legislation came within any of the constitutional prohibitions against interference with private property. With the Fifth Amendment in force, Congress, in 1820, conferred power upon the city of Washington “to regulate . . . the rates of wharfage at private wharves, . . . the sweeping of chimneys, and to fix the rates of fees therefor, . . . and the weight and quality of bread,” 3,-Stat. 587, sect. 7; and, in 1848, “ to make all necessary regulations respecting hackney carriages and the rates of fare of the same, and the rates of hauling by cartmen, wagoners-, carmen, and draymen, and the rates of commission of auctioneers,” 9 id. 224,, sect. 2.
From this, it is apparent that, down to the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was not supposed that statutes regulating the use, or even the price of the use, of private property necessarily deprived an owner of his property without due process of law. Under some circumstances they may, but not under all. The amendment does not change the law in this particular: it simply prevents the States from doing that which will operate as such a deprivation.
This brings us to inquire as to the principles upon which this power of regulation rests, in order that we may determine what is within and what without its operative effect. Look[126]*126ing, then, to the common law, from whence came the right which the Constitution protects,' we find that when private property is “affected with a puhEc "interest, it ceases to be juris privati only.” .This wás sáíd by Lord Chief Justice Hale more than two hundred years ago, in his treatise De JPortibus Maris, 1 Harg. Law Tracts, 78, and has been accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with_ja public interest when used in a manner to mate it of public consequence, and._.affe.ct.. the„_uo.mmunity at large.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[123]*123Mr. Chubb Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
The question to be determined in this case is whether the general assembly of Illinois can, under the limitations upon the legislative power of the States imposed by the Constitution of the United States, fix by law the maximum of charges for the storage of .grain, in warehouses at Chicago and other places in the State having not less than one hundred thousand inhabitants, “ in which grain is stored in bulk, and in which the grain of different owners is mixed together, or in which grain is stored in such a manner that the identity of different lots or parcels cannot be accurately preserved.”
It is claimed that such a law is repugnant —
1. To that, part of sect. 8, art. 1, of the Constitution of the United States which confers upon Congress the power “ to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States; ”
2. To that part of sect. 9 of the same article which provides that “ no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce of revenue to the ports of one State over those of another;” and
3. To that part of amendment 14 which ordains that no State shall “ deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
We will consider the last of these objections first.
Every statute is presumed to be constitutional. The courts ought not to declare one to be unconstitutional, unless it is clearly so. If. there is doubt, the expressed will of the legislature should be sustained.
The Constitution contains no definition of the word “deprive,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment. To determine its signification, therefore, it is necessary to ascertain the effect which usage has given it, when employed in the same or a like connection.
While this provision of the amendment is new in the Constitution of the United States, as a limitation upon the powers of the States, it is old as a principle of civilized government. It is found in Magna Charta, and, in substance if not in form, in [124]*124nearly or quite all the constitutions that have been from time to time adopted by the several States of' the Union. By the Fifth Amendment, it was introduced into the Constitution of the United States as a limitation upon the powers of the national government, and by the Fourteenth, as a guaranty against any encroachment upon an acknowledged right of citizenship by the legislatures of the States.
■ When the people of the United Colonies separated from Great Britain, they changed the form, but not the substance, of their government. They retained for the purposes of government all the powers of the British Parliament, and through their State constitutions, or other forms of social compact, undertook to give practical effect to such as they deemed necessary for the common good and the security of life and property. All the powers which they retained they committed to their respective States, unless in express terms or by implication reserved to themselves. Subsequently, when it was found necessary to establish a national government for national purposes, a part of the powers of the States and of the people of the States was granted to the United States and the people of the. United States. This grant operated as a further limitation upon the powers of the States, so that nowthe governments of the States possess all the powers of the Parliament of England, except such as have been delegated to the United States or reserved by the people. The reservations by the people are shown in the prohibitions of the constitutions.
