The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-02-08
Interstate supervision.

Inc National Board OF 1raae has
asked Congress to appoint commission
which shall have supervision over all in
terstate traffic. Numerous bills have
been introduced in Congress and several
are now pending, one introduced. by
Senator George to accomplish that OBJ
ject. Some years ago bill introduced
Mr.. McCrary, Western member (who
was afterwards member of the Cabinet
of Mr. Hayes and subsequently appoint
ed United States District Judge by
him., passed the lower, house Of Con-
gress. The power Of Congress to regu-
late railway commerce under the Con-
stitution cannot be successfully denied.
As we'll as we can remember the follow
ing is about the substance of an argu-
ment by the great Senator from Indiana,
tina late Hon. O. P. Morton, in discus
sion in the Senate some years before his
death, upon cheaper rates of railway
transportation and reform of abuses. He
argued that when the Constitution was
framed, our commerce was confined chief
ly to navigation, and the laws governing
commerce had been applied here
tofore wholly to that carried on by
water. The power of Congress to regu-
late freights and fares has never been
exercised in connection with navi-
CATION; but that does not disproye its
existence, for the powers of government
generally lie dormant until occasion
calls them forth. Cheapness, uniformity
of operation, speed, convenience and
safety, all point to connected roads and
through lines, and these throughout
their length should be regulated by
uniform methods and laws. The power
to regulate commerce includes the pow
er to regulate the common carrier and
public highway upon which it is trans.
ported. Railroad companies are COM
mon carriers, and railroads are public
Common carriers are re-
quired to carry for all persons and at
rates. Is there doubt that
the State in one case, or Congress in the
other, may determine what are reason
able rates? 1t is well understood that
a contract" at common law, when our
Federal Constitution was framed, had
no reference to charters, and that there
fore the power of the State to regulate
commerce within the State is indubit-
able, but even if the reverse be as
sumed, it cannot be maintained that
any contract" between a State and
can interfere with the pow
er of Congress to regulate COM
nerce between the States. Mr..
Morton, without discussing the true
meaning of the clause in the FebA
,ral Constitution prohibiting the States
rom impairing the obligation of con- '
racts, argued that the State could en- /
er into no relations with corporations
which would restrain Congress in the
exercise of its delegated powers, and
hat whatever franchises the State :
rants must be accepted subject to the :
that when railroads engage in r
Interstate commerce they are liable to
equation by Congress. A State can v
ot obstruct interstate commerce hy C
ireet legislation or exorbitant taxes s.
n freight or passengers, and what the Il
tates may not do by direct legislation 7
hey cannot by charter or contract en- :,
over a corporation to do. 1t was in .
ended by the trainers of the Constitu- r
on that we should have common Il
Duntry and free commerce, and that no il
tate lying across the path of COM Il
lerce should be permitted to make I'M n
list discrimination against it in any y
'rm. transportation is such an essen 0.
al element of commerce that if State ~
or permits corporation to ~ ~
Nercise supreme control over it, it may in
estroy it. Each State may regulate com CO
erce internal to itself, and in the alb ga
nee of Congressional legislation may W
AXE regulations for commerce passing of
ross its territory, provided il does not sil
lpose burdens on Interstate commerce To-
: make unjust determinations, or au- pr
IOrize corporations of its creation to 'e
, so,