The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-01-21

one ocean to the other without u change OF cars
IN the transaction OF their immense business they
make note OF state lines. True, they may be
chartered by some one Or all Of the states whose
territory they traverse. but they are TO all lntents
and purposes one line operating inland through
We have already seen that any state law at
tempting to regulate commerce upon lines as
these would be unconstitutional anu VOID, because
II would be an attempt by the state to exercise the
States which Is cOnfdcd by the Constitution eXclu-
slvely to Congress. toee State freight tax cases,
10 Wallace 232; Crandall vs. Nevada, Wallace 80;
Gibbons VS.. Ogden, wheaton, H. But, aside from
its uncOnstitutlOnality, such legislation would be
Intellectual for other and very apparent reasons
Let US suppose that the commerce TO be regulated
extends over line from Council BIurrs Iowa, TO
Boston, Mass, and passing through the states
q Sew IowS nS 0a0
ing on commerce on this line be enacted
init that one rule may apply in one state and q
different rule in another, O dozen different and
conflicting rules might result. IL some of the
States should pass no laws upon the subject what
Is to hinder the railroad company from fixing It's
own rules and charging its OVID prices Tor carrying
freight over the territory OF sucn state? Surely 1t
will not be pretended That statute of Iowa can
regulate the rights ana duties OF common carrier
In the State OF Pennsylvania. But, again, the most
conclusive OF all considerations upon this subject
Is the fact that II the regulation OF these long
belongs 70 the states alone they may increase as
well as diminish the charges OF these carriers aud
may thus discriminate Ill favor OF their own people
ana against those of otner states. Again, II
piled regulations OF the conduct of carrier in
the transportation OF single cargo such questions
as these must arise (which state shall enforce
It's regulation To how many penalties shall the
carrier be subjected In what and how many
courts shall he be answerabIe2 and finally, II
obedience to the laws OF one state IS found TO be
q violation OF the laws of another, what shall be
the carriers dutys These suggestions, while they
show the wisdom OF our fathers In placing this
commerce under national control, also Demon
strate the proposition that we have before
laid down, that state control is simply
impossible While this Is there Is
field within which the state may and
should iegisate, and That field is, as was well said
by Chlel Justice Marshall, in the words already
quoted in the enactment Of such laws as apply to
the completely internal commerce OF the State.r
contract to carry freight from place to place
within state Is clearly within the reach OF State
laws and as clearly beyond the scope Of federal
legislation Conflict between the State and the
nation In the matter OF the regulation OF commerce
Is clearly impossible, 80 wisely and well have our
fathers marked out the jurisdiction OF Congress-
Where the authority OF the nation begins that
OF the State ends. The former reaches and con-
trolls Interstate commerce, the latter to- internal
commerce q state. and the mower Of