Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1873-01-03
Thus the same clause. n the same

foreign anu The internal commerce:
and hence each must, in extent, be
exactly equal. But both the Con-
gress and the courts have defined
and declared what the powers of
Congress are in regulating foreign
commerce, even when carried in
vehicles and lines owned by indi-
viduals or by corporations holding
charters under State laws. Con-
gress has defined in every particular
what shall be the construction and
what the life-saving furniture of
every vessel permitted to carry
freight or passengers. 1t has de-
fined the number Of passengers
which a ship may carry. 1t has
prescribed where or how the freight
and baggage may be put on ship,
the berths and space for each passcn-
ger, the quantity and kinds of food
to be provided for passengers and
crew, how it shall be cooked, rules
as to cleanliness, and has in almost
every conceivable way striven to
protect this foreign commerce from
danger, oppression or other wrongs.
And all these laws have been
recognized and held valid in every
State i'll the Union, and by tho Uni
tod States Courts in such cases as
that ofThe United States VS.. Ncurca,
10 Towards Reports, 90, etc.
ynf nnf nn1s, I,o,,o
been made, regulating our foreign
commerce, but so also have they
been made as to the Interstate com
mcgee; and Nh Individuals and cor
porations in til he&ta;es, and their
lines of transportation upon rivers,
passing from State to State, have
been subjected to similar laws of
Congress-; and the validity OF these
laws is completely in every court of
the United States.
But more than this, Congress,
July Is, 1866, upon the motion of
the railroads themselves, has as
sumcd this identical power over
the Interstate commerce upon the
railroads vfthe States, in the way
and wordc quote at the beginning
of this statement. This is n direct
and explicit assumption Of the power
of Congress to lcsislatc as to "con-
pensation" for carrying, upon rail
roads, passengers and fret ghts on
their way from one State to another
and this, too, when carried upon
State railroads. Thus it will be
perceived that both the Courts and
Congress have asserted this idcnti-
cal power over our Interstate COM
merce, and that, in at least one cx-
ample, the Congress Ton invitation
of the railroads themselves) has
exercised this power over "compen-
sation" Chat is the word of t.. e act)
for carrying this commerce upon
railroads.
These facts and considerations
completely settle the whole question
of the power of Congress to enact
such bill rs the one | introduced,
unless some distinction can be found
between rivers and State railroads,
when each are alike lines for trans
porting commerce from State to
State; l mean some distinction as
relates to the power of Congress to
regulate such commerce upon them
respectively. In other words, does
the constitutional power of Con-
grcss over Interstate commerce
depend upon n question in chemis-
try? Is it so that if commerce
rides from State to State on water,
Congress may regulate it fully, but
if it rides on iron then the power
ceases? This chemical test of what
is good constitutional law, once
and long, had advocates, who held
that the way to decide whether Con-
grcss could improve river was to
taste the water and find whether it
was salt, and, if salt, then Congress
could pass the law for improvement;
and, if not, not. But this chemical
school of constitutional lawyers is
extinct, but will need to be revived
before the Constitution will be made
to read that Congress shall have
power to regulate commerce among
the several States when it goes on
water, but not when it goes Oh
iron"
MIR. Shellabarger then proceeds
to cite decisions of the courts and
high legal authority, covering the
whole ground of the authority of
Congress to regulate railroad charg-
es, &c., and makes ont a strong case
in favor of such ri hit.