Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-03-04

be settled as TO whether the exhibition was
to be national or international at once, SO
that the commissioners might make their
preparations accordingly. lie did not be
lieye an International celebration would
cost $20,000,000 or anything like it, and the
commissioners had no Idea of mourning
such enormous expense. He had no objec-
tiOn to the bill going TO the committee, pro-
viding the character of the exhibition be
settled first. The Senate seemed disposed
to treat this celebration rs belonging to
Pennsylvania aud Philadelphia; he would
not hear the fair name of his State or city
aSsailed, even by implication, without vim
dicating their honors.
Pending discussion on motion to refer
the bill to the Committee on AplTOpria-
tions, Senate adjourned.
HOUSE.
WASHINGTON, March3.aMr. Townsend,
from the Committee on Public Lands, re-
ported bin to amend the homestead laws.
The bill goes into all the details and was
read at length. After reading and some
discussion the bill passed.
Mr.. Dawes, from The Committee on APP
| preparations, reported the annual fOrtifica-
| ton appropriation bill without amendment.
Placed on the calendar. He gave notice he
would call it up for consideration at an
| carly dav,
Protecting the waIruses.
Mr.. COnger. from the Committee on Com
merce, reported bill to ainend the act of
! July 1, 1870, to prevent the determination
of the fur. bearing animals Of Alaska, so rs
ta,authorize the Secretary of the Treasury
to designate the months in which fur seals
may be taken for their skins on the islands
of st. GRAY and st. George and the waters
adjacent thereto, and the number to be
taken in or about each island.
The bill passed.
Regulating Railroads.
The House then proceeded to the cOnsid
Grafton of the bill to regulate commerce
among the several States.
| Mr.. McCreary who reported bill from
the Committee on Railroads and Canals
addressed the House in explanation and
advocacy of it. The bill related exclusively
| TO interstate commerce and he asserted the
duty of Congress TO regulate such COM
merce. Ii provided two things only in the
nature of reformation. The first, that per-
| sons engaged in railroad commerce shall
not make unreasonable or eXtortionate
charges, and second, that they shall not
make unjust discrimination in the matter
of charges. The bill. was therefore, declar-
atory Of the common law itself. Ii had
not been prepared in a spirit Of hostility to
any railroad, While it required nothing from
them that was not fair, just unreasonable.
Itrequired fIom them only what the common
law as It stood now and from time imme-
mortal required of them. He argued that
the power of Congress over interstate
railroads was plenary and unlimited. eN-
cept where limitations were imposed by
the constitution, and was equal in extent
with the power of any single government
OVER common carriers. There was not a
limitation i'm the constitution, in the dec
laration that Congress may regulate COM
merce, as to what Congress might do in tie
way of regulating commerce. II was for
Congress itself to decide, provided what it
did was in the nature of regulation. There
was not and there could not be any other
limitation of the power Of Congress under
the constitution. Both in authority and
reason the proposition contained in the
bill was for the regulation Of commerce,
and would inevitably be held to be prop
er and legitimate exercise Of the power Of
Congress. lie declared that the charges
fixed by great railroad corporations We're
fixed not by competition, but by combina-
tion, and he quoted the shrewd aphO-
rism Of old George Stevenson, that COM
petition is impossible whenever cOmbina-
ton is possible. He argued from the
address of Charles Francis Adams before
the Massachusetts Legislature, to show
that the only competition was between
land transportation and water Transports
! ton, rs in 90 cases out Of Ice
there was but one railroad between
two points over which goods could be
shipped. There are but two alternatives.
either the regulation of railroad commerce
among the States 10y means Of national
legislation or else by letting them remain
permanently without any regulation at all.
He asked the House consider seriously
whether this great commerce, these vast
combinations, these powerful monopolies
having to deal with rights and interests OF
the people, ought to be left permanently
free and Independent Of any legislative
control. The States could not regulate
them. Attempts to do so by the States
: would be held void, as the statue Of Penn.
! sylvania had been held void. The ques-
ton. therefore, confronted Congress, wheth-
er it should let this commerce remain
} without the regulation conferred on Con.
gresS over the subject, referring to the i'm
mense profit made 10y railroad companies
I not on their stock, but on their actual cost
, which was a very different thing. lie in
stanced the case of the New York Central
which in a few years had paid forty-ivt
l millions in dividends, being nearly the
= entire cost of the road. These enOrmou,
= dividends had been made 10y levying exor
, bitant charges on commerce. Talking o
the opening up of new routes and i'm.
proving old ones, he said that NJ
= one was more in favor than
| he was of doing so. He knew that water
TRANSFORMATION was one of the features in
} the solution of the question, but he knew
too that Congress might spend any amount
in improvement in the Mississippi rivel
and in other water routes, and commerce
would still need legislation in order tC
compel the railroad companies to connect
with these water routes on fair and reason
: able terms. The railroads would discrimi-
nate so as to destroy practically the value
of these water routes. They had alwayi
done so and always would do so, unles,
compelled by law to connect with water
routes on fair terms. As to the proposition
of building great national road, it should
be considered only as a last resort; but ever
if there was such road Congress would
still need to control the railroads so as to
compel them to connect with it. He closed
his speech by saying that Congress was the
only power that had the right aud on which
developed the duty of adopting such rea-
sOnable rules and regulations as the case
required. He hoped that Congress would
not hesitate TO discharge its duty and it:
whole duty in the premises.
MIR. Arthur, member of the Committee
on Railroads and Canals, followed in q
speech against the bill las being proposition
in the nature of
An Experimental Explorer of Tho
Elasticity of Constitutional Govern
| menI. r..
He quoted from the debates on the con
stitution and from the decision of Chic
Justice Daniels to show that the object Of
giving Congress the power to regulate com
merce, was TO establish perfect equality
among the several States as to commercial
rights, and prevent unjust ,,invidious dis
tinctionS, which local iealousies or partial
interests might be disposed to introduce
and maintain.
Without taking'actiOn on the bill which
IS the special order from day to day until
disposed OF, the House adjourned.