Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1852-09-24
MospAr, Aucusr 16. 1852.

Mr. MILLSON resumed and concluded his re-
marks as follows
Mr. Speaker, L have shown that at the adoption
of the Constitution, no other State than Virginia
had any control jurisdiction over the Ohio river,
and proceed to inquire how far the implied power
of Congress to regulate navigation, which, as l
have admitted, is probably included in the power
to regulate commerce, interteres with the control
of State over her nayigable waters.
. Does this implied power to regulate navig ation,
that is, the transportation OF merchandise upon
these waters, give any control over the waters
themselves Does itimply anything like a cession
of tile waters by the State to the United States
ASuredly not. 1t is but right to make uniform
rules il, respect to the transit ofsuchE commodities
as may be borne upon the face of the waters, and
implies no control over the rivers themselves
than similar rules in relation to foreign commerce
imply control over the sea upon which It passes
Judge Marshall in Bevan's case, said that the ces
sion of all cases of admiralty isdcton cannot be
construed into ceSsion of the waters; and say,
that by identical course OF resoning, the cesslon
of the power to regulate commerce IS not ceSSlon
of the waters. Sir, if it were otherwise, the algu
ment would prove great deal too much. 1t the
power to regulate commerce implies the power to
control the channels through which it is borne,
why confine il to rivers and water-courses! Why
not extend it to canals and turnpkes and railroads!
Rivers not the only medium, OF commerce
Does any man doubt that the commerce between
States Ey land routes, is much under the regu-
lation of Congress that which passes over riv-
ers 3 If the power to regulate gives control over
the rivers, why not over the roads also! The
roads are not more under the jurisdiction. of q
State than her rivers. The ebbing and howing of
the sea, or the coursng of the rains, in greater OF
less quantities, any portion OF her soil, in no.
wise impairs her control OVERT. t9'a eHs+
1t is argued, however, that any impeachment to
navigation is unlawful, because tits an obstruction
to commerce. Then,sI suppose, sir, that anything
else which obstructs commencement be equally un-
lawful. But we know that DISTINCTIONS, to COM
merce by the States are not necessarily unlawful.
If distinctions to commerce are not necessarily
unlawful, then an impeachment to navigation which
obStructs commerce is not necessarily unlaw full
Sir, can give. you hundreds of instances in which
the States may, and are accustomed to put imped-
iments or distinctions in the way Of commerce;
by regulating and taxing its transit over railroads
and canals by levying heavy taxes upon mer
chants licenses; by preventing the landing of goods
under her quarantine regulations and health laws,
and prohibiting particular articles altogether; by
requiring vessels to take on board pilots and COM
polling the payment of their fees by authorizing
the seizure and detention of vessels and their
cargoes for violation of State laws, doby nnu-
merable other modes. II may be said that all
these restrictions within the admitted powers
of a State, and that they produce wholesale re-
suits. That is precisely what contend for. It
cannot be denied, however, that i'll their operation