The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-08-04

and our bonds would bear a premium in the
worlds money markets. One half of the prin-
cipal of the debt and all the depreciation of
the bonds and greenbacks must be charged to
the account of the Democratic party. 1t was
their unfaithful, their unpatriotic, Copperhead
conduct that created half the debt, and half
the bloodshed; that caused our bonds to sell
as low as 40 cents on the dollar, and gold at
one time to amount to ESQ., and all the nations
of the earth but hopeful Germany, to give up
the great American Republic as lost. And yet
these disloyal wretches who brought the
Union to the brink of aunihilation by their
lack of patriotism are brawling for repuda-
ton, because, forsooth, the bonds did not re-
alize their full face in gold
The Power of Congress to Regulate Rail-
way Commerce.
From the N. Y Nation.
There is continuous line of railway COM
municatiop between Boston and Omaha. The
companies which control this line owe their
existence to the separate legislation of Massa-
chusetts, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana,
Illinois, and Iowa. Passengers aud goods
may be carried from one OF these points to the
other without change of cars or transhipment,
and are, OF course, on their route, successfully
brought under different and perhaps conflict
ing codes of local laws. May Congress apply
to this line and to all others similarly situated
nected with the business of transportation ?
The answer which we must give to this in
quiry, and the key to the whole discussion,
depend upon the answer to another question:
is the transportation of passengers and
goods upon railways to be called commerce, so
that if the transportation be from one State to
another there thence exists commerce among
the States ?" If so, the power we are con-
sidering plainly exists, for the Constitution in
express terms authorizes Congress to REGULATE
commerce among the several States"
The national Constitution is an enumeration
of general legislative functions conferred upon
the Government rather than description and
definition of the particular acts of law making
which CopgressA may perform. Political par
ties have to great extent been divided upon
the question, What specific powers are in
cluded within these generic statements of the
organic law, and therefore, what measures are
Congress permitted from time to time to adopt
The discussion which began at the very out
set has continued to the present day, and has
been participated in by the Legislators, the
Judiciary, and the people. General principles
of Interpretation have been repeatedly as
sumed by Congress in making law, con-
frmed and established by the Supreme Court
in declaring the law valid, and approved by
the people in the choice of their representa-
tives. Yet it has constantly happened that
when new measure is proposed, although it
stitutional Interpretation settled by the highest
authority, and is in all respects analogous to
others with which the people have long been
familiar, il is opposed, the power of Congress
to pass it is denied, simply because it is new,
because the object to which it is directed has
never before been brought within the scope of
Congressional legislation. The contest must be
again waged from the beginning; first princi-
pies must again be appealed to, as though the
combined assent of legislators, judges, and
| people had determined nothing in respect to
our organic law. This statement is most en-
| phatically true in reference to the subject now
under consideration. Congress has again and
again enacted laws in every respect analogous
to the proposed measure, laws depending upon
the same generic grant of power, and interfer-
ing in an equal degree with the State legisla-
ton. These laws have often been subjected
to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, and as
often been upheld. The long line of splendid
| judgments upon the power OF Congress to
| regulate commerce, commencing with Gibbons
VS.. Ogden, in 1924, and ending during the
current year, has completely settled every
principle upon which the authority to control
inter. State railways depends. Nothing is new
except the particular object to which il is now
| proposed to direct the reguIative function.
| Yet we see two Democratic members of the
| Committee on Commerce dissenting peremp-
| torily from the decision of the majority, and
denying tn6 existence OF any power IN COn-
| gress to regulate railways.
The Constitution declares that Congress
| shall have power to regulate commerce with
| foreign nations, among the several States. and
with the Indian tribes" 1t should be noticed
that there is no difference whatever in the
cOmpulsive efficacy of these three grants each
one is as comprehensive as each of the others.
| To whatever extent Congress may regulate
commerce with foreign nations, it may regulate
| commerce among the several States; the one
function bears no badge of inferiority to the
| other. No one now questions or limits the
pational authority over foreign commerce; that
| over inter-state commerce is equally broad,
and if it has not been SO fully exercised, this
has resulted simply from motives of policy.
Chief Justice Marshall said, in Gibbons y. Og-
den: 'The subject to be regulated is commerce;
and our Constitution being, as was aptly said
at the bar, one of enumeration and not of def
| milton, to ascertain the extent of the power il
becomes necessary TO settle the meaning of the
word. Commerce undoubtedly is traffic; bat
] X Ia somethipg more: II Is intercourse, IL