The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-04-27

committee was doubtless dazed as much
oy Gould's recital as by reading the ex-
plots OF Jack. tn Giant Killer, or Kidd.
the firate. Modesty induced Gould 20
refrain from telling one feature of the
history OF his time. At Kansas City, he
was once overtaken with another
religious spasm and wrestled the
second time in prayer. telling the
people how happy he was, and
ana that he wanted no more money.
he Lad purchased the Missouri Pacific
only for the good of mankind and
should use il only for the glory of God
and benefit of the people. As he was
contemplating another raid. he felt
the necessity OF another installment of
divine grace, so he went short on a
promise by pretending that he would
not benefit himself by the blessing 1t
was 10 be hoped he would not indulge
IN the third prayer on earth. Should
he, IN the end. secure an entrance into
the new Jerusalem, he would be con
spring there, from fUrce of habit,
70 own a railroad and when he
should have torn up the shining
avenues, the angels could not
restrain him from stealing the gold
pavement (Laughter). The strong
arm of labor, Mr.. VanWyck added, had
always protected the nation IN the day
Of peril. There need be no fear to the
Republic from the organization of
labor. The ranks of the Union army
had been recruited from the men who
had been delving IN the mines.
Mr.. Stanford then addressed the
Senate on the bill. It purported, he
said. to be an act to regulate commerce
between the States. He had read il
with good deal of care, but did not
find anything in it that regulated COM
merce. Everything in il was to the
carrier only. Commerce" had a well
defined meaning. 1t meant trade,
barter, interchange of commodities.
matters with which the carrier in the
transaction of his legitimate business
had no concern whatever. He, there
fore, thought the title of the bill ought
to be changed TO express its true mean
ing. Instead of being called 4 bill 10
regulate commerce." it should be
bill to regulate carriers" II it were
bill to regulate shippers and owners
whose carried moved, the title would be
more appropriate. He might be told.
perhaps, that there were judicial deci-
sions to the effect that the regulation of |
the carrier was a regulation of Con- |
gress, but when legislation was pro-
posed, it was entirely legitimate 10
discuss the question as to the |
original matter and to deter !
mine it upon the principles |
which seemed to be involved. There |
was a great difference between the pos |
session of power and its exercise. OF |
course, the Constitution plainly gave
Congress the right to regulate COM
meroe between the States, but as car
rier had nothing to do with the control /
of the shipment of goods, wares and
merchandise. or their ultimate disposal,
or destination, the regulating of him or
determining the price he should receive
for his services, could have no rels-
ton to determining the commerce be-
tween States as national question.
Why should a road carrying across a
non-payIng line between States be
different from what was charged
for the same service on either
side OF that line? Would IL
not be making our State lines more or
less obstacles to free intercourse?
Would il not be converting our State
lines into something very nearly akin
TO a frontier? What did our friends
say who had been always so anxious TO
claim that We were of right one great
family, with free business intercourse
between ourselves, and what did our
States rights friends say to the general
1ONN% ALtCAACAAn1 anu
their local institations2 1t had been said
that the right to regulate the railroad
carrier was peculiar in that the corpor-
alton operating the railroad was the
creature of the State. If there was any
thing IN this argument, it could not
apply here in Congress, as Congress
had nothing whatever to do with treat
ing q corporation. It's existence was
entirely ry virtue of the State laws,
and had under these laws the right
only to operate within The jurisdiction
Of the State. OF course, he excepted
some OF the Pacific roads. 1t was per-
tinent to INQUIRE into the wisdom of this
Kind of legisla ion. Assuming that the
for it existed. if the associa-
ion was a natural one, it was the
iuty of the national and State legis-
atures to aid that natural right, and
hat he contended was what the legis- !
alton OF various States in providing l
Tor the Incorporation of railroad COM
panies had done. Incorporation was {
made by individual incorporators, as
much so as the partnership between in
iividuals was established BY the
partners themselves. The character of Q
he railroad investments as compared q
With others was set forth by the fact I
hat the States could and did exercise o
he right of eminent domain in order C
hat the railways might be constructed. :
The State could not exercise this right Il
or the benefit of railroads. 1t only p
xercised it because the investment was e
4 that peculiar beneficial character
o the public that it might be said to be
public good. The result was, more 4
yer, that the railway companies must
ayYthe individuals deprived OF the con- b
rol of their property under the right of :
minent domain; whatever might 10 i
be value of that property, the state II
aid nothing. Now, If the investment
/ railroads was so beneficial to the pub o
c, why should no, the Investors be II
ermitted to reap the same full rewards, a
1e wisdom of their Investment. their b
ldustry and their management and
he direction thereof. as though the
lme capital, wisdom and industry
ad been employed in business less
lportant to the interests OF the state,
nd in whose behalf the state could n
OF, if solicited, exert the right of emf Il