cally
overruled Munn vs. Illinois; but the same court, in a case entitled Budd
vs. New York, submitted in October, 1891, and decision rendered February
29, 1892, and opinion delivered by Justice Blatchford, in referring to
the Minnesota case, after quoting the above statement from Justice
Bradley, said: "But the opinion of the court did not say so, nor did it
refer to Munn vs. Illinois, and we are of opinion that the decision in
that case is, as will be hereafter shown, quite distinguishable from the
present case."

It is thus apparent that this court has adhered to the decision in Munn
vs. Illinois, and to the doctrines announced in the opinion of the court
in that case, and those doctrines have since been repeatedly enforced in
the decisions of the courts of the States.

Judge Brewer, whose zeal for the defense of corporate interests seems to
amount almost to a craze, dissented. He said: "I dissent from the
opinion and judgment in these cases. The main proposition upon which
they rest is, in my judgment, radically unsound. It is the doctrine of
Munn vs. Illinois reaffirmed. The paternal theory of government is to me
odious. Justice Field and Justice Brown concur with me in this dissent."

It should be remembered that Justices Brewer and Brown were both
appointed to the Supreme bench by President Harrison.

We have every reason to believe that, unless the people of the United
States are on the alert, as railroad managers always are, there is, with
further changes in the personnel of the court, danger of its deviating
from the sound principles of law laid down in its decision in the
Granger cases. Railroad attorneys have repeatedly been raised to seats
in the highest tribunal in the land. So great is the power of the
railroad interests, and so persistent are they in their demands, that,
unless a strong public sentiment records its protest, their candidates
for appointive offices are but too apt to be successful. Representatives
of the railroads sit in the Congress of the United States, others are
members of the national campaign committees of both of the great
political parties, others control the politics of the States, and their
influence reaches to the White House, whether its occupant is aware of
it or not. Other interests in the past have succeeded in securing the
appointment of biased men as judges of the Supreme Court who afterwards
could always be relied upon to render decisions in their favor. Will the
peop