The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1874-01-21
rtsi req to gives the true meaning Of the Con.
sH.utSn' .Sau Ion oi which there can bo no doubt


sutuhon, ot which there can be No ~ dorh,
then the power Of Congress- in ,hs % mSttsr matte
VI ContIoLling and regulating inter. State
commerce Is co.extenSlve with the power
OF the STATES over their internal com.
merce, and II the power OF the State over
! ie own commerce Is for any reason less
than plenary, then the power Of ConereSs
within Its sphere Is necessarily greater
than that OF such State; for the powers o I
Congress can be limited only by the
Constitution oil the United States, II
can hardly be claimed, however, Al
; this day that q State has no power 10 fl
; or limit the charges OF railroads within
It's territory; that they have such power Is
now generally conceded. The power Of
the State over railroad commerce
within It's limits Is not denied from the
TACT that railroads are chartered by the
State, but II Is denied from the fact that
the roads are public highways and there.
fore necessarily subject TO legislative con.
troll Very early the question arose
whether States right Of domain could
De exercised BY a private corporation for
the purpose Of constructing railroad,
Clearly 1t could not, unless taking land
ior such purpose, by such an agency, is
taking land Tor public use. The right
OF eminent domain nowhere iustiAes the
taking oi property for private use, yet Il
is . doctrine unsVersally accepted that q
State Legislature may. authorize private
corporations TO take land for the construc.
tion Of such road, making compensation
to the owner. What else does this doc.
trine mean II not that the building Of !
railroad though 1t be built by q private
corporation is an actor public use, and
the reason why for public use Is that such
road Is big ghwaY whether made by the
government itself or by Its agency, or by
u corporation or even by individuals
when they obtain their power 10 con.
slruct from q legislative grant. The
authorities upon the subject are very
numerous and all very uniform, and
they leave no doubt as TO the right 10 the
limit by law the charge Of common.car-
rier 10 such as shall be reasonable, for
they show clearly that such law IL
simply declaratory of common law ilseli
Il will be observed that the question OF
the power Of Congress to create or char
ter corporation TO operate line ofcom.
merce from State 10 State and to exercise
the right Of eminent domain is not mooted
in the passage OF the bill reported. 1t Is,
however, well settled by the decisions OF
tho Supreme Court of the United States
that Congress may charter q corpora.
ton, which Is Necessary or proper
instrument for carrying into effect any
ol the powers Of the general government.
II, therefore, Congress should deem il
necessary in the exercise OF power ex.
pressly conferred 10 regulate commerce
among the States, TO charter new lines OF
railroads or canals, as channels of such
commerce, It's power to do so would seem
beyond question.
The Committee Rext proceeded 10 con.
slider the question of expediency. Aftera
general discussion OF the question Of trans.
portatiQu by railroad and its bearings, the
report concludes as follows: "When It is
remembered that about SO, 900 900 tons OF
freight were carried by tho great through
lines in the year 1872, probably one.third
Of whiSh- was Western products, it will al
once Se seen how important and how vital
to the interests and rights Of the people
1t IS that some other interest and some
other power than tho combined interest
and power Of great monopolies should be
invoked in the regulation Of these charges.
We assume, therefore, that this commerce
by railroads should be controlled and reg
ulsted by law. Of course laws which
shall secure such regulation and control
must be either national laws or State laws,
or both. 1t has been claimed that
State legislation of itself is sufficient, but
q little reflection shows that this ID an
error. Your committee Is not disposed
to recommend the slightest encroschment
by the federal government upon the right
full domain OF State legislation, and say
distinctly that in 80 tar as q remedy
tor these evils can be found In local or
State laws, TO that extent the remedy
should be sought in that direction; but
the proposition that Interstate commerce
cannot be controlled and regulated by
State laws Is too plain for argument. The
great trunk lines, or through lines as they
are called, must be regulated by national
law or not regulated at all. They make
contracts 10 carry freight from the Mis-
souri, River TO the Atlantic, and even
sometimes from one ocean TO another
without change oi cars. In the trans.
mission Of their immense business they
make no note Of State lines. True, they
may be chartered by some one or all Of the
States whose territory they traverse, but
they are 10 all intents and purposes one
line operating in and through many
States. We have already seen that any
State law attempting to regulate com
merce upon such lines as these would be
unconstitutional and void, because II
would be an attempt by the State TO eX.
ercise the power TO regulate commerce
among the States, which Is confded by
the Constitution exclusively 10 Congress,
But aside from Its unconstitutional such
legislation would be Intellectual Tor other
and very apparent reasons. Let US sup.
pose that commerce TO be regulated eI-
tends over q line from Council Bluffs,
Iowa, TO Boston, and passing through the
States Of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut
and Massachusetts. Now can any
rule or regulation for carrying on com.
merce upon this line be enacted or en-.
forced by State authority: II we are TO
admit that one rule may apply In one
State and different rule In another, q
dozen different and conflicting rules
might result. If some Of the States should
pass no laws upon the subject what Is to
hinder railroad company from fixing
Its own rules and arranging It's own prices
Tor carrying freight over the territory Of
such State. Surely 1t will not be pre-
tended that the statute Of Iowa can regu.
late the rights and duties OF common
carrier In the State Of Pennsylvania. But
again the most conclusive OF all consider
ALioDs upon this subject Is the fact II the
regulation Of these long lines be.
longs 10 Ststes alone the may
as well as diminish the chargesof
these carriers, and may thus discriminate
In favor Of their own people and against
thRaa af RNho1 GNaNaa Anain III thA lONmn