The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-01-07
The Court decided further:

I t'H4huohs y. NEtktut = W Aeat0h
| The Court decided further:
| Where each government exercises the rover a,
! taxation, neither is exercising the power oi TIA
other; bur when state proceeds TO regulate com
4 merce with foreign nations or anon. the sevars
STATES u IS exercising the very power that
TO Congress, and il is doing the very thing whic
I Congress is authorized to do.
Chief Justice Story, in the case O
New York VS.. Min, II Peters, loo, citin!
the foregoing decision, said:
From thas time to the present the question ha
1 10 regulate commerce with foreign nations an,
among the states have been deemed exclusive, iron
the nature and object OF the power, aud the neces
/ sary implications growing out OF it.
This decision pronounced by Chief
/ Justice Marshall sixty years ago is q
monument to his memory more lasting
| than marble. 1t has been accepted by
all his successors in his great Office as
the true Interpretation of the constitu-
ton 1t has stood in all the vicissitudes
through which the country has passed
like guiding pharos in a stormy sea,
lighting up the pathway of the mariner
amid rocks and shoals and quicksanu
and whirlpools to a port OF safety.
Since it was promulgated the country
has taken vast stride in the mar. b OF
events. The agencies for the transpOr-
tatiOn of products have bee2 increased
the railroad and the telegraph era has
been inaugurated. But the doctrine
is applicable to every vehicle of inter
state commerce, whatever 1t might be.
| The power was conferred for the wise
and beneticent purpose of protecting the
labor of the country from eXtortion; of
producing harmony among the States
of cementing the bond of their union
and it is exercisable wherever and in
whatever fashion the interstate com
merce exist.
Daniel Webster, to whose name has
attached the title of the great expounder
of the Constitution, in his argument in
the same case, held that "the power of
Congress to regulate commerce among
| the States was complete and entire, and
to a certain extent necessarily exclu-
sive." lie asked: "What is to be regu-
Iated? Not the commerce of the several
states respectively, but the commerce of
the United States. Henceforth," (from
and after the adoption of the Constitu-
tion), he said, the commerce of the
States was to be an unit. and the system
by which it is to exist and be governed
must necessarily be complete, entire, and
uniform. Its character is to be described
by the flag which waves over it
Piurjbus JlUh" 1t was with reference
to this mastery exposition of the Con
stituti IN that JusticeWayne, addressing
its author, said:
The felt the force and effect OF your reason
a decision " "a
every river and bayou. and lake and harbor from
the influence Of monopoly.
Again, in the celebrated Passenger
Cases & Howard) growing out of the
acts of the New York and Massachu-
setts Legislature authorizing the collec-
/ ton of toll from passengers arriving at
ports within those States, under the gen
/ eral denomination of health laws, the
/ question of the power of Congress was
raised. The tax was resisted on the
ground that the statute was a regulation
/ of commerce and therefore in conflict
with the Constitution of the United
/ States. The State courts affirmed the
constitutionality of the law, and it was
brought Def; re the Supreme Court OF
the United States.
/ Justice Mclean, in reversing the iudg
ment of the State courts, cited the de.
cisiOn of Chief-Justice Marshall above
quoted and numerous other decisions in
support of the doctrine of the exclusive
power of Congress to regulate commerce
among the several States, and used thi:
pointed language:
lished construction OF the Constitution, 1 know a
none which are not yet open to doubt.
And Justice Wayne adds.
Keepiug then in mind what commerce i. an
how far nation may legally adjust her own com
merciaI transactions with another State We eanuo
be AZ a loss to determine from the subject-matter
| the clause in the Constitution that the meaning {
| the terms used in il is TO exclude the state froT
| regulating commerce in any way, except their ow
internal trade, and TO contids its regulation con
pletely and entirely TO Congress.
! In the Passenger Case, Norris VS.. Bo.
ton, Chief-Justice TaDey says:
1t has always been admitted in the discussio
upon article ;, section 3, OF the Constitution thu
the power t"regulate commerce includes navigation
and ships and crews because they the ordinaI
/ means OF commercial intercourse,
In the same cases Justice Daniel say:
The power to regulate commerce includes the re
ulation OF The vessel as well as the cargo, and Il
manner OF using the vessel.
= The celebrated case (13 Howard) ,
d the State of Pennsylvania vs.. III
: | Wheeling Bridge Company, is directl
d in point The bridge had been col
i structed under an act of the Virgini
:. Legislature. The State of Pennsylvani
undertook to enjoin the construction
e the bridge, on the ground that it inte
: fered with the free navigation of nav
gable stream and inflicted a serious il
Jury upon her citizens. Pending IL
! trial of the case Congress passed an al
% declaring the bridge a lawful structur
The Supreme Court decided that the a.
I of Congress was legitimate exercise
: the power conferred upon it to regula
n commerce among the States. Justi,
l. Mclean, in delivering the judgment
e the court, said:
The regulation OF commerce includes intereoul
= and navigation, and of course the power 10 det
70 mine what shall or shall not he deemed, judgmt
a OF law, an obstruction to navigation
II Justice Daniel, in coinciding with t
l. decision of the court, expressed himse
5 in this strong language:
% Congress have By statute undertaken to reguIi
re the commerce upon the Ohio River, so far as
n, | matters in this controversy concerned. a
= y no shall question their power TO do this2 Doe
~ pelong 10 this under any article or clause
n, Constitution or OF any statute to assume sue
=, superiority Yhey have regulated I
y matter upon scale BY them conceived to be /
Is and IMPARTIAL with reference that comme
To which pursuen the course Of the river, and 10
which trayerses its channel and is broadly diffu
lu through the country. .
st In What has been done by Congress can have
| doubt that they have acted wisely, justly,
strictly within their constitutional competency.
AZ In Brown vs.. State of Maryland, /
e. court held:
nis not therefore matter of surprise that the C
u.ereial grant of power should be as extensive
10 the mischief, and should comprehend all fore
III commerce and all commerce among the Sta
me IL Peters, 49,
isg And further the court said:
the The question was considered in the case of
not hons vs. Ogden in which the power declare
ny be complete in itself and TO acknowledge no lin
lhe tons
Ter Pierce, in his excellent work on
~ ~ Law of Railroads, cites the following
her case in which Congress has exerci
its power to regulate commerce carr
ate ] on among the States by railroads:
at The act Of June 5, 1896, United States Rev
by Statutes. ser ton 525e, authorizes every rail
The company n .ne mail.
the property their way nom any state 70 ane
state, and te connect with roads Of other State
as to form continuous lines Of transportation Il
jus in Pierce on Railroads, 41i-e
tba The following act, regulating
ers , transportation of live stock on railro'
,ta was passed March 8, 1878, (Reyi
!. Z Statutes, section 1866, and its const
Z = - hal Ix,.,x rad