Rippe v. Becker

Citation57 N.W. 331,56 Minn. 100
PartiesRIPPE v. BECKER ET AL.
Decision Date05 January 1894
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Chapter 30, Laws 1893, entitled “An act to provide for the purchase of a site and for the erection of a state elevator or warehouse at Duluth for public storage of grain,” etc., is not an exercise of the police power of the state to regulate the business of receiving, weighing, and inspecting grain in elevators. It has no relation to the regulation of the business, but provides for the state itself engaging in carrying it on.

2. The police power of the state to regulate a business is to be exercised by the adoption of rules and regulations as to the manner in which it shall be conducted by others, and not by itself engaging in it.

3. The act in question is in violation of section 5, art. 9, of the constitution, providing that the state shall never contract any debts for works of internal improvements or be a party in carrying on such works.”

4. “Works of internal improvement,” as used in the constitution, means, not merely the construction or improvement of channels of trade and commerce, but any kind of public works, except those used by and for the state in the performance of its governmental functions, such as a state capitol, state university, penitentiaries, reformatories, asylums, quarantine buildings, and the like, for the purposes of education, the prevention of crime, charity, the preservation of public health, furnishing accommodations for the transaction of public business by state officers, and other like recognized functions of state government.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Willis, Judge.

Action by Henry Rippe against George L. Becker and others, board of railroad and warehouse commissioners, for an injunction. Judgment was ordered for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Wilson & Van Derlip, for appellant.

H. W. Childs, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

The object of this action, briefly stated, was to restrain the board of railway and warehouse commissioners from building a state elevator at Duluth pursuant to the provisions of chapter 30, Laws 1893. The plaintiff assails the constitutionality of this act on several grounds; but the only one we find necessary to consider is that it is in violation of section 5, art. 9, of the constitution of the state, which provides that the state shall never contract any debts for works of internal improvement or be a party in carrying on such works.” On the other hand, the contentions of the defendant are: First. That the works contemplated by the act are merely ancillary to the more effectual exercise by the state of its police power to regulate the weighing and inspection of grain stored in bulk, and to regulate the charges for handling and storing the same in elevators or warehouses. Second. That the elevator and other works provided for in the act are not “works of internal improvement,” within the meaning of the constitution; that this term refers only to channels of travel and commerce, such as roads, bridges, railways, canals, rivers, and the like. We shall consider these two propositions in the order named.

