Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1873-04-09
A SCRAP OF HISTORY.


In view of the proposed inquiry by the
Senate special committee on Transports
ton to ascertain the extent of the authori-
ty of Congress to regulate the charges for,
and mode of transportation on railroads,
lakes and rivers, it is well enough to call
attention to tho earlier laws of some of the
States that first brought to the attention of
Congress and the people the necessity for
national legislation to enforce that provis-
ion of the Constitution which vests in our
national legislature the power to regulate
commerce.
In view of the wonderful rapidly with
which our railroads and steam boats have
ramified every section of our extended do
main and every navigable stream in the
country, it seems incredible that less than
fifty years ago, some of the ablest jurists and
highest State courts in the land, contended
for the constitutionality of local laws that
would forever have crippled the present
overshadowing and all powerful commercial
interests of the country, AS late as 1921
Daniel Webster made his learned and cell
ebrated argument before the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the case of
Gibbons rs. Ogden, in which he maintain
ed the unconstitutionality of the laws of
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut,
which granted certain citizens of their re-
spective States the exclusive right of navi-
eating by steam their principal waters. New
York, now the commercial metropolis of
the continent, was, by the laws referred to,
closed against steam vessels from any and
all other States and nations. Connecticut
likewise closed her waters to all vessels
except those chartered by her own citi-
10 rxrtn0
rights. New Jersey not only granted ex-
elusive privileges to some of her citizens,
but passed laws providing for reprisals in
cases where New York citizens interfered
with the rights Of her grantees of special
privileges. Under these laws, the passen-
ger who wanted to cross from the New
Jersey shore to New York by steam, would
have to be transferred in the middle of
North River to New York steamer.
Such were the tenor of statutes enacted
as late as 1918, and their validity
was affirmed by the highest and ablest
courts of the States named. And it was
not until 1924 that the supreme power of
Congress over this subject was finally adj
Indicated by our highest legal tribunal. In
his argument on this case, Webster, who
always went to the root of every such
question, whose mind was comprehensive
and elementary in its character, maintain
ed that the power to regulate commerce
was very broad and sweeping and
gave to Congress the right to con-
troll the nayigable streams and lines of
transportation between the States. Itseems
to us that in that argument he claimed for
Congress all the power contended for by
Mr.. Shellabarger and others in their in
designations on this subject as reported to
the late Congress.
This whole subject is now engrossing the
attention of the country and undoubtedly
some very sweeping changes will be made
unless the gigantic monopolies that now
Cypress the people have the wisdom
and patriotism to pursue differ
ent policy. Though the changes
likely to follow legislation in the immedi-
ate future, may not be as radical and be-
neficent as those following the recognition
of the principle contended for by Webster
in 1924, it is encouraging to look upon that
controversy as establishing the power of
the Government to grapple with the mo-
nOpolies and to finally secure for the peo-
pie the rights and privileges for which
theV now contend,