The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-03-06

pressed had no idea wssto be consdeked eg brought
up 10 day; and have NOT ,hssfots bIouell ~ .s
OF the Senate expressed By the e~t vote made upoH 'his
BILL 10 be that they will pass H. VIII not therefore cay
another word upon the subject l.,
| Mr. HAMLlN, II have risen only to say that ! had
made rann and il this bill had been presented io
consideration at early day underworld 70 hsye -
taken IN but was hot able 10 succeed should nave
gone at lena III into disc usson OF this question: But
do not desire 10 do snd though AM oohKea 20
speak much more hastily Than dase ss' - soo
/ will saw no more have risen now merely TO ask the
senate TO let the vote be taken upon the bill al once
! Mr. UNDERWOOD will not detain the Senate
long and rise only 10 state fact 10 the Senate. The
senator from Maryland has produced statute Of the 53i
OF George LII, which contains law which 1t Is sad'
ter Now. If am not Mistaken George Ill assembled the
throne l76iat all events. prior 10 the American
luton We will suppose that arm about righl--that II
the year $780, and If to that add So will bring
us down 10 1913. These laws which TO
make applicable TO this matter have been in force from
1918 down 10 this time. almost forty years, and have
just walked up to the propriey Of their adopon-lust
walked up to that Now We are waking up To adopt a
law which, apprehend. will have the efsc, that before
pointed out But without going over all that have al
ready said-without attempting to reply TO all the argu
nenis in favor OF this measuel wish TO make one more
remark.
Is this commercial regulation that making
now Is il commercial regulation to regulate com
merce between ourselves and foreign nations or Is It
commercial regulation TO regulate the commerce between
the different States OF this Union' very much doubt
whether it is ~either. Here, Them is very important
question: constitutional quesiion-tha we are bringing
up the moment, and TO hasten this bull through
during the few remaining days OF the session, without
time to look into understand, and without any dis
custom Sir, strikes that law passed by Congress
TO prevent people IRON making their contracts they
think proper 10 make them interfering with The rights
of the States TO make their own regulations upon the
subject OF contracts and determine what shall be ille-
gal what shall be immoral and what shall be improper
in their jurisdiction. 1t may be commercial regula-
uon and gentlemen may perhaps derive their authority
under the constitution to make It AS commercial regu-
atiOn But II does seem 10 upon the hst blush thai
has nothing to do with commercial regulations, which
rules, understand. to be prescribed for regula-
ting intercourse IN commerce between ourselves and for
eign nations, and between the several States. On the
contrary, it str ikes being legislation the part
of Congress- saying how persons shall contract and how
Stale reg uaons regulating the duty of carriers both upon
sea and upon and- you retain such provison--how
State regulations which regulate these contracts and
nix these liabilities shall be repealed by this bill
Sir il seems 10 me that in addition 10 the suggestions
which before made these things worthy OF con-
sideTaton. They may not be entitled 10 much n
sideraon, and gentlemen who have understood and in
vestigaied this matter from the beginning may have in
their minds very ready answer to these objections
however must say that have none.
MIR. PHELPS. Il is desirable TO know the position in
which this bill stands Is II now in the committee of the
The PRESIDENT. It's
Mr.. PHELPS. Well. have only to say tina, shall
favor OF the principle oil the Oil this suppo-
si,on that il seeks merely to regulate Inc liability OF
ship owners, where that liability not fixed by their
own contracts Certainly should be opposed 10 any
legislation which for its object the control OF The
contract Of parties wherever the parties have fixed their
liabilities There the subject should rest My SUPPOSE
was that the bill provides only Tor those where
the liability of the parties rested upon legal Inference
and not settled BY express agreement Now, j. the
senator from North Carolina Mr.. BADGERl is right in
supposng that this bill Processes to coalo the
of the parties, why, il is wrong in principle The parties
I q III
however, simply proposes to regulate the legal liability
OF the parties in the absence OF any express sllpua-
| for.
! Mr. HAMLIN. That is all it's.
| Mr. PHELPS. Well will not detain the Senate with
argument upon that subject Ii there is any part OF
the law that brings TO the remembrance OF
oden umesf there is any portion OF the common law
that brings to illustration OF the state OF society
tally different from that which exstsit is this very
common law in regard 10 common carriers Ii originated
time when violence was substituted for right. II had
its origin period when the adoption Of such prnc
pie necessary. But in the progress of time. the
change which has taken place. the which lies at
the bottom of this stringent law has, in my judgment,
ceased TO exist There man, probably, the Sem
who reluctant TO depart from the established
principles of the common law than My experience
has shown me Their value and am willing TO say, with
rooted in the experience OF Centuries, and il is haz,
ardous TO depart from them. But there Of
those principles the reasons tor which have passed
and regard this one OF them. Who uaverses al this
day through the country armed and guarded Who is
there among us that expects 10 meet with violence and
lacks from robbers and foes The state OF things ia
totally changed from what II century two ago
speak OF of other countries for thls country
not then populated. Now, am altogether in favor
of this bill provided the absence of any express stpu
aton, it shall limit the liability perfect integrity and
faith. That in my judgment, is all that be exscied
When you have gone to that extent, you have satisfied
the wants OF the communiy-you have satisfied the sx.
Pec'auon OF every man that employs these common
rers Why ahould we go furtberl Sir, repeat that
regard this stringent rule OF the common law upon the
su beet of the liability OF common existing
long after the foundation upon which originally rested
The necessity for II is gone by, and need II longer
Well, what is the policy oil our government Our great
ercial rival has abrogaed this law We have been
competing with Great Britain for the carrying trade,
ourselves abrogate this law, will give her advan.
tage over navigation, and permit our navigation 10
suHer under il Now. II the bill be What suppose II 10
be-and perhaps have not examined II sufhcientlyif II
be ball regulating the liability of carriers IN such
only where the between the parties does fix
the liability, shall ind difficulty in the way and
shall go for the adoption of the bull. sg
Mr. PEARCE. MIR. President, ] think nights reaec-
tion upon hs subject will be profitable, and therefore
move that the Senate do adjourn.
Several SEkAToRs Oh, no.
The motion 10 adjourn was rejected.
The bill then reported 10 the senate.
Mr. WALKER called for the reading OF the FIRST sec
ton Of the bill
The hrst section read.
sMr. WALKER | wish TO inquire OF the senator
from Vermont [Mr. PHEIRsl II the provisions of that
section would exclude the Inability under the ordinary
form of bill OF lsdiag such has been mentioned by the
senator from North Carolina Mr.. BspaER eea .a.H
Mr.. PHELPS. IL the senator desires answer----
M Ia faVI nIo al IN