New-York tribune., 1868-01-17
,rUJpPsPV State FIGHTS.

Dany, but at inc same tiIHo ~
ignorant of the acts of the Assembly ana oil
law decisions that have appeared IN the proper
records All these researches we can wen aliord
TO let pass as an attempt to throw dust, since
the main points in our charges against the
monopoly-of frightful extOrtiOns by ring OF
managers, of retaining all the legal talent in
the State. Of keeping the newspaper press in
subiection. and of degrading and making the
State miserably poor-are not denied.
Since We made the above charges,
decision from the Circuit Court of the
United States vitay affecting the claims
made by New-Jersey and this monopoly
has been made public. To present the subject
| in n fair light, we will first show the auGacous
presumptions of the NewJersey Court of Ap-
pcals. Under date of December we have
decision of this Court, Justice C.. j. Beasley,
presiding, on the case between the Raritan and
Delaware Bay Railroad and the Camden and
Amboy, in which the Judge says it will be
difficult to find any power, either in the State
or in the United States, to prevent New
Jersey, in the exercise of her pleasure, from
closing up or forbidding the use Of any high
+" way within her dominion" Again, says this
New jersey Judge: "There is no provision,
United States, to the effect that one State,
rs matter of positive duty, shall give right
"of passage over her territory to the citizens
"of another State. The only obligation OF
Estate in this respect is, to allow the citizens
:" of other States to use, equally with her own
citizens. such roads and highways rs she may
Z" see fit to construct. Although State must,
by the force of laws regulating ITS own
growth, give these means of intercourse to
BOTH still, she cannot be compelled to do SO
I" on the ground of duty of positive oblign-
" tom The meaning of this is clear enough,
| that is, that when the monopoly of the Camden
and Amboy shall expire, in 1869, 1t VIII be re-
renewed by the State Legislature, and, as has
been the case for more than thirty years, the
traveller in going from New-York to Phladel-
pha will be forced to pay tribute to the State
of New-Jcrsey. In the same manner, n traveller
going from Jerusalem to Jericho Is obliged to
nav tribute TO thieves. The Judge explicitly
SAYS that, after the above period shall have
elapsed, the Rartan and Delaware Bay Rail
road will have no greater right than now 10
| compete with the Camden and Amb0y. 10
explain how such decision could be made by
a Court which previously i'll the New York and
| Erie case with n full bench of fourteen Judges,
unanimously decided that the State OF New
Jersey chad no right to interfere with, or In
"apy manner burden, Interstate communica-
"tion,- would require history too humiliating
| for poor human nature.
we come now to decision OF q higher
Court. and of quite another kind. Being re-
cent. and of national character, it will be read
with profound interest. In The american LdW
Register for January, 1867, is a report of case
in the United States Circuit Court of Iowa,
namely. of Gray agt the Clinton Bridge, being
on bill to procure the abatement of the
bridge, because it obstructed the navigation OF
the Mississippi River 1t is objected, first, that,
by treaty with France, the navigation of this
river was to remain forever unobstructcd;
second, that Congress has no power over
bridges crossing navgable streams of the United
States, and, third, that the act of Congress
declaring the Clinton Bridge lawful
structure was special legislation, which invaded
the province of the Courts. Judge Miller
! presiding said that the Court could not
20 behind law passed by Congress and
signed by the President thus1 to decide
upon q treaty with foreign power. Such
questions are international, and are to be set
| fled by the nations interested "If the Court
could do this it could annul declarations of
"war, suspend the levy of armies. and become
"a great national arbter, instead of court OF
"just;ce for the administration OF the laws OF
tho United States" AS to the second obiec-
ton. Judge Miller said that the regulation OF
commerce, as exercised by Congress, has done
"a much TO constitute n strong bond OF nation
atty as any other power belonging to the
| General Government. AS to steamboats, Con-
gress had passed statutes regulating the busi-
ness, and had even framed q minute code
which prescribed the details of navigation,
the number of passengers, the quallilca-
tions of officers, and its right TO do
so has never been disputed. Commerce
by land Is equally under its Jurisdiction; in
deed, when tho Constitution was framed, the
commerce between the States was, to great
extent, by land. The railroad now shares with
tho steamboat the monopoly Of tho carrying
trade, and when those roads become the chan
nels Though which the nations of Europe and
Asia shall interchange their commodities there
can be no reason to doubt that to regulate
them is "to regulate commerce." "For my
"part," says Justice Miller, 4" | must say that |
"haye no doubt of tie right of Congress to
"prescribe all needful af3 proper regulations
"for the conduct of this imhensc traffic over
"any railroad which may voluntarily become
"part of one of these lines of interstate COM
"muncation, or to authorize the creation of
"such roads, when the purposes of Interstate
Transportation of persons and property Justl-
"fy, or require it,"
The conflicting and inconsistent policies now