The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-04-10
rur rxrrRsrArE COMMERCE. LAW; 10
TT CONSTITUTIONAL?

h.. .rar asserted TO. that autocrat more iiii-
80, oontrol over the domestic affairs OF the
-. .ho, ia asserted for the Congress OF
tho limited States by the Interstate commerce.
not and several recent events are bringing
,h,a fact very pointedly home 20 tho knowi-
.dr. If the people. Within the past Few
aovs Swift & Co.. the well-known dressed
beef firm of Chicago, have sued certain ran
road companies for 100000 alleged 10 nave
been unlawfully extortod from them by inc
,olwovs Tho Interstate Commerce CON-
mission required the railways TO raise the
price of transporting their beef from iorty-si~
% sjxty-fye cents. and Swift 90. sue
20 recover the difference. If the commits
sion had the lawful right to raise the rate
| Swift & Co. will fail. If the Interstate COM
merce law il not sanctioned by the Constitu-
ton Swift & Co. will prevail. Here Is case
in which tho public that consumes Swift d
Co. g beef have been compelled to pay con-
siderably advanced prices for it by the action
| of the commission.
The case of the oranges to which we called at
tention few DAYS back is one IN which the
commission has most unreasonably and aroi-
trarly undertaken 10 lower the rate OF trans
portation on freight The two cases together
illustrate the extreme power OF interfering
with the citizens everyday transactions IN
life that is claimed for the Congress of the
United States, If James Madison or Alexan-
der Hamilton. when writing the papers OF tho
Federalist had been asked whether it was IN
tended 10 confer any such power as this upon
Congress. what would have been their reply;
We think they would have gwen most en-
phatic No
II 10 in order, therefore, to inquire Does
the Constitution OF the United States warrant
the Congress of the United States in author
zing these gentlemen to interfere with II
vate business in this manner! HE IIMEs IS
of the opinion that it does not.
The Constitution OF the United States is, of
course, whatever the Supreme Court OF the
United States for the time being declares 1t to
be. If that tribunal has declared that TINS
power resides in Congress. discussion oil the
matter ends. We have examined all the cases
that have been before the supreme court 80
far as we have been able TO find them, and we
do not find that it has sanctioned the claim
OF constitutonality. Generally the cases that
have been before it, so far as this matter is con-
cerned, are cases in which the States have
sought to place embarrassment upon free in
tercourse between the States What 1t has
condemned or approved of has therefore been
State and not congressional legislation. and
whatever it has said as to the powers
81 hoe 1oa oof1 t,t 1,o in
that brought before it State and not congress
sional legislation. We are therefore wholly
free to examine and discuss the question upon
its own merits alone. If Congress has the
power TO enact this statute it is because 1t is
empowered to DO so by the provision Of the
Constitution, which authorizes Congress ITO
regulate commerce with foreign nations, aud
amongst the several States and with the In
dian TRIES" and we can best determine
what was intended to be the scope OF this
power by reverting to the history Of the
time when it was incorporated into the Con-
stitution.
There were three principal causes that led
the people of the United States to abandon
the form of government that they lived under
during the confederation, and to adopt that
set out in the present Constitution. They
we're That the General Government was
powerless TO compel the States to furnish
men for the army or money for the Treasury,
or to regulate trade between this country and
foreign countries or between the States them
selves. The trouble arising out of the COM
mercial relations was the most powerful cause
Il -. l..
able to trade with foreign powers upon any
satisfactory terms, but each State placed bur-
dens upon the products of another State
passing through it, which were very yexatous
and grievous 10 the people of the latter State.
1t was greatly desired that this matter should
be placed upon an intelligent basis. to be reg
ulated and controlled for all the States 10y
central power that would provide
q uniform code of rules for all that would be
! just at the same time that it was uniform.
! Therefore the power of regulating trade and
commerce amongst the States was conferred
upon Congress, that the power should reside
in a central government representing all the
States to be thus applied in uniformity over
all. But the leading idea was that by making
Congress supreme arbiter over the subject.
perfect freedom Of Intercourse ,couid be ST.
cured. II qcdS necer INTENDED that q polrer
should be gicen to Congress 10 impose en-
| ba,rdssments on trade, which the Interstate
Commerce act expressly claims for Congress
power to do. since. if the commission may
say that railroad company shall charge only
FIVE cents box for transporting oranges, it
may equally authorize q charge of five dollars
a box and thus destroy the business. or it may
reduce rates TO half-cent box and thus
| destroy the business altogether. No such
| idea was ever contemplated The word reg
ulate" was used in the sense of authorizing
Congress to wipe out and destroy State leg
islation that embarrassed and burdened trade
1t was not intended to give to Congress that
very power of embarrassing trade from which
the people had suffered so much at the hands
of the States. That a power to destroy all
embarrassments on trade was the idea of those
forming the Constitution is perfectly evident
from the most casual perusa Of the literature
of the day
The convention that framed the Constitn-
ton was more indebted for its creation aud
existence TO the State of Virginia than TO all
| otbar causas xuhatavar and tha IL,