Evening journal., 1893-03-15


part would entail an expenditure Of
money, which do not think existing |
conditions would justify retain in my |
possession the special schedule referred
to, subject to the order of your honor
able body, in whose discretion it, of course
rests to prosecute the inquiry by the ex-
animation of witnesses or otherwise.
"The remaining resolutions may be
treated as involving substantially a
single question, which may best be
answered by brief statement of what is
the authoritative Interpretation Of the
law governing the whole subject.
"On December 2S, 1897 the Interstate
Commerce Commission, after listening to
the arguments of learned counsel repre-
senting the express companies, and after
careful consideration, decided that 'the
independent express companies, such
as Adams Express Company, are not
included among the common carriers de-
clared to be subject to the provisions Of
the act to regulate commerce. Inter
state Commerce Reports, volume 1, page
$50.
This decision was sustained by the
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri in the case
of the United States VS.. Herman c.
Morsman. Cited, in Interstate Commerce
Reports, volume 3, page 1l2, which de
cided December 1, 1890. that express
companies consisting of independent or
carnations, which carry on the express
and parcel business in the usual manner
and do not operate railway lines, are not
subject to the provision of the Inter.
state Council Act such business only be-
come subject to the provisions of that
act, where it is carried on by railway
company or combination of railway
companies as a branch or department of
their general freight Office "
"The commission further decided that,
/ inasmuch as they were not authorized by
the law to control the independent com
panies, they would not cause practical
discrimination in their favor and create
confusion in the express business of the
country by interference in those cases
where they were so authorized.
"The amendment to the Interstate
Commerce Act, approved March 2, 1889,
made no alteration in the original act in
this respect, although the annual report
of the Interstate Commerce Commission
dated December 1, 1888. strongly recon.
mended that express companies should be
included among the common carriers sub
iect to its provisions. nor has any subse-
quent legislation affected the law as above
stated It is manifest, therefore that
the interstate express business is in a
position of practical independence; for
the power of our General Assembly to
tax or effectively regulate the business of
express companies Is confined to their
interstate business, or that which begins
and ends within the borders of the State
of Delaware, and that, as is well known,
is Insignificant in comparison with the
great volume of business that begins or
ends beyond our borders.
"An instructive case on this well.
point is that of the Pacific Express Com
pany VS. Seibert, l42 U. s., $50, in which
Justice Lamar says:
1T is well settled that a state cannot
lay tax upon Interstate commerce in
any form, whether by way Of duties laid
, on the transportation of the subjects Of
that commerce, or the receipts derived
ffom that transportation, or on the occu
D ttion or business of carrying it on, fol
tle reason that such taxation is a burder
on that commerce, and amounts to
regulation of it which belongs to Con
;; gress, Lying VS.. Michigan, 135 U. s.
! 161 a.: 800; LelOup vs. Port of Mobile
127 U. s. $40 (32 BID; Western UnioI
releg raph Company VS. Alabama, 13
U S. 472 (33 400; McCall.vs. California
1876 U. S. 104 GA 1885, Norfolk & W. r
} Co., VS.. Pennsylvania, 1876 U. S. IL
I (34:394
| Il would merely add in conclusion
j that have appended here to a copy OF
that portion Of the report Of Interstate
Commerce Com mission made Decembe
1, 1888, which relates to the moderl
express business of the country, believ
ing it to be relevant to the sub
iect matter of the resolution
= Of your honorable body, although
not directly responsive"