Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1874-04-01
Interstate Commerce.
SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES W. WILLARD.
Made IN the. House of Representatives.,
March "a, 1874

March "a, 1874.
Mr.. SPEAKER: When this subject of the
regulation of rates of transportation OF
merchandise among the States was last
before the House, l obtained the floor by
the courtesy of member f the committee.
the gentleman from Missouri. Mr.. STONE
and l was prepared at that time to speak
with more method and directness than
shall now be able to do. If l proceed,
therefore, in n somewhat desultory way,
and with little attention to the logical order
of my remarks, l hope this will be n par
tial excuse for so doing.
| deem it Il favorable circumstance, ia
connection with this discussion, that it
cannot fairly be said to take party char
acter Gentlemen who have been always
and still are associated with the democratic
party have spoken in favor of this bill, and
announced their purpose to vote for it.
Gentlemen upon this side of the House,
who have always acted with the republican
party, have criticised sharply many OF the
features of the bill, and have announced
their purpose of voting against 1t IN Its
present shape. 1t does not, therefore,
seem possible, Mr.. Speaker, that party
lines can or ought to be drawn in the set
Element OF so important a question rs the
proposed measure presents for the consld-
Grafton of this body.
| know, sir, that in the discussion on the
bill something has been said of State-riShts
as though thai We're party tenet, as
though one side of this House held eXclu-
sively the doctrine that the States had GER
tain rights as against the Federal Govern
ment, and the other side Of this House
held the doctrine that the States had no
rights as against the Federal Govern
ment. Now, sir, from my observation OF
political parties, and OF the divisions that
have taken place upon this question OF
Siate-rights, | have not discovered that II
can fairly be said to be II party question
1t is not Il principle; it is only weapon
and the weapon of the party that Is III a
minority in the country. The party that
is out of power in the Federal Government
is ALWAYS the party to assert and insist up
on this doctrine of State-rights and the
party that is in power, whatever may be
its professions, whatever may be its plat
form, is more OF less the party that always
IGNORES or overrides State-rightS.
WHY. sir. it is in the memory of every
member on this floor that at the time OF
the enactment of the fugitivc-slave law the
party in power, the democratic party:
stretched the doctrine of Federal control
over matters of that sort beyond what had
been claimed rs possible by the wing party
before that time. We all know that the
Stat. of Massachusetts, then republican
State. and the State of W lScOnSln, then Il
republican State, and almost every rcpnb-
lcan State throughout the North, by their
Legislatures. by their resolutions, and by
the directions they gave to their State
officials, insisted that the States had rights
rs against the Federal Government which
they would not surrender. The question
of what these rights are or where the Ill
viding line shall be drawn IN each partIc-
ular instance, is not Il political question,
/ and ought never to be made political
question. 1t is Il question of good govern
| mrnt and wise legislation as much rs Il
question, of constitutional power; queS-
! ton, independent of the limitations OF the
Constitution, of what is the best Jurlsdlc-
ton. and where is the best legislative body
To solve the various problems that arise IN
the administration of public affairs through
out the United States.
1t is a question how far the local govern
mcnts are Il better jurisdiction to settle
these questions than the Federal Govern
ment, and how far the Federal Govern
ment is better jurisdiction TO settle these
! questions than the local governments
Some powers, rs Il matter OF course, nave
been and must be conceded to the Fedora
Government. because the Federal Govern
ment alone can property eXt"cfse suci
powers; and wherever such powers are
GRANTED to the General Government by the
Constitution, a Il matter OF course th'
legality and constitutionality of their eNer
else is beyond question But 1t does no
follow even then, Mr.. Speaker, We're l
settled that the power is Il constitutions
power. that Congress had authority within
the Constitution TO exercise Il given power
that therefore it must exercise it wheneve
ANYBODY asks for its exercise; or that an.
measure which is not open to Il constltu
tional objection is therefore WISE and JUDI
cious.
Now, sir. the question has been argued
in this case by some who support this bll
much as though the only point to be settled
here was the power of the Federal Govern
ment. or of the Congress Of the United
States. to regulate interstate commerce "a
though, that point once settled, there Wa
no escape from an affirmative vote on thi
bill. Now. | do not see why there Is an,
occasion to deny. for political reasons o
any other. or for the sake of making III
argument against this bill, that the Feter;.
Government has the same power and tn
same authority to regulate interstate com
merce that it has to regulate foreign com
merce. The terms of the grant IN The
Constitution are identical, and of course
the power must be the same in the one
case as in the other, But. sir, when yol
yet beyond that, and proceed to conslde
what Il regulation of commerce Is. ant
what the regulation of commerce Is that i
proposed by this bill. and whether the
propositions in this bill do not antagOniz'
md are not hostile to other provision
of the Constitution. we meet ut once, l
seems to me. the very gravest and mos
serious objection to the measure We ar'
now considering
The bill provides in general terms 70
the appointment of Il commission OF nin'
persons, who shall have power, wlthou
INV appeal from their decision, except tn
lppeal that is subsequently provided for il
he courts, to determine what is Il reason
lble price for the transportation of freigh
,ver any railroad in the country that ha
through connection.
These prices. having been once estai,
lished by this board, are to be held, in al
proceedings that may arise under them, ii
prinan tacie reasonable rates to be charge
lpon these roads; and the burden Of proc
: is thereafter to be put upon the roads,
&, they attempt to attack those rates, to prov
that they are less than II reasonable charg
, for transportation Of freight over sue
roads.
We have as starting point in the Con
stitution this provision in respect to tn
/ regulation of commerce. First, - Congress
: shall have power to regulate commerce
among the several States" Very wei
Then there is II provision that by no regt
f lation Of commerce shall preference b
given to the ports of one State over thos
of another State. So it will be seen thu
we have really gained little OF nothing
. determining what the power of Congre:
is in respect to the regulation of interstat
: commerce, when that power is conceded
: in3Snuch as any exercise of that pOWe