Litchfield enquirer., 1874-02-05

gslnaea by ssnte laws, is too plain for srgu- @spk 1he great trunk lines, or through hnas aa theT arc called, must be regulated bg maksonnl law, or not regulated at all 1hmy make contracts to cary freight from eA8 Missoan River Co the Atlantic, and GVwm @0meffn6s from one ocean to the eeAAZ. without . change of cars. In the tRAmmacti0n cR their immense business they @Ak1 no note of State lines. True, they @av be chartered by some one or all of tAe elatss whose territory they traverse, eu9 Der are t0 all intents and purposes, ona knA operating in and through many SAmAna.
 We have already seen that any State law aefsmpting to regulated commerce upoa such lines as these would be uncon seieuk0nal and void, because it would be a attempt by the State to exercise the Pewue to regulate commerce among the esveEAl States, which is confided by the OcmSe1eufioa exclusively to Congress. (See eanke Freight tax cases, 15 Wallace, 232; CEandan "a Nevada, Wallace, 8; Gib- 6oHs VI. Og1ens 9 Wheaton. l. But aside froR IS unco1stitufi0aslity, such leg isankion wonid be ineFsctual for other and wsgy apparent reasonS.- Let us sup pose thak the commerce to Ee regulated axkmnda oreR line from Council Bluffs, IowA. to Boston, IaSG, and passing through tho States of Iowa, Illinois, In- dia1A, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut. Massachusetts,. How can aay rale or regulation for carrying on commerce upon this line be enacted or en- forced by State authority? If we are to admit that ono rule may apply in one State and q different rule in another, 8 do1sa different and conflicting rules might regalk If some of tho States aoOald pess TO laws upon the subject, what is to hinder the raIircad company froM axing iss own -ules and charging it's own prices for carrying freight over the territory of such State, surely t will not be prsscndsd that statute of Iowa can regulate the rights and duties of g common carrier n the States of Penn sylvenia. But again. tho most conclusive of all considera- tlons upon this subject Is the fact that if Ihe regulation Of these long lines belongs so tAe State alone, they may increase as well as diminish the charges of these car- Eaers. and may thns discrimi ate in favor of slleir owa people and against those Of otheg States. Again, if thc laws of dozen different States are to be applied as re- g7lations of the conduct of . carrier in the transportation of . single cargo, such qestio1s as these must arise: Which State shaIl enforce ifs regulations? To how many penalties shall the carrier be sub- tecee In what and now many courts shall he be answerable? And finally, ii obe- dlsaee to the laws of ono State is found 0 be . violation of the laws of another. shat shall be the carriers duty? These suggestions. while they show tho wisdom Of our fathers in placing this commerce under national control, also demonstrate She proposition that we have before laid down, that State control is simply im- possible While this true, there is field within which the State may and should legiklAke. and that field is. as was well said by Chef Justice Marshall, in. the words already quoted, in tue enactment Ot such laws as apply the State." A con- tract to carry freight from place to place within State is clearly within the reach ot State laws. and as clearly beyond the scope of Federal legislation. Conflict be- tween the State and the nation in the mat Ger of tAs regulation Of commerce, is clearly impossible, so wisely and we'll have our fathers marked out the iurisdic- ooa of congress. Where the authority of the nation begins, that of tho State ends. The former reaches and controls inter. ok4es commerce. the latter the internal ec@GeTce of Q State. and the power of sAcA within its appropriate sphere, is alike a@pae So fsr, then, as the question of exp@1e1cy ls concerned, it resolves itself 1ke tAe question whether interstate Fa1aroad commerce shall be regulated at all 1Ae committee believe that it ought so De. and that sooner or later it must be. and tAey believe also that every years de- Ay o1 tAe par4 of Congress to inaugurate the work. but adds to the difficulties to oS oVSecoDe. o the damages to be avert ed. and to sAe evils to be remedied,
 h h@1 besa said that, admitting the PcwSr to regulate commerce, it Is not ex- P@1ssak Co @x1EcSse it to the extent of Amfr4Eg chaxges to such are reasonable. We have already considered the question s1 e t@s power Co do this. and have seen sA12 6t Es cieaxly a regulation, and, there S1Re. w1<A1a the power to regulate. and we Ae@e @44 without hesitation that we consid- se If 1u4 O1ly ths mos. just, but the most sxPe4e@E of all possible regulations.
 Any attempt to regulate this commerce we2sA ss1Ps short of prohibition of extor- tls@nAs eAmrges must prove altogether in S@see1AA 18 a remedy for existing evils. It Ss maw vel settled. as ue have seen. tbat tho se@1es eA1 put no limit upon these eARsA Lsk is also be acknoTieoed and aeekAs9 thai Congress cannot do so, and tAe eSn whsch VII result can be measured S1Ay ey eAe selnshness. .avsrice, and cupid ny wAAeA c41 exist m . number of great eoSReE@ee 1on0p0isE, combining for their So@@na interest and controlled by no &T WAa&ncSver.