When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights - or privileges which, as an individual not affected by his relations to others, he might retain. “ A body politic,” as aptly defined in the preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts, “ is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be. governed by certain laws for the common good.” This does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely and exclusively' private, Thorpe v. R. B. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 143; but it does authorize the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government, and [125]*125has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non Icedas. From this source come the police powers, which, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the License Oases, 5 How. 583, “ are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty, . . . that is to say, . . . the power to govern men and things.” Under these powers the government regulates'the conduct of its citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each shall use his own property, when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good. In their exercise it has been customary in England from time immemorial, and in this country from its first colonization, to regulate ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, &c., and in so doing to fix a maximum of charge to be made for services rendered, accommodations furnished, and articles sold. To this day, statutes are to be found in many of the States upon some or all these subjects; and we think it has never yet been successfully contended that such legislation came within any of the constitutional prohibitions against interference with private property. With the Fifth Amendment in force, Congress, in 1820, conferred power upon the city of Washington “to regulate . . . the rates of wharfage at private wharves, . . . the sweeping of chimneys, and to fix the rates of fees therefor, . . . and the weight and quality of bread,” 3,-Stat. 587, sect. 7; and, in 1848, “ to make all necessary regulations respecting hackney carriages and the rates of fare of the same, and the rates of hauling by cartmen, wagoners-, carmen, and draymen, and the rates of commission of auctioneers,” 9 id. 224,, sect. 2.
From this, it is apparent that, down to the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was not supposed that statutes regulating the use, or even the price of the use, of private property necessarily deprived an owner of his property without due process of law. Under some circumstances they may, but not under all. The amendment does not change the law in this particular: it simply prevents the States from doing that which will operate as such a deprivation.
This brings us to inquire as to the principles upon which this power of regulation rests, in order that we may determine what is within and what without its operative effect. Look[126]*126ing, then, to the common law, from whence came the right which the Constitution protects,' we find that when private property is “affected with a puhEc "interest, it ceases to be juris privati only.” .This wás sáíd by Lord Chief Justice Hale more than two hundred years ago, in his treatise De JPortibus Maris, 1 Harg. Law Tracts, 78, and has been accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with_ja public interest when used in a manner to mate it of public consequence, and._.affe.ct.. the„_uo.mmunity at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.
Thus, as to ferries, Lord Hale says, in his treatise De Jure Maris, 1 Harg. Law Tracts, 6, the' king has “ a right of franchise or privilege, that no man may set up a common ferry for all passengers, without a prescription time out of mind, or a charter from the king. He may make a ferry for his own use or the use of his family, but not for the common use of all the king’s subjects passing that way; because it doth in consequence tend to a common charge, and is become a thing of public interest and use, and every man for his passage pays a toll, which is a common charge, and every ferry ought to be under a public regulation, viz., that it give attendance at due times, keep a boat in due order, and take but reasonable toll; for if he fail in these he is finable.” So if one owns the soil and landing-places on both banks of a stream, he cannot use them for the purposes of a public ferry, except upon such terms and conditions as the body politic may from time to time impose; and this because the common good requires that all public ways shall be under the control of the public authorities. ■ This privilege or prerogative of the king, who in this connection only' represents and gives another name to the body politic, is not primarily for his profit, but for the protection of the people and the promotion of the general welfare-.
[127]*127And, again, as to wharves and wharfingers, Lord Hale, in his treatise De Portibus Maris, already cited, says:
“ A man, for Ms own private advantage, may, in a port or town, set up a 'wharf or crane, and may take what rates he and his customers can agree for cranage, wharfage, housellage, pesage; for he doth no more than is lawful for any man to do, viz., makes the most of his own. ... If the king or subject have a public wharf, unto which all persons that come to that port must come and unlade or lade their goods as for the purpose, because they are the wharfs only licensed by the king, ... or because there is" no other wharf in that port, as it may fall out where a port is newly erected; in that case there cannot be taken arbitrary and excessive duties for cranage, wharfage, pesage, &c., neither can they be enhanced to an immoderate rate; but the duties must be reasonable and moderate, though settled by the king’s license or charter. For now the wharf and crane and other conveniences are affected with a public interest, and they cease to be juris privati only ; as if a man set out a street in new building on his own land, it is now no longer bare private interest, but is affected by a public interest.”
