Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1874-04-01

particular point. are always adverse to the
|. claim of those who advocate this proposed
LEGISLATION. In the P;,ssaic bridge case.
which I believe has not been referred to,
the decision was rendered by Mr.. Justice
Grier. The case, it will be remembered,
was an action brought to remove n bridge
that had been built by the State authorities
over the Passaic River. The court held
that although it was an obstruction to COM
merce, vet they did not think it was such
a bridge us the State had not the power
to erect in the absence of congressional
legislation on that subject. Mr.. Justice
Grier, in the course of an opinion printed
in Wallace, uses this language:
Canals turnpkes bridges and railroads are as necessary
TO the and through the states
rivers yet Congress has never pretended to regulate
not thereby regulate its harbDr detract from
own public rivers Congress establish ees and
postroads but this does not ect or control the aoSo
State doe desire the Of malls at IN
places and will not make roads ana DfoH Oh do n OF
quire it to receive favors by compuson Const.ung
bene of such place and It's commerce but tor the
STAT to o Surrender her the harbof
leading it either by land or water provided all
citizens of the United States enjoy the same
which are enjoyed by her own
Here the court says in very express Ian
guage that the power of the State over It's
own canals, railroads, turnpikes. bridges.
&c, is exclusive, and that Congress gets
no power over them to regulate them in
any way by virtue of the power to regulate
commerce.
| accidentally came upon another author
! itv, which has not been presented to the
| House, and is not, believe, in any printed
volume ofreports. While looking over the
letter of the Secretary of War with a view
to making up my mind in respect to what
ought to do rs legislator here in regard
/ to the Louisville and Portland Canal pro-
| ject, now pending before the House, |
found an opinion delivered by Mr.. Justice
| Miller. who has been quoted on this floor
as much, as any member of the Supreme
| Court of the United States as authority in
! f,vor of congressional regulation of freights
or tolls on railroads.
! NOW, if the House will be patient with
me long enough to state a5 briefly rs pos
/ sibe what this case is. they will see the
! point of this authority as | quote it. The
/ Portland ana Louisville Canal was origin
ally built by the State of Kentucky. or by 4
corporation created by the State for the
purpose, and tolls were allowed To be leviel
! for the Use of the canll. Gradually the
! United States became the owner of all the
stock except five shares. After it had be-
come the owner of such stock application
was made to Congress for leave to mort
| gage the canal, issue bonds on that security,
and 90 on charging and improving it.
Bonds We're issued on the strength of that
permission to the amount of nearly 81
10000, and the canal WAS mortgaged for
| that purposc. Those bonds are still out
standing. After that the United States
made an appropriation for work on the
canal, | think in 1872, and | read IN e1-
tract from that appropriation bill:
For continuing the the canal az the Fails Of TIE
directed to Congress at It's next session OF sooner
II practicable the condition of said canal and the prvv
with a view to legislation will render the same
free the earliest practicable period subject
repair thereof which shall after the passage
| OF this act exceed I'VE cents per ton
| ask gentlemen to mark the phraseolo-
gy of this provision. = subject to such tolls
Is may be necessary. &c, which shall not
after the passage of this act, exceed five
cents per ton" This is the first instance
have found of legislation by Congress to
regulate the rate of freight. Here was an
act of Congress providing that after Il GER
tain time tolls on this canal should not eX-
coed five cents per ton.
States proposed TO 20 on and make the inn
provement under this appropriation. The
persons interested in the bonds issued by
the canal company filed a petition before
Mr.. Justice Miller. asking to have the
United States enioined from going on with
the work. and setting forth rs a reason foI
The injunction that if they accepted thi,
appropriation under the terms of the act
;hev would be bound by this limitation Of
he rates of toll per ton to be levied upon
The commerce that ght pass through thai
canal. They asked for an Injunction OF
that ground. in order that the security ftil
their bonds might not be impaired. Mr.
Justice Miller went over the ground some
what ut length. holding that the rights o
the parties would not be imperiled in the
least by allowing the work to proceed. ii,
then used this language:
The argument Is. therefore no: without force. tina
NH d ye Tsr 2p agF e a 1 o. tais
~ remove THAT incuulbrance
Suggesting that Congress did not meal
that the toll should be regulated ut tiv,
/ cents per ton after the passage of the az
of appropriation, but only after the passag,
of some subsequent act. He then goes OF
to say:
It must be eo "a, hat the laqsuage is not after III
well supposed that Congress intended 10 limit m
tolls at once to We cents per ton
Ifths construction the statute correct then hav
no hesitation IL saving that that part OF II hch limit
attempt to destroy vested rights and taking Of pvat
property Tor public use withoqt'iue COMPENSATION.
think have shown that the prosecution of this work
fr the tene and advantage OF all concerned that 1t doe
seriously Interfere with the ordinary
the accomplishment the work neither coz.
Congress the right 10 regulate the toll vadst
ies g5 aG atsmP It do So really "
Now that is the only authority To- M
knowledge. which goes to the very que>
: lion whether Congress has power Ia regu
| late the price for carrying freight whel
; that regulation might impair veste,
! rights.
Mr. HAwLEY, of Illinois VIII the zen
tleman permit me to ask him one question
right here. if it does not interrupt him to,
much?
Mr. WILLARD of Vermont II is onl,
: Il question of time. If can have my tim,
extended 50 that | can 90 a little bevon,
the hour, do not object to Interruptions
Mr. HAwLEY, of Illinois wish to asl
the gentleman if he does not know tina
; Mr. Justice Miller has decided in regard t
railroads that Congress has power 10 REG
ulate the prices which railroads shall charo
for freights?
Mr. WILLARD. Of Vermont DO no
understand th,t he has so decided
Mr.. HAwLEY, of Illinois. | - under
stand.
Mr. WILLARD. of Vermont | do no
) understand that any such decision has bee
= made or has been quoted in this debate
: In the Clinton Bridge case, which has bee
quoted here, Mr.. Justice Miller decide
that Congress had the same power to REQ
{ ulate commerce by railroad that it had t
= regulate any other commerce. But he iii
( not in any other particular touch the ques
ton of the regulation by Congress of til
;, rates of freight to be charged by railroad.
. Mr.. HAwLEY, of Illinois. ! understan
u he did 90 to that extent.
;. Mr.. WILLARD, of Vermont. Do yo
J. understand that it was so in the Clinic
III p,;I1-., L,nrnC