The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1874-03-13
Congress and Transportation Speech
of Mr.. McCrary.

Va
Hon. George w. McCrary, of Iowa,
in his speech in Congress in advocacy
of his bill for the regulation of inter-
State commerce, argued that the power
of Congress over interstate railroads
was plenary and unlimited, except where
limitations were imposed by the Consti-
tuition, and was equal in intent with the
power of any single Government over
common carriers. There was no limita-
ton in the Constitution in the declare
ton that Congress may regulate COM
merce. As to what Congress might do
in the way of regulating commerce, il
was for Congress itself to decide, pro-
vided what it did was in the nature of
regulation. There was not, and there
could not be, any other limitation in
the power of Congress under the Con-
stitution, both in the authority and rea-
son. The proposition contained in the
bill was for the regulating of commerce,
and would inevitably be held to be a
proper and legitimate exercise of the
power OF Congress. He declared that
the charges fixed by the great railroad
corporations were fixed, not by compe-
tition, but by combination, and he quoted
Stephenson that competition is impossi-
bic whenever combination is possible.
He also quoted from the address of
Charles Francis Adams before the Mas
sachusetts Legislature to show that the
only competition possible is between
land transportation and water transport
tation, as in ninety-nine cases out of
hundred there was but one railroad be-
tween two points over which goods could
be shipped. There were but two alter
natives /: either regulation of railroad
commerce among States by means of
national legislation, or else letting them
remain permanently without any regula-
ton at all. He asked the House to con-
slider seriously whether this great COM
merce, these vast combinations, these
powerful monopolies, having to do with
the rights and interests of the people,
ought to be left permanently free and
independent of any Legislative control.
The States could not regulate them.
Any attempts to do SO by States would
be held void as the statute of Pennsyl- |
vania had been held void. The ques-
ton, therefore, confronted Congress
whether it should let this commerce re-
main without regulation or should as
sert the power which the Constitution |
conferred on Congress over the subject. |
Referring to the immense profits made |
by railroad companies, not on their
stock but on their actual cost. which |
was a very different thing, he instanced |
the case of the New York Central, which |
in few years had paid $40, 900, 900 in
dividends, being nearly the entire cost |
of the road. The enormous dividends |
had been made by levying exorbitant
charges on commerce. Talking of the |
opening up of new routes and improv-
ing old ones, he said that no one was
more in favor than he was of doing so.
He knew that water transportation was
one of the features in the solution of
the question, but he knew, too, that
Congress might spend any amount of
money in the improvement of the Mis-
sissippi river, and in opening other water
routes, and commerce would still need
aid of legislation in order to compel
railroad companies to connect with these
water routes on fair and reasonable
terms. The railroads would discrimi-
nate so as to destroy practically the val
lie of these water routes. They had al
ways done so, and always would do so,
unless compelled by law to connect with
water routes on fair terms. AS to the
for building great nation
al railroad, it should be considered only,
if at all, as last resort. But, even if
there was such road, Congress would
still need to control railroads so as to '
compel them to connect with it. He
closed his speech by saying that Con-
yress was the only power that had the
right and on which devolved the duty, {
II adopting such reasonable rules and
regulations as the case required. He
Hoped that Congress would not hesitate
o discharge its duty, and its whole duty, !
n the premises