The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1878-05-22
The Right Of the LeglsIaI 10
EeeouInIe Railroad Charge


In the course Of running debate ia
the House of Representatives on the lOth
instant, upon the bill reported by Mr.
REAGAN of Texas, to regulate interstate
commerce and to prohibit unjust discrim-
nations by common carriers, Mr. Chal-
mers of this State, cited authorities IN
support of the right to regulate, as fol
lows:
Mp CHALMERS: When l callel the aten-
tion Of the gentleman from New ! oTh W.
potferl 10 the clause Of the decision 81 VIZ
Inurpn,4 Court of the United states, ih
vyhicf N was announced that the congress
had the exclusive jurisdiction over I'D, 1T
state commerce, the question wa- hsAeu ny
two gentlemen from That state MI; ~
fer and Mr.. Beebel what was meant oN M
tor State commerce, as II that did not lu-
clnde the right to regulate charges on rail-
roads | refer the gentlemen to the Ve'y
same decision in which the court says:
The controlling fact Is the power uo reRu-
lore ataIl If that exists, the right Ia es
tahiish the ma Nimum of charge, as one OF
the means OF regulation. Is mplled. (Muhn
". Illinois, 4 OTTO, l3i)
There, sir you have an answer as 10 WHAT
Is meant by regulating interstate commerce
Rut that i not all that che Supreme Court
has said In the case of the Chicago Ne'
Railroad Company vs.. Iowa, the court ut
tered this phatic language, which shhIl
quote. This, | will state was case arising
mon a State statute involving the right 70
,e0uiate The charges of railroads, Tie very
question which now comes up here, except
| ia that case H. was As to the p iwer OF state
| 10 regulate the charges OF "a railroad in lh
oNvu limits and here it l. ~ TO the power OF
| Congress to regulate the charges OF "A rnil-
| road running through more than one state
| The court says:
The objection that the statute complained
| of is void because il amounts To regula ION
of commerce among States, has been sulli-
cientlv considered in the case of Mum vs.,
| Illinois. This road, like the warehouse in
that case, is situated wit in the limits OF "a
single State Its business is carried on u ere,
aud its regulation is matter of dome,tt'
concern. Ii is employed in State as well as
in interstate commerce. and until Congress
acts the State must be permitted to adopt
such rules and regulations as may be neces-
sary for the promotion of the general wei
fare of the people within its own lurisOlic-
ton. even though in 50 doing those without
NAV be Indirectly affected Chicago ct nj.
Railroads vs.. Iowa, otto, lG3.
Until Congress acts Acts howY Acts
upon what? Upon the regulation OF the
rates of charges made by these great cor
porations which are created by legislation.
They are artificial channels of commerce
created by man under authority OF law.
The gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. Bragg
well said to-day that when the Constitution
was framed we had no idea about railroads.
That is true. Nor had we then any idea OF
telegraph lines. Yet the Supreme Court
has recently decided in Florida case, not
yer reported, that Congress has power over
the telegraph lines by the same clause OF
the & institution which gives it power 10
regulate commerce. The court speaking Of
railroads again says:
Their regulation is a thing OF domestic
concern, and certainly, until Congress acts
In reference to their Interstate relations,
the State may exercise all the powers OF
government over them, even though In so
doing it may indirectly operate upon com
merce outside its immediate jurisdiction.
We do not say that a case may not arise To-
which il will be found that State, under
the form of regulating its own affairs, has
encroached upon the exclusive coma u o.
Congress i'm specJ to interstate co nmercc I;
but we do say that, upon the facts as they
are represented To us in this record, that has
not been done.-Munn vs.. Illinois, 4 OTTO,
1876
These railroads. as / have said. are great
artificial channels of commerce, and il II
the duty of Congress ana the States TO regu-
late them. Why? Because exclusive privi-
leges are conferred upon them. They have
the right of eminent domain given to them
They have TO some extent the powers OF
sovereignty vested in them.
They haze certainly monopoly Of their
tracks, and in this are unlike our great riv-
ers upon which any man may set atlOat any
boat he chooses, and il is essential 20 the
rights of the people that the States shall reg
ulate commerce upon railroads IN the States
and Congress shall regulate rates OF rail
roads where Interstate commerce Is con-
cerned. Whenever a road runs through
more than state, then Congress should !
exercise the power which the State exercises
within its Wn borders.