Granger Laws

Last updated

The Granger Laws were a series of laws passed in several midwestern states of the United States, namely Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois, in the late 1860s and early 1870s. [1] The Granger Laws were promoted primarily by a group of farmers known as The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry. The main goal of the Granger was to regulate rising fare prices of railroad and grain elevator companies after the American Civil War. The laws, which upset major railroad companies, were a topic of much debate at the time and ended up leading to several important court cases, such as Munn v. Illinois and Wabash v. Illinois .

Contents

The railroads targeted by these laws, such as the Rock Island, Chicago & North Western, and the Milwaukee Road, are sometimes called "granger railroads."

The effects of the Granger Laws

Certain aspects of the Granger Laws varied from state to state, but all of the involved states shared the same intent: to make pricing of railroad rates more favorable to farmers, small rural farmers in particular, in the states. This common aspiration was a result of the laws being promoted heavily in state politics by the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry (Grange). [2] The Grange was an organization of farmers that stretched throughout the Midwestern United States and filtered into the Southern United States. Despite the highest proportion of its members being in Kansas and Nebraska, the Grange were most effective in Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, where the Granger laws were eventually passed. [1] The two Granger laws that became the best-known were those passed in Illinois and Wisconsin.

The Illinois Granger Laws

The Illinois granger laws focused primarily on eliminating the discrimination between long- and short-haul rates of railroads and regulating the maximum price charged by grain storage facilities. [3] The farmers of the Illinois Grange wanted this because smaller rural farmers who tended to ship more locally were being charged such high rates that they were having a difficult time staying in business and making a profit. [2] The Illinois granger laws led to several important court cases, two of which were Munn v. Illinois and the Wabash Case. [2]

Munn v. Illinois

In 1877, a grain storage company, Munn and Scott, was found guilty for violating the Illinois Granger law, which set a maximum grain storage charge. Following an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which resulted in the affirmation of the law, the case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court then ruled that because the company was in a business that affected the public interest, the government could in fact regulate the company. This ruling also applied to railroads, as railroad companies were deemed private companies serving the public interest. Thus the Munn v. Illinois case set the precedent that regulating both grain elevator rates and railroad rates was within the bounds of the Constitution. [3]

Wabash v. Illinois

Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois involved a railroad company, Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Company, serving the upper Midwest and the state of Illinois, which in 1886 resulted in the overturning of Munn v. Illinois. [4] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1886 that Illinois’ granger laws were unconstitutional because they attempted to control interstate commerce, which had been deemed a responsibility of the federal government by Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). Following the Wabash Case, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, the first federal regulation of business in the United States. This act forced railroad companies to publish their rates with the government and banned railroads from charging different rates for short and long hauls. This 1887 act also created the Interstate Commerce Commission, which regulated the rates of railroads and ensured the rates remained “reasonable and just”. [2]

Wisconsin’s Potter Law

Wisconsin’s granger laws were among, if not the, most severe of the four states. While other states such as Illinois implemented a system of price regulation by administrative bodies, Wisconsin adopted a strict legislative regulation policy on rate fixing. [5] The Potter Law brought about this system of price fixing. The rates at which Wisconsin fixed the prices yielded little to no profits for the railroad companies. The fixing of rates led to many negative economic effects for the state. In the second year under the Potter Law, no Wisconsin railroad paid a dividend and only four railroads paid interest on their bonds. [6] This led to a complete halt in railroad construction in the state, as the companies did not believe they would make a profit if they built more lines. In 1876, despite still being within constitutional bounds, the state of Wisconsin repealed the law in attempts to spur economic growth brought about by railroad construction. [6]

Today Wisconsin's railways are administered under the Office of the Commissioner of Railroads.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interstate Commerce Commission</span> US federal regulatory agency (1887–1996)

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was a regulatory agency in the United States created by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The agency's original purpose was to regulate railroads to ensure fair rates, to eliminate rate discrimination, and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies. Congress expanded ICC authority to regulate other modes of commerce beginning in 1906. Throughout the 20th century, several of ICC's authorities were transferred to other federal agencies. The ICC was abolished in 1995, and its remaining functions were transferred to the Surface Transportation Board.

The Elkins Act is a 1903 United States federal law that amended the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The Act authorized the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to impose heavy fines on railroads that offered rebates, and upon the shippers that accepted these rebates. The railroad companies were not permitted to offer rebates. Railroad corporations, their officers, and their employees, were all made liable for discriminatory practices.

Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the power of state governments to regulate private industries that affect "the common good."

