Illinois, (1877), case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the power of government to regulate private industries.

In Munn v. Illinois (1877) the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law which regulated the owners of grain elevators, declaring that government interference was constitutional in areas “affected with a public interest” (Munn vs. Illinois 94 US 113).

The correct answer is the second one: States could regulate railroads, which resulted in fair treatment for farmers. Illinois Case was developed as a response to the farmers’ demands about the excessive tariffs charged by private companies (such as Munn and Scott) for the transportation of agricultural products.

Munn v. Illinois drew an important and lasting distinction between interstate commerce, which is the federal government’s domain, and domestic commerce, which a state is free to regulate. Munn v. Illinois was considered a win for the National Grange because it upheld the maximum prices they had fought for.

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.”

A cost associated with enforcing the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 was establishing and maintaining the Interstate Commerce Commission. In that time, railroads had abusive practices that affected consumers and businesses across the country.

The law sought to prevent monopoly by promoting competition, and also to outlaw discriminatory rate-setting. Its most successful provisions were a requirement that railroads submit annual reports to the ICC, and a ban on special rates the railroads would arrange among themselves.

Eight months after the United States enters World War I on behalf of the Allies, President Woodrow Wilson announces the nationalization of a large majority of the country’s railroads under the Federal Possession and Control Act.

National railways, rail transportation services owned and operated by national governments. U.S. railways are privately owned and operated, though the Consolidated Rail Corporation was established by the federal government and Amtrak uses public funds to subsidize privately owned intercity passenger trains.

Assorted References. The outcome—the Hepburn Act of 1906—was his own personal triumph; it greatly enlarged the ICC’s jurisdiction and forbade railroads to increase rates without its approval.

The Hepburn Act is a 1906 United States federal law that gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the power to set maximum railroad rates and extended its jurisdiction. This led to the discontinuation of free passes to loyal shippers….Hepburn Act.

The Hepburn Act provided the ICC with the capacity to control the prices railroads could charge, by setting maximum rates. The Hepburn Act backed the ICC’s rate-setting ability with the force of law. Railroad companies could either accept the ICC rates, or challenge it in court.

The Hepburn Rate Act was intended to give power to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate railroad shipping rates.

The Hepburn Act expanded the powers of the 1903 Elkins Act. It gave ICC rulings the force of law (where before only the courts could enforce the regulations) and allowed the Commission to set maximum—though not minimum—“fair, just, and reasonable” rates.

The result of the Elkins Act was that railroads had a stronger mechanism to protect their collusive prices and corporate trusts were weakened in their ability to gain shipping discounts. Farmers and other railroad users, instead of benefiting from greater competition, were unaffected by the Act.

The goal of the Hepburn Act was to limit the railroad companies’ ability to limit competition. It ultimately failed in its goal, however, because the railroad companies eventually realized they could simply work with the commission to set rates and regulations which benefited them.