The right of the state, in the exercise of its police power, to regulate the business of receiving, weighing, inspecting, and storing grain for others, in elevators or warehouses, as being a business affected with a public interest, is now settled beyond all controversy. This power extends even to fixing the charges for such services. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113;Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 12 Sup. Ct. 468. And where a business is a proper subject of police regulation, doubtless, the legislature may, in the exercise of that power, adopt any measures they see fit, provided only they adopt such as have some relation to, and have some tendency to accomplish, the desired end; and if the measures adopted have such relation or tendency the courts will never assume to determine whether they are wise, or the best that might have been adopted. State v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74, 42 N. W. 781. How the “grain elevator” business may be and has been regulated is illustrated by the statutes of this state enacted for that purpose, notably chapter 144, Laws 1885, and chapter 28, Laws 1893. The first of these statutes declares all elevators or warehouses at certain terminal points, in which grain is stored in bulk, public warehouses. Requires the proprietor or manager to obtain a license and give a bond; to receive for storage all grain in suitable condition when tendered. Prohibits him from mixing grain of different grades. Requires him to keep grain in separate bins when requested by the owner. Provides what kind and form of receipt he shall give for the grain. Prohibits him from inserting anything in the receipt limiting his liability as imposed by the laws of the state. Requires him to make statements under oath of the condition of his business whenever required by the board of railway and warehouse commissioners; also, to post weekly statements of the amount of each kind and grade of grain in store in his warehouse, and to furnish certain statements to the warehouse register; also, to publish a schedule of rates of charges for storage, etc. Provides minutely what he shall do when any of the grain in store becomes damaged or out of condition; also, that all persons interested, and all authorized inspectors, shall have the right at any time to examine the grain in store; that all scales shall be subject to examination and test. Requires the railroad and warehouse commission to appoint a weighmaster and necessary assistants; also, an inspector of grain, (who may appoint deputies,) who shall have the supervision and exclusive control of the weighing and inspection of grain, subject to such rules and regulations as the board may adopt. Requires the board to fix the fees for weighing and inspecting; also, to establish the grades of grain, and publish the same; and, generally, to exercise control and supervision over the handling, inspection, weighing, and storage of grain, and to establish all necessary rules and regulations for the same. In contrast with this, we turn to the act of 1893, now under consideration. Its title is, “An act to provide for the purchase of a site and for the erection of a state elevator or warehouse at Duluth in this state for public storage of grain, and the regulation thereof, to publish a market report, and to appropriate money for that purpose.” It orders the establishment of a warehouse and elevator, of a total capacity of 1,500,000 bushels of grain, to be located on Duluth harbor, on St. Louis bay, where there is navigable water, or where docks can be established for the largest vessels in the carrying trade on Lake Superior, and on such point as shall offer terminal facilities with the various railroads centering at the head of Lake Superior; that “said institution” shall be under the control and management of the board of railway and warehouse commissioners, who are required to locate the same, procure the necessary site, and erect the necessary buildings thereon, with the proper equipments and facilities to carry the act into effect, and build or procure “all necessary spur tracks, terminal yards and other facilities to receive and ship grain.” The elevator is to have facilities for “weighing, unloading, cleaning and safe keeping of grain in separate bins; also for placing grain of the same grade together.” The act provides for the commissioners procuring plans and specifications for elevator, advertising for bids, and letting the contract for its construction to the lowest and best bidder; and provides for the manner of payment for the site and the construction of the buildings; and appropriates $200,000 for that purpose out of any moneys in the state treasury belonging to the “grain and warehouse fund,” to and with which the grain inspection fund, under the act of 1885, is transferred and consolidated. The elevator is to be under the management of the board of railway and warehouse commissioners, who are to appoint a suitable person as warehouseman “of said state elevator or warehouse,” and such assistants as are necessary, and adopt such rules and regulations for the receiving, handling, storing, and delivering grain as they shall deem proper, with power, in case they think that any person or combination of persons is seeking “to monopolize said elevator,” to adopt rules limiting the amount of grain which any one person, combination, or corporation may have in the elevator at any one time. They are also required to fix the charges for storing, inspecting, weighing, and handling grain, including the cost of receiving and delivering, which charges are to be a lien on the grain so received, and, when collected, to be paid into the state treasury to the credit of the grain and warehouse fund. The elevator is to be “cleaned and measured up” once each year, to ascertain whether there is any gain or loss by the system of dockage. In connection with their other duties in managing and operating this elevator, the commissioners are to keep on file, for public inspection, publications showing the market price of grain and farm products in certain specified leading markets of this country and Europe; also, the freight rates to such markets by the different means of transportation; also, to publish a weekly bulletin showing the prices paid in said markets for farm products, and the rates of freight between Duluth and Minneapolis and said markets, said bulletin to be kept on file “in said institution,” and in the office of the commissioners in St. Paul, and also to be furnished by mail to all persons who may order the same, at a price to be fixed by the commissioners, not excceding one dollar per annum. The commissioners are also to send samples of grain, being exported, to the various leading markets of the world, “for inspection and to secure prices as to their market value,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 cases
  • Mumpower v. Housing Authority
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 26 d2 Novembro d2 1940
    ......Rippe Becker, 56 Minn. 100, 111, 112, 57 N.W. 331, 22 L.R.A. 857. If a state chooses to go into the business of buying and selling commodities, its right ......
  • Albritton v. City of Winona
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 7 d1 Fevereiro d1 1938
    ...... 592; Opinion of Justices, 211 Mass. 624, 98 N.E. 611,42. L.R.A. (N.S.) 221; Deering v. Peterson, 75 Minn. 118, 77 N.W. 568; Rippe v. Becket, 56 Minn. 100, 57. N.W. 331, 22 L.R.A. 857; Hill v. Rae, 52 Mont. 378,. 158 P. 826, L.R.A. 1917A 495. . . Section. 11 ......
  • Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority v. Printy
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 11 d5 Maio d5 1984
    ...... While we held that the term "internal improvements" includes any public improvement in Rippe v. Becker, it must be kept in mind, that in discussing the term, we did not dare have in mind any such thing as the development of a seaport. It ......
  • State ex rel. Lachtman v. Houghton
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 28 d5 Julho d5 1916
    ......Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100, 57 N. W. 331 [22 L. R. A. 857]. And it must be confined to such restrictions and burdens as are thus necessary to promote ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT