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

charter, or without one, alike are liable
for any abuse of the public in their
charges. ISee argument of Beckwith
in the report of the Illinois commission
ers for 1872 And the authorities
fully sustain this proposition. The au-
thoritiss upon the subject are numerous
and uniform, and they leave no doubt
as to the right to limit by law the
charges of common carriers to such as
shall be reasonable, for they show clear
ly that such law is simply declaratory
of common law itself. 1t will be OBJ
served that the question of the power of
congress to create or charter corpora
ton to operate line Of commerce from
State to State, and to exercise the
RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN,
is not involved in the passage of the
bin reported. 1t is, however, well set
tied by decisions OF the supreme
court of the United States, that congress
may charter a corporation, which is a
necessary or proper instrument for car
rying into effect any of the powers of the
| general government. If, then, congress
should deem it necessary, in the exercise
of the power expressly conferred, to reg
ulate commerce among the several
States, to charter new lines of railroads
or canals, as channels of such commerce,
its power to do so would seem beyond
| question. The committee continue /:
! This whole question has recently been
considered by the supreme court of
Michigan, in the case of Trowaley as.
Humphrey, auditor-general. T23 Michi-
gan, AL An elaborate and exhaustive
opinion, IN that case, was delivered by
one of the ablest jurists in the country,
Judge Cooley, and we content ourselves
with referring to il, and quoting from it
the conclusion reached by the court as
follows: The power of congress to reg
ulate commerce exists independently of
the means or agencies by which that
commerce is carried on. Steamboat
companies, engaged in the nav
igation of our great rivers, are
frequently, and, we believe, generally
incorporated under State laws; but it
has never been urged that, for this rea-
son, the commerce carried on by these
companies is beyond the control of con-
gress. Tue committee next proceed to
consider the question of expediency.
After a general discussion of the ques-
ton of transportation by rail, in all its
bearings,
THE REPORT CONCLUDES AS FOLLOWS:
When it is remembered that about
36, 900, 200 tons of freight were carried
by the great through-lines in the year
1872, probably one-third of which was
western products, it will at once be
seen how important and how vital to
the interests and rights Of the people it
is that some other interest and some
other power than the combined interest
and power of great mOnOpolies should
be invoked in the regulation of these
charges. We assume, therefore, that
the commerce by railroad should be con-
trolled and regulated by law. OF course,
the laws which shall secure the regula-
tion and control mast be either national
or State laws, or both. 1t has been
claimed that the State legislation, is, OF
itself, sufficient, but a little reflection
will show tnat it is an error. Your
committee are not disposed to recon-
mend the slightest encroachment by the
federal government upon the rightful do
main of the State legislation, and we
say distinctly, that in so far as remedy
for these evils can be found in local or
State laws to that extent the remedy
should be sought in that direction; but
the proposition that intervate commerce
can not be controlled and regulated by
State laws, is too plain for argument.
THE GREAT TRUNK LINES,
OF through-ines, as they are called, must
! be regulated by national law, Ornot reg
ulated at all. They make contracts to
carry freight from the Mississippi river
to the Atlantic, and even sometimes
| from one ocean to the other, without a
change of cars. In the transaction of
/
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 intents and purposes one
| line, operating in and through many
States. We have already seen that any
State law, attempting to regulate COM
merce upon such lines as these, would
be unconstitutional and void, because it
would be an attempt by the State to ex-
ercise power to regulate commerce
among several States, which is confided
by the constitution
EXCLUSIVELY TO CONGRESS.
TSee estate Freight Taxes, !" Is Wallace,
232; Crandall u.s. Nevada, Wallace, 33 /;
Gibbons rs. Ogden, Wheaton, l. But
aside from its nconstitutionality, such
legislation would be Intellectual for other
and very apparent reasons. Let us sup
pose that the commerce to be regulated
extends over line from Council Bluffs,
Iowa, TO Boston, Massachusetts,, passing
through the States of Iowa, Illinois, In
diana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York,
Connecticut, and Massachusetts, how
can any rule or regulation for carrying
on commerce upon this line be enact
ed or
ENFORCED BY STATE AUTHORITY?
If we are to admit that one rule may
apply in one State and a different rule
in another, dozen different and con-
| flicting rules might result in some of the
States. Should there be no laws upon
the subject, what is TO hinder a railroad
company from fixing its own rules ar
ranging its own prices for carrying
! freight over the territory of such State?
| Surely it will not be pretended that a
statute of Iowa can regulate the rights
and duties of the common carrier in the
| State of Pennsylvania. But, again, the
most conclusive of all considerations
upon this subject is the fact that if the
regulation of these long lines belongs to
States alone, they may increase as well
as diminish the charges of these carri-
ers, and may thus
DISCRIMINATE
in favor of their own people, and
against those of other States.
Again, If the laws of a
dozen different States are to be applied
as the regulation of the conduct of car
rier in the transportation Of a single
cargo, such questions as these must arise !:
Which State shall enforce its regulation?
To how many penalties shall the carrier
be subjected? In what and how many
courts shall he be answerable? and final
ty, If obedience to the laws of one State
is found to be violation Of the laws of
another, what shall be the carriers du-
ty? These suggestions demonstrate the
proposition that we have before
laid down, that State control
is simply impossible. While this
is true, there is a field within which
each State may and should legislate, and
that field is, Gs was well said by Chief
Justice Marshall: "In the enactment of
such laws as apply to complete the in
ternal commerce of a State, contract
to carry freight from place to place with
in State, Is clearly within the reach of
State laws, and clearly beyond the
scope Of federal legislation. The con-
filct between State and the nation in
the matter of regulation of commerce,
is clearly impossible, so wisely and we'll
have our fathers marked out the juris-
dictiop OF congress-" Where the au-
thority of the nation begins, that of the
State ends; the former reaches aud con-
trolls the Interstate commerce, the lat
Tar the internal commerce of State and
the spower of each, within its .approprl-
ate sphere, is alike ample. So far as the
nrrrcnInAr or FXPEnIRNcY