The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1910-04-27

lnValldaJe the charters granted by the
States. and this was taking the property
or the road without due process Of law
The Maryiander cOutended that the
proposed regulation Of the stocks and
bonds OF railroads had nothing to do
X Rh the regulation Of interstate com
merce. was not interstate commerce.
and could not be and would not be
regarded as Interstate commerce by
the Supreme Court
Assuming for the sake Of argument,
that the financial organization Of cor
rOrauOns and their issues Of stocks
and bonds constitute a regulation Of
commerce. the Senator claimed that
so far as the charters that have been
granted by the States 10 railroad cor
rorations in the past are concerned.
the pending bill is unconstitutional.
Definition Of Commerce.
Speaking OF the proposition that
railroad stocks and bonds can be reg
Ulated as interstate commerce, Sena-
tor Ra-- ner said
What Is the definition Of commerce
under the clause OF the Constitution that
gives Congress the right 10 regulate IL
among the States2 Commerce IS either
the subject matter OF traffic and trans
portation, or it IS the fact Of intercourse
matter. OF it is the iustrumentali5ies
over which the subject matter is con-
veyed and transported This IS the best
definition have ever seen.
Does the issuing Of stocks or bonds
OF the financial organization or reOrgan-
ization Of railroad corporations come
under this definition 1 think clearly and
concIusiveIy not Senator Root Of New
York in answer toan inquiry os mine said
that he had some doubt about these pro
visions but that there was an impression
upon his mind that the were embraced
under the clause of tie Constitution 10
regulate commerce, because according
efficiency of railroads and tend TO re-
duCe rates
Rights Congress Might Claim
IF this is the case then everything
whatever IN relation TO railroads is reg
-ulation of interstate commerce over
which Congress has plenary and su-
preme jurisdiction We would unques-
riOnabIy have the right according 10
that line OF reasoning, 10 lower the sal
aries Of the officers OF the road. to de
crease the wages Of its employees. 10
provide for the expenses Of eCuIpping
the road. and for the dividends that the
road shall pay and for the interest which
It should ply upon its mortEaged and
bonded Indebtedness.
Charters From States.
Senator Rayner then took up the sec
Ond proposition showing that. charters
granted before the passage Of the bill
would render the bill unconstitutional
on this point he said
IN those States whose constitutions
provide that all charters are subject 10
repeal, alteration, or amendment, or
where the general laws so provide. OF
where the charters so provide. # is still
contract that cannot be amended so
as to divest the company Of its con-
tractUraI rights. OF TO divest the incor-
pOratOrs or the stockholders Of their
property or 10 make such organic
changes as 70 materially lessen the in
vestment made upon the basis Of its
charter privileges
Due Process Of Law
The Fifth Amendment to the Constf-
tuition provides that property shall not
be taken without due process OF law IN
4 number Of decisions re-ad0ptinE. the
language - the Legal Tender cases.
the Supreme Court has declared that
when the Constitution says property
shall not be taken without due process
o. law II IS equivalent 10 saying that
Congress shall pass no law violating
Ile obligations OF contracts
The section which I am discussing re-
Istes 10 charters which have been
granted in the past and not alone
70 charters which are to be grant
ed in the future. They violate the
obligation Of the contracts between the
State and the corporations TO whom
IL has granted charters. and places
them all iudlscTimiuately under Federal
This bill says 10 States. no matter
what rights and privileges and fran
Chises you have granted, the Federal
Government has the right to change
them. 20 violate the obligation between
the State and the road. and to subject
the grant TO the supervision Of the In
teTstate Commerce Commission, the
agency Of the Federal Government
7 am not here representing the rail
roads / have never accepted any en-
ployment from them in my profession,
although I have had many an oppOT-
IunIty 70 DO 50, and have never advO-
Gated their claims before any judicial
tribunal OF legislative aSSe mbly-
What Railroads Are.
Ny hands are absolutely free I an
their friends when they 90 what is
right and their enemy when they do
what IS wrong They are the pride OF
the country, as they contribute so much
10 its enterprise and IFS progress; they
are q curse when they terTitOTalize the
land and appOrtfon il among themselves
as their sUbjUsated province and they
are a menace 10 our institutions when
they invade the halls Of legislation and
attack and trampIe upon the iumemoriaI
rights Of the people
Il do not know whether they are for
this bill or against It, and I do not
care Having held no communication
with them nor their agents or attOT-
neys. I am utterly ignorant of the po-
sitlon they occupy am here IN
defense Of the states and not the rail-
roads 7 regret that tbs Senator from
New York. with his recognized ability,
In an able argument, as 7 have said,
occupied some hours during three sue
CessiVe days and hardly touched upon
the mighty question involved IN the sec
lions which I have discussed