This statement of the law by Lord Hale was cited with approbation and acted upon by Lord Kenyon at the beginning of the present century, in Bolt v. Stennett, 8 T. R. 606.
And the same has been held as to warehouses and warehouse-men. In Aldnutt v. Inglis, 12 East, 527, decided in 1810, it appeared that the London Dock Company had built warehouses in which wines were taken in store at such rates of charge as the company and the owners might agree upon. Afterwards the company obtained authority, under the general warehousing act, to receive wines from importers before the duties upon the importation were paid; and the question was, whether they could charge arbitrary rates for such storage, or must be content with a reasonable compensation. Upon this point Lord Ellenborough said (p. 587) : —
“ There is no doubt that the general principle is favored, both in law and justice, that every man may fix what price he pleases upon his own property, or the use of it.; but if for a particular purpose the public have a right to resort to his premises and make use of them, and he have a monopoly in them for that purpose, if [128]*128he will take the benefit of that monopoly, he must, as an equivalent, perform the duty attached to it on reasonable terms. The question then is, whether, circumstanced as this company is, by the combination of the warehousing act with the act by which they were originally constituted, and with the actually existing state of things in the port of London, whereby they alone have the warehousing of these wines, they be not, according to the doctrine of Lord Hale, obliged to limit themselves to a reasonable compensation for such warehousing. And, according to him, whenever the accident of time casts upon a party the benefit of having a legal monopoly of landing goods in a public port, as where he is the owner of the only wharf authorized to receive goods which happens to be built in a port newly erected, he is confined to take reasonable compensation only for the use of the wharf.”
And further on (p. 539) : —
“ It is enough that there exists in the place and for the commodity in question a virtual monopoly of the warehousing for this purpose, on which the principle of law attaches, as laid down by Lord Hale in the passage referred to [that from J>e Portibus Maris already quoted], which includes the good sense as well as the law of the subject.”
And in the same case Le Blanc, J., said (p. 541) : —
“ Then, admitting these warehouses to be private property, and that the company might discontinue this application of them, or that they might have made what terms they pleased in the first instance, yet having, as they now have, this monopoly, the question is, whether the warehouses be not private property clothed with a public right, and, if so, the principle of law attaches upon them. The privilege, then, of bonding these wines being at present confined by the act of Parliament to the company’s warehouses, is it not the privilege of the public, and shall not that which is for the good of the public attach on the monopoly, that they shall not be bound to pay an arbitrary but a reasonable rent ? But upon this record the company resist having their demand for warehouse rent confined within any limit; and, though it does not follow that the rent in fact fixed by them is um-easonable, they do not choose to insist on its being reasonable for the purpose- of raising the question. For this purpose, therefore, the question may be taken to be whether they may claim an unreasonable rent. But though this be private property, yet the principle laid down by Lord Hale attaches [129]*129upon it, that when private property is affected with a public interest it ceases to be juris privati only; and, in case of its dedication to such a purpose as this, the owners cannot take arbitrary and excessive duties, but the duties must be reasonable.”
We have quoted thus largely the words of these eminent expounders of the common law, because, as we think, we find in them the principle which supports the legislation we are now examining. Of Lord Hale it was once said by a learned American judge, —
“ In England, even on rights of prerogative, they scan his words with as much care as if they had been found in Magna Charta; and the meaning once ascertained, they do not trouble themselves to search any further.” 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 536, note.
