The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-04-10
.,s-x,cHMOND VA SUNDAY APRIL 10 Isy.

1o5 al 1870 Here we have the germ OF the
Constitution and it is plain that equality ana
froedor 90 intercourse between the States
was tho object sought to be attained. Much
literature on tho subject couiu 10 pio"uo0'
which we have to omit. Inc pre'aii'ns
spirit. however. is perfectly Obvious from
what was said in the convention that framed
the Constitution by Mr.. Williamson. dele
gate from North Carolina. when the commerce
clause was being discussed. He SAID
Though North Carolina has been taxed by
| Virginia by duty on twelve thousand hogs
heads of her tobacco passing through virginia
yet he would never agree to this power" The
Madison papers 1888. The evil to be cured was
burdens and restrictions placed 10y one state
on the trade and commerce OF another. Inc
boon to be secured was perfect freedom OF
intercourse. The papers of the Federalist
equally show the same thing. Hamilton said
in No. %:
The interfering and unneighborly regula-
tons of some States. contrary to the true
spirit of the Union, have. in different In
stances. given just cause Of umbrage and com
plant 10 others. and it is 10 be feared that ex-
amples OF this nature. if not restrained by
national control. would be multiplied and ex-
tended till they become not less serious
sources OF anmo,ity and dscord than injuri-
Gus impediments to the intercourse between
the different parts of the Confederacy.'
Madison spoke to the same effect in No. AZ.
He said:
A very material object Of this power was
the relief Of the States which import and ex-
port through other States from the improper
contributions levied on them by the latter.
The purpose had in view was too plain to
permit Of discussion IL was to guarantee
perfect freedom Of intercourse and not to en-
power Congress TO put on Just those burdens
with which the States themselves had annoyed
persons not their own citizens.
The nature of this power as it resides in
Congress has been once considered by the
supreme court and it came very near de-
claring against the claim that IS made for 1t,
if it did not actually do so. railroad touch
ing the Mississippi at Dubuque, Iowa, en-
tered into contract with an elevator COM
pany by which it agreed to pay it one cent
through freight. subsequently Congress
passed an act authorizing bridge to be
built across the Mississippi at that point. and
prescribing regulations for the passage Of
trains over the bridge. 1t had become
advantageous. in the mean time, for
the railroad company to get out
of its contract with the elevator company.
and it refused to go on paying the tolls upon
the ground that Congress had full control
over the subject of interstate commerce,
and. having acted on the subject. 1t had abro-
gated the contract between the parties. The
supreme court held that the act of Congress
had nothing TO do with the matter. and for
the purposes Of this discussion it should be
noted that it used the following language:
THE power to regulate commerce among
the several States was vested in Congress in
order TO secure equality and freedom in com
mercial Intercourse against discriminating
State legislation: it was never intended that
the power should be exercised 80 as to inter-
fere with private contracts not designed at
the time they were made to create impedi-
ments TO such intercourse. Railroad Com
pany against Richmond. 10 Wall, $50.
This comes very near TO condemnation Of
the Interstate Commerce act 1t distinctly de-
cares that there are limitations upon the
power to regulate. and the theory of the In
terstate Commerce act requires that the power
shall have no limitations The act is wholly
foreign to the genius of our people and to the
spirit Of our institutions. authorizing the COM
missioners, as it does, to NEEDLE in the every
day contracts and affairs Of the people.