b Did Scotts years of residence in free territory entitle him to his freedom c

B did scotts years of residence in free territory

This preview shows page 9 - 11 out of 12 pages.

b) Did Scott’s years of residence in free territory entitle him to his freedom? c) Was the MO Compromise of 1820 constitutional? (if not “free territories” could no longer exist) 3. Decision a) Mar. 6 1857: majority ruled that Scott was a slave and therefore not qualified to bring suit → Chief Justice Roger Taney said that slaveholding was legal under the Constitution D. Result 1. Further split the country → many voters turned to the Republican party and supported total abolition of slavery → 1860 election: Lincoln → secession of Southern states V. How far may states go in limiting a corporation’s business activities? (Munn v Illinois) A. Facts of the Case 1. Midwestern farmers had no choice but to market their grain through Chicago & they found themselves at mercy of railroads/warehouse owners 2. Practices of railroads/warehouse owners: 1 ) delivering grain to warehouses other than those specified by the farmer 2) grading high-quality grain as low 3) charging high storage fees 4) spreading rumors that the grain was spoiling → distress sales of quality wheat to speculators 5) mixing poor grain w/good and selling the mix as premium 6) signing false receipts claiming storage for grain that didn’t exist B. Legal steps in the Case 1. Farmers rebel a) 1870: the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry spoke out for its members → political pressure generated by the Grange led to passage of amendments to IL constitution → amendments authorized the regulation of warehouses/railroads 2. New Laws a) 1871: farmers’ group secured passage of IL laws that forbade railroad rate discrimination, set max freight & passenger rates, banned certain shady warehouse practices & set limit on storage rates 3. IL brings suit a) Munn & Scott refused to take out a state required license or to admit state officials to grain elevators → state brought suit and own a judgement in a lower court b) 1872: IL Supreme Court accepted case on appeal 4. The court finds for the public welfare a) Court ruled that a state clearly has the right to regulate all activities that affect the public welfare 5. The railroads’appeal a) Rail companies appealed the Munn & Scott case to Supreme Court → Munn vs Illinois (1876) 6. State laws upheld
Image of page 9
a) 1877: hugh court upheld the Grange inspired laws → Munn & Scott’s could not claim that fed. jurisdiction overrode the power of the state to regulate them b) State legislature clearly possessed power to regulate state commerce C. Results of the Case 1. Supreme Court’s refusal to examine the content of IL regulations is an example of judicial restraint 2. Some ruled these laws were violations of the due process clauses of 5th/14th amendments VI. Which is stronger — business monopolies or the fed. gov? (Northern Securities Company et al. v US) (Does gov have the power to regulate the growth of huge interstate trusts?) A. Facts of the Case 1. 2 railroads: Northern Pacific (owned by JP Morgan) and the Great Northern (James Hill) ran parallel from Minnesota to the Pacific → Harriman’s Union Pacific followed the same route farther south 2. If one of them gained control of Burlington would have an advantage 3.
Image of page 10
Image of page 11

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 12 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture