The Sunday tatler and Jersey City express. (Jersey City, N.J.) 1883-1886, 1886-02-21

nus tnat IL WIS unlalf 70 &kk bAe Q8tumor<
and Ohio to spend like sum to make iii
terminus. We were told that upon this
floor in so many words Is this The oppo
sition to this bill against an emasculation
of the general railroad law, which as il
stands is IN the interest of New Jersey, BY
tending to the building up of New Jersey
water front and putting docks and ware
houses and railroad termini and popula
ton and taxable value upon her soil9 Is il
that! VI IS the opposition to it an effort
to the detrIment OF New Jersey for the ben.
cit OF single corporation to enable it te
get cheap land These riparian lands,
although they have paid Ito the scheol
fund more than SS,000,000, have not yet
put school house upon every hilltop,
have not yet put teacher in each school.
house, and it the Legislature of the State
OF New Jersey be untrue to the State and
consent that the very improvements which
We're to 90 all that are to 60 upon an island
10 New York bay, then they never will dc
it. And where commerce should be busy
and millions Of taxables should be, there
would remain idleness and barren lands
These are the questions, as I see it, that
the Legislature is to decide upon.
Very little attention kas anybody given
The Senator from Middlesex presented the
figures, in which there is more argument
than In weeks dropping of words from.
the desks of the Senators. But it may not
have been noticed that this is peculiarly a
New Jersey question in this, that the XIII
Won kuil is peculiarly the waterway of the
commerce of New Jersey. If the 10000, 900
of tons that go through there annually is
not entirely the commerce of New Jersey,
still the fact remains that the commerce of
New Jersey goes by that route. Who are
the sc, 900 men that earn living there, ac-
cordlng to the figures given by the Sem
ator Who would be damaged by the
obstruction to that navigation? Jersey
men. Why we had flights of ors,tory here
yesterday in behalf of the wheat farmer of
Nevada and Iowa. and everywhere where
these trunk lines stretch their arms TO, in
the far West. True, they are fellow-citi-
zens of the United States. New Jersey, as
a loyal member of the Union, is loyal to
them and her citizens, as patriotic as other
citizens, feels just as close brotherhood
for the citizens of Kansas as patriotic men
ought to feel, but they ought not to extend
their efforts for their welfare to the injury
or destruction of the business of the citi-
zens of our own State. In other words,
Mr.. President, il / be loyal American, if
be patriotic, if have proper regard for
the citizens of this country wherever they
are. still do not think enough of Iowa or
Nevada or Kansas or Nebraska to stand
here and try to drive 10000 Jerseymen and
their families from their homes to settle in
those States and build them up. My love
is not strong enough for that.
Much of the law that was quoted here to
convince us that Congress had exclusive
jurisdiction over this subject, consisted of
decisions in which the courts had decided
that Congress has the 20 yer to keep these
navigable streams open. The cases re-
ferred to here are not the cases of bridges
that have been built, but Of bridges that
have been torn down. The exhibitions of
national power that have been presented
to us are not as a rule the exercise of a
power to erect, but of the power to demol-
ish, and last week the Senator from
Mercer made an argument, which, as I'M
derstaEd, he reafirmed and reiterated yes
terday, that Congress had no power to pass
a bill that absolutely and within itself an
thorized the erection of bridge.
Senator Vanderbilt-WhatI said was that
when the National Government desires to
build a post-road or a military road across
any State for National purposes they can
do so; they cannot grant this right to an
individual or corporation without the
consent of the State.
Senator Gardner-That is to say, Mr.
President / want to settle this point
correctly THAT the power of the National
Government to authorize the building of
this bridge absolutely, does net depend on
their powers to regulate commerce or navi-
cation, but that it depends upon that other
power of making roads for national or mill
tary purposes, and therefore if military or
post roads are necessary, they can do it.
Is that correct?
Senator Vanderbilt Yes, sir, under the
right of eminent domain.
Senator Gardner-Well, let us apply that
to Staten Island. Under the assertions
made here yesterday that this bridge is to
be built by virtue of the power of Congress
in spite of the legislation of this State, and
if the law laid down by you Senator Van
derbilt) is correct, which believe it is,
then it must be proved that the Govern
ment has discovered that it is absolutely
necessary to have a post-road and mill
tary road to Staten Island in order to reach
and defend, suppose, the sea coast of
New Jersey. Then how they viii get from
there to Coney Island don't know. / am
not aware of any authority in the Constitu-
ton to authorize the continuance of a mil
itary line by means OF life-preservers.
Now what is the necessity? What claim
can anybody make, what serious argument
can there be made, that a bridge can be
authorized across the Kill Won Kull to
Staten Island for National military pur-
poses? lido suspect that if there was one
there and war should come, that it would
very likely be found necessary for naval
operations to tear it down. I ara not going
to say anything about this point, Mr. Presi-
dent; if the only authority of the Govern
ment for building that bridge rests upon
military necessity, it amply appears to the
common sense of everybody, and anybody
can easily determine whether there is, ever
was, or in the distant future, as far as the
wisest man can see, ever can be any hkeli-
hood of the bridge being built.
Senator Vanderbilt Will the Senator
from Atlantic state why it is that all COM
panies who desire to put bridge over the
navigable waters of the United States
seek to have permission of Congress for SO
doing2
Senator Gardner Yes, sir; think you
stated that yourself better than cafi--thaI
Congress under its power, not to dam of
commerce, but to regulate commerce, exer-
cising that power which it has of tearing
down bridges, if it becomes necessary
might remove the bridges unless it first
gave its consent, and then efore the license
to build the bridge should first be obtained
from Congress If possible.
Senator Vanderbilt--It Is then matter
of precaution SO that they shall not expend
q large amount of money Senator Van
derbilt here spoke in such low tone OF
voices as to be inaudible to the steno-
grapher.1
Senator Gardner You are asking now
an entirely different question. No, sir.
The bill is positive enactment, an attempt
at positive authority, and those interested
in it have said and repeatedly said that BY
virtue of it they would build bridge, and
Senators who declared they should vote
upon this bill as you declare you will
stood upon this floor yesterday and de-
clared that the bridge could be built, ne
matter what New Jersey said through hel
Legislature or otherwise.
Senator Vanderbilt think the Senator
from Atlantic misunderstood me. die
not take that position.
Qanoko~ no~zxa~ r Enou, x1rx, All x.nf