Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-04-29
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE DEBATE.

We had anticipated fuller report of
the speech Of Senator Stanford on the in
terstate commerce bill than the synopsis
in the Congressional proceedings, as re-
ported by the dispatches. We shall give
it in full when the official record of the
proceedings arrives. But from the scat
tered notes of the Geographic reporters we
are enabled to judge how able an effort it
was. 1t was evidently given the same
care, thought and profound consideration
that marks all the expressions of Governor
Stanford. He is not man of many words.
and never of those hastily considered His
expressions are the result of conviction
arrived at by calm processes of thought.
lie characterized the bill "to regulate
commerce between the States" as one con-
tanning nothing regulating commerce at
all, but aiming to regulate the carriers.
Commerce he defines to mean:
Trade, barter, the interchange of eommodi
ues-matters with which the carrier i'm the
transaction of his legitimate business had no
the title OF the bill ought to be Changed to ex-
press its true meaning Instead of being called
bill TO regulate commerce" il should be n
bui to regulate carriers" IL it were a bill to
: regulate shippers and owners the title would
Toe more appropriate.
But, said the Senator, referring to the
much-repeated citations of judicial deci-
sions, if we are told that the Courts have
declared in effect that regulation of the
carrier is regulation of commerce vet
when new legislation is proposed it is en-
hrely legitimate to discuss the question
upon the basis of the original text, and
thus debate the original principles upon
which 1t moves. This is the equivalent of
saying that we have no warrant for taking
proposed new legislation as fitting into the
mold Of judicial Interpretation of previous
measures, for the wise Legislator, while he
Will endeavor to define what judicial inter-
probation may be, cannot assume as
matter of course, that bill not vet passed
upon is applicable to opinions already ex-
pressed, or that decisions made may not be
abandoned or modified, as they frequently
have been. The Senator therefore ana
lyzed the bill upon its face, and according
TO the plain import of its expression, and
the principles seemingly involved in the
whole question. Thus treating it, he is
reported to have said:
There was great difference between the DOS.
session OF power and its exercise. OF course
the Constitution plainly gave Congress the right
TO regulate commerce between the States but
as the carrier had nothing to do with the CON
troI or Shipment OF goods. wares and merchan-
disc or their ultimate disposal or destination
the regulating of him or the determining the
price he shall receive for his services, could
nave no relation TO determining commerce be
tween the States As a national question
And here he propounded question that
has not at any time, in all the years of de-
bate upon the transportation issue, been sat
istaetorily responded to, but rather evaded
why should the rates of road carving
ScroSs non-payiDg line between States be diff
aereHt from what was charged for the same
service on either side of that line? Would il |
no. oe making our State lines more or less OBJ |
stacles TO free intercourse? Would il not he |
converting our state lines into something very |
nearly akin 10 frontier? What did orr friends |
say who had always been so anxious 10 claim,
that we were upright and of one great family. |
Win iree business intercourse between our |
friends
say to the General Government Interfering aud |
controlling their local institutions? Ii had ,
peen sald the right to regulate the railroad car
Tier was peculiar, in that the corpOration l
operating a railroad was the creature of the |
state II there was anything in this argument |
y could not apply here in Congress, as Congress
mac nothing whatever 10 do with creating the |
corporation. Its existence was entirely by yir-
tus OF State laws, and had under those laws the |
right only to operate within the jurisdiction of
sAe State. OF course he excepted some of the |
IdclflC TONgS. II DprfinaDt tn int,
the wisdom of this kind of legislation assuming |
that the authority for it existed.
The right of association, he continued. |
Is natural one, and both nation and State |
are bound to aid this natural right, and |
hence the legislation of the several States |
providing for the incorporation of railroad |
companies. Individuality enters as much |
into corporate association, he pointed out
as 1t does into the simpler forms of copart-
nershlp The dispatches, continuing in
brief notes OF the Senator's speech. renort
him as saying:
Inc character IA. OF railroad investments. as
that the States could and did exercise the 1;gbt
OF eminent CONAN IN order that RAILWAYS miSht
pe So1 Isl State could not exercise this
cised II because the investment was of that me-
euliariy beneficial character TO the public thai |
II s might De : ud TO be a public good. The re-
suit was. moreover. that railroad Companies
must pay Individuals deprived of the control of
their property unser the right of eminent do
main, whatever may be the value of that mon
eFty The State paid nothing Now, il the In
Yes ment IN railroads was so beneficial 10 the
public. why should not the investors he ner,n;t
ted to reap the same full rewards for the wisdom
OF their investments, their industry aud man
agement and direction thereof as tbonob tie |
same capital, wisdom and industry had been
employed in business less important to The
Interests OF the State and in whose behalf the
State could not, if solicited, exert the right Of
eminent domain "a
1t is not our purpose now to point out
tie failure in all the past to logically and
satisfactorily reply to these inquiries.
They have before been put, and uniformly