The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-08-18
THE BILL TO REGULATE RAILWAY
FREIGHTS.
Report of the Majority of the House
Committee.
House JOURNAL, MARCH 4TH, 1880.
MAJORITY REPCRT.

MAJORITY REPCRT.
To the Hon. B. f. Johns Speaker Of the House
Of Representatives,:
A majority OF your Committee, 10 whom was
! referred Senate Bill No 80 having reported
the said bill back the House, with the recon-
| mendation that it do not pass, ask leave to sub
nit the following reasons for their action in
| the premises
/ Your Committee are of the opinion that the
| provisions of said bin are in violation of that
| provision of the Constitution of the United
! States, which confers upon Congress the power
/ to reg ulate inter State commerce. In support
/ Of that position we refer to the case of Hall
VS.. Decuir, % q. s., 485.
| In the above case which arose under an Act
| of the Legislature Of the State of Louisiana,
entitled Act TO enfore the 18th article of the
| Constitution of the United States, etc, the
/ question involved in this bill. was fully con-
| sidered and decided. In that case, Benson
| the owner and master of the Governor Allen, =
| a packet between Vicksburg and New Orleans,
refused to give colorsd woman place in the
| ladies cabin and for such refusal, was fined
| 200 by the Supreme Court of the State of
| Louisiana, but which decision was reversed
| by the Supreme Court of the United States.
In commenting the case, Judge Waite re-
marks lit may be safely said that State legis-
| lation which seeks TO impose direct burden
| upon Interstate commerce, or TO interfere di-
rectly with its freedom, DOES encroaeh upon
| the exclusive power of Congiess." The statute
| now under consideration in our opinion occu-
| pies that position and il does not act upon the
business through the local instruments to be
! employed after coming within the State, but
directly upon the business as it comes into the
State from without, goes out from within.
| While it purports only 10 control the carrier
/ when engaged within the State, it must neces-
sarily influence his conduct to some extent
| influence his conduct in the general manage
ment Of his business throughout his entire
voyage. If each State was at liberty TO regu-
| late the conduct of carriers while within its
jurisdiction, the confusion like to follow could
not cut be productive of great inconvenience
and unnecessary hardship. Eacn state could
provide for its own passengers. and regulate
the transportation of its own freight regard
| less of the interests of others nav, more, 1t
could prescribe rules by which the carrier
| must be governed within the State with respect
TO property and passengers brought from with
out. Commerce cannot flourish in the midst
of such embarrassment; uniformity in the
regulations by WHICH he is TO be governed from
one one of his route To the other, Is necessity
in his business and to secure It Congess,
which is untrammelled by State lines has
been invested with the exclusive legislative
power of determining what such regulations
shall be.
In the case of welton VS.. the State Of Mis-
souri,, the plaintiff in error was indicted for
peddling sewing machines without license
under a statute of that State, imposing IL
eense on machines manufactured ont OF that
State, and exempting those manufactured IN
the State. Plaintiff in error was convicted In
the Supreme COURT Of Missouri, but the case
was reversed by the Supreme Court Of the uni
ted States, and the statute declared 1t TO be
unconstitutional.
In that case the Court says: TIT was con-
tended in the State courts, and is so eontended
here, that this legislation violates that clause
Of the Constitution which declares that Con-
gress shall have the power 70 regulate COM.