Mississippi Democrat. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1846-08-19
CONTINUED.
Mr.. CALHOUN made the following
REPORT:
ITO accompany bill S. No. 2l6.)

NIL OlS
ITO accompany bill S. No. 2l6.)
The Special Committee, to rchom acas re-
ferred the immortal of the Memphis
Connection, hare had the same undeT
consideration, and submit for the con-
8ideration Of the Senate the following
report;
Having now shown what is the restric-
ton imposed or the power by the terms
s'among the States" your committee will
next proceed to consider what power is
conferred on Congress within that restric-
ton by the terms ITO 'eguIate commerce"
They are Of the opinion, after due re-
Election, that they confer on il all the pow
ers which, by fair Interpretation, belong
ed to them, as fully as the States them
selves possessed it, except such, if there be
any. as may be prohibited by the constl-
tuition from being exercised, either ex-
pressly or implicitly. That they confer
on Congress all the power TO regulate COM
merce with each other, with that exception,
would seem TO be so clear as hardly to ad-
nit of Doubt, as the words by which il is
delegated are used without qualification or
condition. But, il there should be room
for doubt, it would be removed by adver-
ting TO the reason for deIegating the pow
err. 1t was not to limit or prohibit it as a
power ola dangerous character, and which
on that account, ought TO be restricted or
prohibited. On the contrary, it was re-
garded as one of the utmost utility, and
on the proper control of which the pros
peritv of the States essentially depended;
and it was accordingly for the purpose Of
obtaining such control, as well as TO pre-
vent collision among the States, and not
10 restrict or prohibit it, that it was dele
gated to the federal government, as their
common representative and organ, IN their
external relations with each other and
foriegn nations. When it is added that
such is admitted to be the true cOnstruc-
zion in reference 10 the latter and that the
phraseoogv is The same in reference TO
9th, il would seem to exclude the posi-
blily of doubt as to its beng so also IN
reference 20 the former. The difference
between fhe two eases is, that the power
is divided in its exercise between the law
making and treaty making organs OF the
government in regulating commerce with
foreign nations, while in that of regulating
# among the States it is vested exclusive
w in the law making, as from necessity 1t
must be, where the treaty-power among
federal States is delegated to their COM
mon government.
1t remains now to be considered what
power would fair Interpretation OF the
terms CIRCULATE commerce" confer no
Congress? Or, to express II more fully,
what powers did the trainers of The constr
tuition intend to delegate to it in using
those termsl Your committee regard 1t
as fortunate that, in their endeaVor 10
ascertain what power they intended to-
delegate, they are not thrown on the vague
meanings OF the terms as used IN common
parlance. There are few words in the
language, when thus used, more vague
than the verb to regulate. 1t has, as com
m MY used, all the shades of meaning
from the mere power of prescribing rules
to that of having absolute and unlimited
control over the subject to which it is ap
piled. Nor is the term commerce free
from ambiguity when so used. 1t some
times means trade simply; a at other
trade and transit. or navigation when th
transit is by water. But the case is differ
enl when they are applied to constitution
al or legal subjects. When so applied
their meaning is so much more precls
that they may be regarded as almost tech
nical. They occupy large space both u
our own code OF laws, and that of tn
country from which we derive our origlI
and language. And what contributes sti
more to the precision of their meaning |;
that they occupied a prominent plac
in the discussion which proceeded and LEI
10 the Revolution that seperate the tw
countries, particularly as 1t relates to tn
distinction between the power to lay take
and that to regulate commerce. The lat
ter, it was admitted, belonged TO the paren
country, while the former was denied an
resisted. Many of the trainers of The con
stlluLlon, who were able statemen an
learned lawyers, took an active part II
this discussion, and were familiar with tn
meaning OF the terms, as politically an
legally applied at the time Under sue
circumstances, it is a fair presumption tina
i'll using them, in which they had been il
deIegatng the power, they intended to al
tach meaning to them similar to that i
which they had been in The habit of EN-
blowing them in their political discussion:
and in which the States had been accus
toned 10 use them in legislating on tn
subject of regulating commerce prior Il
and subse quent to, the Revolution.
Assumi ng such TO be the case, yo'
oowro;,,ee are brought TO the question
What powers were The States accustome
10 exercise in regulating their commefc