Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-01-21

MOn0p0lleS 10 Receive 4 Check
On Railroads Reasonable
Rates May be Charged,
Not More.
WASHINGTON, January 20.-Mr. Nc
! Crary, chairman OF the committee on
railways and canals, to-day submitted
to the house of representatives the report
On the house bill to regulate commerce
! by railroad among the several
| States. The report says the committee
have had the same under consideration,
and reported the accompanying
amendment thereto in the nature of a
substitute, and recommend its passage.
In the judgment of the committee,
| the measure Of legislation now proposed
! is so important as to make a proper
statement, in the form of q report, to
the house of some of the principal
grounds, which, it is believed, not only
! Justify, but demand its adoption, with
out repeating in detail the provisions of
! the bill. 1t is enough for the present
! purpose to say that it asserts the right
and duty Of congress to regulate the
| commerce as carried on by railroads,
and prescribes as one of the regulations
! thereof that the charges of persons en-
gagged in such commerce for
! CARRYING FREIGHT AND PASSENGERS,
shall in all cases be fair and reasonable.
OF the details of the bill we do not speak
here, because these can well enough be
discussed elsewhere; suffice it to say
that their purpose is land we think them
well adapted to it, to adopt and enforce,
under suitable penalties, as one of the
rules or regulations concerning COM
merce carried on by railroads among the
States, the taking of no more than fair
and reasonable toll or compensation.
Before any discussion of the details, it is
necessary to consider and determine first
whether the end~thus sought can be OBJ
tanned by q constitutional act of con-
gress, aud secondly, whether it is expe-
dient. First, the constitutional question
among the powers expressly conferred
upon congress, by section 43, article of
the constitution, is the power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and
among the several States, and with the
Indian tribes. In considering the ques-
ton whether, under this provision, con-
gress has power to pass the bill reported,
it will be unnecessary to inquire as to
the nature and extent of the power con-
ferred by this provision upon congress.
1t will not be denied that this clause of
the constitution confers upon congress,
by express word,
THE POWER TO LEGIsLATE,
Upon the general subject of the regu-
l., Of IN, fhn
States. it is not a negative provision. 1t
does not declare what power congress
shall not have; il is not merely prOhib-
itory but is also affirmative, for it de-
claTes that congress shall have power,
etc. In order to show that this provi-
sion of the constitution authorizes con-
gress to pass the bill reported, it is ne
cessary to establish the following propo-
sitions; First, that commerce among
( the several States which may be regu-
lated by congress, includes commerce
! carried from State to State by railroads; /;
| second, that to regulate charters for
/ carrying freight or passengers upon in
| ter-State railroads so as to limit them to
what is fair and reasonable and prevent
eXtortiOn, is a legitimate exercise of the
power to regulate such commerce. In
| support of the first proposition, the COM
mittee cites Judge Redfield on the law
/ of railroads; the opinion of the supreme
court, as delivered by Judge Marshall,
! lin the case Of Gibbons Us Ogden; Judge
| Cooley on constitutional limitations; I;
| the opinion of the supreme court deliv-
cred by Justice Miller fin the case of
Grey Us. Clinton Bridge company, re-
ported by the American law register,
January 1861, and the recent decision
of the supreme court in the case of the
State freight tax, Is Wallace 232].
THE REPORT GOES ON TO SAY:
1t is by no means important, in order
to establish the power of congress, to
pass the bill reported; that it should be
made to appear that the power of con-
gress over Interstate commerce is ex-
elusive. That power is ample, whether
it be exclusive or not; but it seems to
the committee that the cases cited are
conclusive of the question, and leave no
doubt that the power of congress is ex-
elusive. The authorities cited leave no
room for doubt concerning the power Of
congress to regulate that commerce
among the several States which is now
carried on by means of railroads. They
establish conclusively that the power of
congress extends to all commerce, which
concerns more than one State, and that
it necessarily includes carrying freight
and passengers frome any place in one
State to any place in another State. 1t
reaches and controls that commerce
which is beyond the reach of any single
State, because not completely internal
within any one State. The committee
then proceeds to discuss the second
proposition relative to
REGULATION OF TOLLS,
and in its support cites Chief-Justice
| Marshall in Gibbons as. Ogden. The
question is not whether such regulation
! is reasonable or unreasonable, proper or
improper, expedient or inexpedient, but
simply whether it is a regulation, if it
pre- ScTibes a rule to be followed in car
Tying on commerce. That II does pre-
| scribe such a rule is plain. The rule
here prescribed is that, in carrying on
commerce upon railroads between
| points in the different States, reasonable
rates may be charged, and not more.
The power Of congress upon this subject
has no Limitation other than the others
prescribed in the constitution ITSELF II the
opinion gives the true meaning OF the
constitution, Of which there can be no
doubt, then the power OF congress
in the matter of controlling
and regulating inter Estates is
co-eXtensive with the power Gf
the States over their complete in
/ ternal commerce; and if the power Of
! the State over lis own commerce is, for
any reason, less than "plenary," then
| the power of congress within its sphere,
| is necessarily greater than that Of such
] ZfaFa Fha nf ha
| limited only by terms Of the constitu-
ton Of the United States. It can hard
ly be claimed, however, at this day, that
a State has no power TO fix or limit the
charges of the railroad within its limits
NOT derived from the fact that railroads
sra chartered by the State, but II Is de-
rived frcra the fact that railroads are
public highways, end therefore necessa-
Inly
sUBJECr TO LEGISLATIVE CONTROL.
In the recent case OF Alcott rs. super
visors I6WalIace, 67Sl the supreme court
of the United States, says that railroads,
though constructed by private corpora
dOns and owned by them, are public
highways. Very early the question
arose whether tbs states right OF
eminent domain could be exercised ny q
private corporation created for the pGr=
pose of constructing railroad. Clearly
It could not unless taking land for such
n pArpose by such an agency Is taking
land foF public use. The right Of
eminent domain nowhere justifies the
taking Of property for privste use, yet it
Is doctrine universally accepted that a
State Legislature may authorize private
corporation to take land for the con-
stTUctiOn of such road, making COM
] nansAiinn 10 fha nunar ANhai lIaa