In later times, the same principle came under consideration in the Supreme Court of Alabama. That court was called upon, in 1841, to decide whether the power granted to the city of Mobile to regulate the weight and price of bread was unconstitutional, and it was contended that “ it would interfere with the right of the citizen to pursue his lawful trade or calling in the mode his judgment might dictate; ” but the court said, “ there is no motive . . . for this interference on the part of the legislature with the lawful actions of individuals, or the mode in which private property shall be enjoyed, unless such calling affects the public interest, or private property is employed in a manner which-directly affects the body of the people. Upon this principle, in this State, tavern-keepers are licensed; . . . and the County Court is required,, at least once a year, to settle the rates of innkeepers. Upon the same principle is founded the control which the legislature: has always exercised in the establishment and regulation of mills, ferries, bridges, turnpike roads, and other kindred subjects.” Mobile v. Yuille, 3 Ala. n. s. 140.
From the same source comes the power to regulate' the charges of common carriers, which was done in England as long ago as the third year of the reign of William and Mary, and continued until within á comparatively recent period. And in the first statute we find the following suggestive preamble, to wit: —
[130]*130" And whereas divers wagoners and other earners, by combination amongst themselves, have raised the prices of carriage of goods in many places to excessive rates, to the great injury of the trade: Be it, therefore, enacted,” &c. 3 W. & M. c. 12, § 24; 3 Stat, at Large (Great Britain), 481.
Common carriers exercise a sort of public office, and have duties to perform in which the public is interested. New Jersey Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 382. Their business is, therefore, “ affected with a public interest,” within the meaning of the doctrine which Lord Hale has so forcibly stated.
But we need not go further. Enough has already been said to show that, when private property is devoted to a public use, it is subject to public regulation. It remains only to ascertain whether the warehouses of these plaintiffs in error, and the business which is carried on there, come within the operation of this principle.
For this purpose we accept as true the statements of fact contained in the elaborate brief of one of the counsel of the plaintiffs in error. From these it appears that “ the great producing region of the West and North-west sends its grain by water and rail to Chicago, where the greater, part of it is shipped by vessel for transportation to the seaboard by the Great Lakes, and some of it is forwarded by railway to the Eastern ports. . . . Vessels, to some extent, are loaded in the Chicago harbor, and sailed through the St. Lawrence directly to Europe. . . . The quantity [of grain] received in Chicago has made it the greatest grain market in the world. This business has created a demand for means by which the immense quantity of grain can be handled or stored, and these have been found in grain warehouses, which are commonly called elevators, because the grain is elevated from the boat or car, by machinery operated by steam, into the bins prepared for its reception, and elevated from the bins, by a like process, into the vessel or car which is to carry it on. . . . In this way the largest traffic between the citizens of the country north and west of Chicago and the citizens of the country lying on the Atlantic coast north of Washington is in grain which passes through the elevators of Chicago. In this way the trade in grain is carried on by the inhabitants of seven or eight of the [131]*131great States of the West with four or five of the States lying on the seashore, and forms the largest part of inter-state commerce in these States. The grain warehouses or elevators in Chicago are immense structures, holding from 300,000 to 1,000,000 bushels at one time, according to size. They are divided into bins of large capacity and great strength. . . , They are located with the river harbor on one side and the railway tracks on the other; and the grain is run through them from car to vessel, or boat to car, as may be demanded in the course of business. It has been found impossible to preserve each owner’s grain separate, and this has given rise to a system of inspection and grading, by which the grain of different owners is mixed, and receipts issued for the number of bushels which are negotiable, and redeemable in like kind, upon demand. This mode of conducting the business was inaugurated more than twenty years ago, and has grown to immense proportions. The railways have found it impracticable to own such elevators, and public policy forbids the transaction of such business by the carrier; the ownership has, therefore, been by private individuals, who have embarked their capital and devoted their industry to such business as a private pursuit.”
In this connection it must also be borne in mind that, although in 1874 there were in Chicago fourteen warehouses adapted to this particular business, and owned by about thirty persons, nine business firms controlled them, and that the prices charged and received for storage were such “ as have been from year to year agreed upon and established by the different elevators or warehouses in the city of Chicago, and which rates have been annually published in one or more newspapers printed in said city, in the month of January in each year, as the established rates for the yéar then next ensuing such publication.” Thus it is apparent that all the elevating facilities through which these vast productions “of seven or eight great States of the West” must pass on the way “ to four or five of the States on the seashore ” may be a “ virtual ” monopoly.
Under such circumstances it is difficult to see why, if the common carrier, or the miller, or the ferryman, or the innkeeper, or the wharfinger, or the baker, or the cartman, or the [132]*132hackney-coachman, pursues a public employment and exercises “ a sort of public office,” these plaintiffs in error do not. They stand, tc use again the language of their counsel, in the very “gateway of commerce,” and take toll from all who pass. Their business most certainly “ tends to a common charge, and is become a thing of public interest and use.” Every bushel of grain for its passage “ pays a toll, which is a common charge,” and, therefore, according to Lord Hale, every such warehouseman “ ought to be under public regulation, viz., that he . . . take but reasonable toll.” Certainly, if any business can be clothed “ with a public interest, and cease to be juris privati only,” this has been. It may not be made so by.the operation of the Constitution of Illinois or this statute, but it is by the facts.
We also are not permitted to overlook the fact that, for some reason, the people of Illinois, when they revised their Constitution in 1870, saw fit to make it the duty of the general assembly to pass laws “ for the protection of producers, shippers, and receivers of grain and produce,” art. 13, sect. 7; and by sect. 5 of the same article, to require all railroad companies receiving and transporting grain in bulk or otherwise to deliver the same at any elevator to which it might be consigned, that could be reached by any track that was or could be used by such company, and that all railroad companies should permit connections to be made with their tracks, so that any public warehouse, &c., might be reached by the cars on their railroads. This indicates very clearly that during the twenty years in which this peculiar business had been assuming its present “ immense proportions,” something had occurred which led the whole body of the people to suppose that remedies such as are usually employed to prevent abuses by virtual monopolies might not be inappropriate here. For our purposes we must assume that, if a state of facts could exist that would justify such legislation, it actually did exist when the statute now under consideration was passed. For us the question is one of power, not of expediency. If no state of circumstances could exist to justify such a statute, then we may declare this one void, because in excess of the legislative power of the State. But if it could, we must presume it did. Of the'propriety of legisla[133]*133tive interference within the scope of legislative power, the legislature is the exclusive judge.
Neither is it a matter of any moment that no precedent can be found for a statute precisely like this. It is conceded that the business is one of recent origin, that its growth has been rapid, and that it is already of great importance. And it must also be conceded that it is a business in which the whole public has a direct and positive interest. It presents, therefore, a case for the application of a long-known and well-established principle in social science, and this statute simply extends the law so as to meet this new development of commercial progress. There is no attempt to compel these owners to grant the public an interest in their property, but to declare their obligations, if they use it in this particular manner.
It matters not in this case that these plaintiffs in error had built their warehouses and established their business before the regulations complained of were adopted. What they did was from the beginning subject to the power of the body politic to require them to conform to such regulations as might be established by the proper authorities for the common good. They entered upon their business and provided themselves with the means to carry it on subject to this condition. If they did not wish to submit themselves to such interference, they should not have clothed the public with an interest in their concerns. The same principle applies to them that does to the'proprietor of a hackney-carriage, and as to him it has never been supposed that he was exempt from regulating statutes or ordinances because he had purchased his horses and carriage and established his business before the statute or the ordinance Avas adopted.
It is insisted, hoAvever, that the oivner of property is entitled to a reasonable compensation for its use, even though it be clothed with a public interest, and that what is reasonable is a judicial and not a legislative question.
As has already been shoAvn, the practice has been otherAvise. In countries where the common law prevails, it ha3 been customary from .time immemorial for the legislature to declare what shall be a reasonable compensation under such circumstances, or, perhaps more properly speaking, to fix a maximum beyond which any charge made would be unreason[134]*134able. Undoubtedly, in mere private contracts, relating to matters in 'wbicb tbe public has no interest,- wbat is reasonable must be ascertained judicially. But this is because tbe legislature bas no control over such a contract. So, too, in matters wbicb do affect tbe public interest, and as to wbicb legislative control may be exercised, if there are no statutory regulations upon tbe subject, the courts must determine wbat is reasonable. Tbe controlling fact is tbe power to regulate at all. If that exists, tbe right to establish tbe maximum of charge, as one of tbe means of regulation, is implied. In fact, the common-law rule, wbicb requires tbe charge to be reasonable, is itself a regulation as to price. Without it tbe owner could make bis rates at will, and compel the public to yield to bis terms, or forego tbe use.
But a mere common-law regulation of trade or business may be changed by statute. A person bas no property, no vested interest, in any rule of tbe common law. That is only one of tbe forms of municipal law, and is no more sacred than any other. Bights of property wbicb have been created by tbe common law cannot be taken away without due process; but tbe law itself, as a rule of conduct, may be changed at tbe will, or even at tbe whim, of tbe legislature, unless prevented by. constitutional bmitations. Indeed, tbe great office of statutes is to remedy defects in tbe common law as they are developed, and to adapt it to tbe changes of time and circumstances. To limit tbe rate of charge for services rendered in a public employment, or for tbe use of property in wbicb the public has an interest, is only changing a regulation wbicb existed before. It establishes no new principle in tbe law, but only gives a new effect to an old one.
We know that this is a power wbicb maybe abused; but that is no argument against its existence. For protection against abuses by legislatures tbe people must resort to tbe polls, not to tbe courts.
After what bas already been said, it is unnecessary to refer at length to tbe effect of the other provision of tbe Fourteenth Amendment wbicb is relied.upon, viz., that no State shall “ deny to any person within its jurisdiction tbe equal protection of tbe laws.” Certainly, it cannot be claimed that this prevents tbe State from regulating tbe fares of hackmen or tbe [135]*135charges of draymen in Chicago, unless it does the same thing in every other place within its jurisdiction. But, as has. been seen, the power to regulate the business of warehouses depends upon the same principle as the power to regulate hackmen and draymen, and what cannot be done in the one case in this particular cannot be done in the other.
We come now to consider the effect upon this statute of the power of Congress to regulate commerce.
It was very properly said in the case of the State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 293, that “it is not every thing that affects commerce that amounts to a regulation of it, within the meaning of the Constitution.” The warehouses of these plaintiffs in error are situated and their business carried on exclusively within the limits of the State of Illinois. They are used as instruments by those engaged in State as well as those engaged in inter-state' commerce, but they are no more necessarily a part of commerce itself than the. dray or the cart by which, but for them, grain would be transferred from one railroad station to another. Incidentally they may become connected with inter-state commerce, but not necessarily so. Their regulation is a thing of domestic concern, and, certainly, until Congress acts in reference to their inter-state relations, the State may exercise all the powers of government over them, even though in so doing it may indirectly operate upon commerce outside its immediate jurisdiction. We do not say that a case may not arise in which it will be found that a State, under the form of regulating its own affairs, has encroached upon the exclusive domain of Congress in respect to inter-state commerce, but we do say that, upon the facts as they are represented to us in this record, that has not been done.
The remaining objection, to wit, that. the statute in its present, form is repugnant to sect. 9, art. 1, of the Constitution of the United States, because it gives preference to the ports of one State over those of another, may be disposed of by the. single remark that this provision operates only as a limitation, of the powers of Congress, and in no respect affects the States in the regulation of their domestic affairs.
We conclude, therefore, that the statute in question is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and that [136]*136there is no error in the judgment. In passing upon this case we have not been unmindful of the vast importance of the questions involved. This and cases of a kindred character were argued before us more than a year ago by most eminent counsel, and in a manner worthy of their well-earned reputations. We have kept the cases long under advisement, in order that their decision might be the result of our maturo deliberations.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Strong dissented.