Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/364

336 336 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. it received but little attention at the hands of the court, and was passed over with the remarks in the opinions of the court which hav.e been cited." The judges concurring in the majority opinion were Miller, Field, Harlan, Woods, Matthews, and Blatchford, of whom Miller, J. alone took part in the decision of the Granger Cases; while those joining in the dissenting opinion were Bradley, J., Waite, C. J., and Gray, J., of whom Waite, J, and Bradley, J. took part in the Granger Cases, and with Miller at that time united in the major- ity opinion therein. The dissenting opinion of the three justices in the present case was based strictly upon the proposition, that Peik V. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.,^ was conclusive of the subject, and that, until Congress acted, the States had power to prescribe rates of railroad fare and freight, so far as the same concerned interstate commerce. To quote the dissenting opinion reported in Ii8 U. S. 577, 588: — " To sum up the matter in a word : we hold it to be a sound propo- sition of law, that the making of railroads, and regulating the charges for their use, is not such a regulation of commerce as to be in the remotest degree repugnant to any power given to Congress by the Constitution, so long as that power is dormant, and has not been exercised by Congress. They affect commerce, they incidentally regulate it ; but they are acts in relation to the subject which the State has a perfect right to do, subject always to the controlling power of Congress over the regulation of commerce when Congress sees fit to act." The case of Wabash, St. Louis, & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois ^ was cited without disapproval, in 1886, in Fargo v. Michigan^; and, in 1887, in Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.,* and Dow v. Beidelman.^ It was also cited with express approval, in 1893, in Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v, Kentucky,^ in these words : — " In none of the subsequent cases has any disposition been shown to limit or qualify the doctrine laid down in the Wabash case, and to that doctrine we still adhere." It may, therefore, be taken as well settled law to-day, that the States have no power of regulation over the charges for trans- 1 94 U. S. 164. * 125 U. S. 465, 494. 2 118 U. S. 557. 5 125 u. S. 680, 689.
 * 121 U. S. 230, 247. • 154 U. S. 204, 217.