The Dormant Commerce Clause, or Negative Commerce Clause, in American constitutional law, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution. The primary focus of the doctrine is barring state protectionism. The Dormant Commerce Clause is used to prohibit state legislation that discriminates against, or unduly burdens, interstate or international commerce. Courts first determine whether a state regulation discriminates on its face against interstate commerce or whether it has the purpose or effect of discriminating against interstate commerce. If the statute is discriminatory, the state has the burden to justify both the local benefits flowing from the statute and to show the state has no other means of advancing the legitimate local purpose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry</span> Agricultural advocacy group in the United States

The National Grange, a.k.a. The Grange, officially named The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, is a social organization in the United States that encourages families to band together to promote the economic and political well-being of the community and agriculture. The Grange, founded after the Civil War in 1867, is the oldest American agricultural advocacy group with a national scope. The Grange actively lobbied state legislatures and Congress for political goals, such as the Granger Laws to lower rates charged by railroads, and rural free mail delivery by the Post Office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Morrison Waite</span> Chief justice of the United States from 1874 to 1888

Morrison Remick "Mott" Waite was an American attorney, jurist, and politician from Ohio who served as the seventh chief justice of the United States from 1874 until his death in 1888. During his tenure, the Waite Court took a narrow interpretation of federal authority related to laws and amendments that were enacted during the Reconstruction Era to expand the rights of freedmen and protect them from attacks by white supremacy groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886), also known as the Wabash Case, was a Supreme Court decision that severely limited the rights of states to control or impede interstate commerce. It led to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional.

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Sherman Act applied to the railroad industry, even though the U.S. Congress had enacted a comprehensive regime of regulations for that industry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interstate Commerce Act of 1887</span> United States federal law

The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 is a United States federal law that was designed to regulate the railroad industry, particularly its monopolistic practices. The Act required that railroad rates be "reasonable and just," but did not empower the government to fix specific rates. It also required that railroads publicize shipping rates and prohibited short haul or long haul fare discrimination, a form of price discrimination against smaller markets, particularly farmers in Western or Southern Territory compared to the official Eastern states. The Act created a federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which it charged with monitoring railroads to ensure that they complied with the new regulations.

Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342 (1914), also known as the Shreveport Rate Case, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court expanding the power of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States. Justice Hughes's majority opinion stated that the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce also allowed it to regulate purely intrastate commerce in cases where control of the former was not possible without control of the latter. Because the Supreme Court consolidated several related appeals, they are sometimes collectively known as the "Shreveport Rate Cases" although the Supreme Court issued only one ruling.

Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936), is a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce... among the several States." Specifically, it analyzes the extent of Congress' power, according to the Commerce Clause, looking at whether or not they have the right to regulate manufacturing.

George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy, 267 U.S. 317 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the state statute under which the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) issued certificates of public convenience and necessity to common carriers engaged in interstate commerce violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Smyth v. Ames, 171 U.S. 361 (1898), also called The Maximum Freight Case, was an 1898 United States Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court voided a Nebraska railroad tariff law, declaring that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that it takes property without the due process of law. The Court defined the constitutional limits of governmental power to set railroad and utility rates by stating that regulated industries have the right to a "fair return". The ruling was later overturned in Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co.

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It stated that lawyers engage in "trade or commerce" and hence ended the legal profession's exemption from antitrust laws.

Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947), is a case dealing with "field preemption": the United States Supreme Court held that when a federal law regulates a field traditionally occupied by the states, the police powers of the States in that area of law are not necessarily preempted; Congress must also manifest a clear and manifest purpose to do so.

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U.S. 672 (1954), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that sale of natural gas at the wellhead was subject to regulation under the Natural Gas Act. Prior to this case, independent producers sold natural gas to interstate pipelines at unregulated prices with any subsequent sales for resale being regulated. The State of Wisconsin sought to close this regulatory loophole in order to keep consumer prices low. Natural gas producers argued that wellhead sales were exempt from federal regulation as "production and gathering." Below, the Federal Power Commission compiled an evidentiary record 10,000 pages long before deciding not to regulate wellhead sales. However, the courts reversed, and the case resulted in federal price controls on wellhead gas prices for the next 40 years.

The Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U.S. 307 (1886), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the power of states to set transportation charges of railroad companies. The Court held that the fixing of freight and passenger rates in railroad transportation was a permissible exercise of state police power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural Gas Act of 1938</span>

The Natural Gas Act of 1938 was the first occurrence of the United States federal government regulating the natural gas industry. It was focused on regulating the rates charged by interstate natural gas transmission companies. In the years prior to the passage of the Act, concern arose about the monopolistic tendencies of the transmission companies and the fact that they were charging higher than competitive prices. The passage of the Act gave the Federal Power Commission (FPC) control over the regulation of interstate natural gas sales. Later on, the FPC was dissolved and became the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to a different act. FERC continues to regulate the natural gas industry to this day.

References

  1. 1 2 American History, “The Granger Laws,” From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/1801-1900/the-iron-horse/the-granger-laws.php.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Cynthia Clark Northrup, The American Economy (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2003), 488.
  3. 1 2 United States History, “Munn v. Illinois (1877): An Important Granger Case.” http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h855.html.
  4. ↑ History Matters, “The Supreme Court Strikes Down Railroad Regulation.” http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5746/.
  5. ↑ Robert F. Boden, “Railroads and the Granger Laws,” Marquette Law Review 54, no. 2 (1971): 253.
  6. 1 2 Detrick, Charles R. (1903). "The Effects of the Granger Acts". Journal of Political Economy. 11 (2): 237–256. doi:10.1086/250935. ISSN   0022-3808.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.