« AnteriorContinuar »
honorable Senator from Massachusetts considered those powers in the order in which they are named. For the purposes of my argument I shall reverse his line of proceeding.
He cites, as his only authority for the power as claimed under the clause to raise and support armies, the action of the last Congress with reference to the general management of the railroads of the country. I can hardly think that the Senator, upon reflection, would claim that act as a precedent, or insist that Congress should now exercise the power which it did by that act, namely, to place all the railroads in the country under the specific and exclusive charge of the military authorities; for that is the precise language of that act. A clause of the first section authorized the Government
"To place under military control all the officers, agents, and employés belonging to the telegraph and railroad lines thus taken possession of by the President, so that they shall be considered as a post road and a part of the military establishment of the United States, subject to all the restrictions imposed by the Rules and Articles of War."
a State had been found to assert the right of controlling all the commerce through its limits to go over one channel to the exclusion of another. I think it would have astonished us to be told that a State had started such an authority; but it has been asserted, and it is gravely argued that we are bound by it. I hope that will not be the conclusion of the Senate. I do wish that the Congress of the United States could be emancipated some time or other from this notion, that not only was it bound by the authority of the people of all the States, but it was bound in every direction by the authority of any one of the States. I am as strict a constructionist of the Constitution, it seems to me, as anybody ought to be; I am as jealous of allowing the Government of the United States to interfere in what are the domestic concerns (to use an old-fashioned, and, I thank God, an out of fashion form of expression) of a State; that is to say, what concerns its own people, its own affairs, and its own prosperity alone. But the commerce which moves between New York and Philadelphia is not an affair which concerns the State of New Jersey. That is an affair which concerns all the United States, and concerns vastly more the States of New York and Pennsylvania than it does the State of New Jersey. That is not a domestic interest; that is not a domestic concern; that is not a domestic affair. That is one of the affairs which, as I said in the outset, was the very purpose of adopting this Constitution, in order to place it under the control and under the direction of the United States of America; and if this authority claimed on the part of New Jersey is affirmed any longer by the Legislature of the United States, you have sacrificed, you have voluntarily abandoned, one of the dearest interests you ever had, or can hope to have, in the Government.
Mr. CRESWELL. I propose to make a few remarks upon the pending bill; but before entering upon what I have to say, I desire to suggest an amendment to the bill as it now stands. It is to insert as an additional section the following:
SEC.. And be it further enacted, That Congress may, at any time hereafter, alter, amend, or repeal this act at pleasure.
Mr. SUMNER. There is no need of the words "at pleasure."
Mr. CRESWELL. It is not a very long section, and if there should be two or three words in excess, I do not think they will do much damage. It will not be much of a trial to the gentleman's eyes to read the whole of the amendment.
Mr. President, this measure has engaged the attention of the Senate during the greater part of the last session and during so much of this session as has passed. One matter which has excited my suspicion somewhat with reference to the question, has been the difficulty of bringing its advocates to a precise presentation of their case. When we come to inspect the bill we find, in the preamble of it, that gentlemen claim to pass it under three of the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. When driven from the refuge which they seek under any specified power, they immediately resort to a second, and if driven from that, to a third, and if driven from the third, they then claim, under the combined powers of all, that Congress has the right to pass this bill.
I shall refer particularly to the argument of the learned Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] with reference to the constitutional power of Congress over this subject, because from the known, acknowledged ability of that gentleman, his untiring industry which, like faith, seems sometimes to move mountains, and his immense erudition, I am satisfied if no authority can be found under the Constitution for the passage of this bill by that gentleman, it is only because none exists.
In the preamble to the bill, the power to pass it is claimed, first, under the clause to regulate commerce among the several States; second, the power to establish post roads; and third, the authority to raise and support armies; and the
The second section provided that all attempts by any parties whatever to interfere with the exercise of the power granted in the bill should be punished "as a military offense by death or such other penalty as a court-martial may impose.
The third section authorized the appointment of three commissioners to assess the
damages suffered by reason of the seizure of the railroad or telegraph lines under the act. In the fourth section it was provided"That the transportation of troops, munitions of war, equipments, military property, and stores throughout the United States shall be under the immediate control and supervision of the Secretary of War and such agents as he may appoint; and all rules, regulations, articles, usages, and laws in conflict with this provision are hereby annulled."
The fifth section declares
"That the provisions of this act, so far as it relates to the operating and using said railroads and telegraphs, shall not be in force any longer than is necessary for the suppression of the rebellion."
The very authority which the gentleman cites shows that the power which he claims is something altogether different from that which was exercised in that case. That was an exercise of the military power of the Government during the war in an effort to protect and to preserve itself; but as the rebellion has been suppressed no such necessity now rests upon the Government to claim the exercise of any such power, and of course it cannot exist. Indeed, by the terms of the law it is no longer operative.
In the next place, this power is claimed under the clause of the Constitution with reference to the establishment of post offices and post roads. It is nowhere stated, and it cannot be stated with truth, that in any part of the country over which it is now proposed to extend the authority of Congress there is any denial of the right of the Government to transmit mails. I believe that every railroad company in the land is already subjected to that clause of the Constitution, and willingly submits to the authority of the Government in the transmission of its mails. One thing is certain they are all anxious to secure contracts for that purpose with the Government, and so far from the States attempting to interfere with it, it is their manifest interest to offer every possible facility for the transmission of the mails with a view to the accommodation of their own citizens; and the difficulty is, not that the States refuse to the Government the use of their roads for postal purposes, but that the States cannot procure from the General Government a sufficient number of post offices and the assignment of a sufficient number of post roads. Applications come every day to the Government for that purpose.
The power, if it exists anywhere, must exist under the clause to regulate commerce. I was somewhat amused at the argument adduced by the Senator who has just taken his seat. He began by calling this a "little bill," and he said it was as harmless as any man's walkingstick, but before he took his seat he showed that that walking-stick had assumed the dimen
sions of a huge bludgeon, with which he would knock out the brains of every railroad company in the land. It had, in his hands, and according to the powers that he claimed for the General Government, sufficient power to destroy the active capital now invested in railroads, amounting to $1,200,000,000; because he distinctly claimed that in the Wheeling bridge case the Supreme Court had decided that Congress hadthe right to construct railroads, through and over any of the States without their consent. Mr. HOWE. It was the Constitution that I made the bludgeon out of, not this bill.
Mr. CRESWELL. Very good. The gentleman seeks by this bill to exercise the power in whole or in part. His argument was that Congress had the power, not only to prescribe terms and to confer additional franchises upon railroad corporations already existing under the authority of the States, but that Congress had the right to make railroads and, in the exercise of the power over internal commerce, to create corporations for that purpose. Now, sir, I know that I may be charged with temerity, and that I may perhaps subject myself to a rebuke from the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Massachusetts, when I state that in my opinion the Constitution of the United States imposes some limitation upon the power of the General Government, and that the people who ordained and established that instrument did not thereby confer imperial powers upon the Government of the United States. That may be a grave offense. If so, I apologize to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. HOWE. No; the Senator does not owe me any apology. I simply want to say that over the subject of the regulation of commerce I think the Constitution does confer on this Congress imperial power.
Mr. CRESWELL. So far as it goes; but the question is, how far does it go? The gentleman extends it so far as to destroy all the powers and all the rights of the States. He makes not only the power as granted by the fathers in the Constitution imperial and exclusive, but he denies all power to the States over their own soil. He usurps from them the exer. cise of the right of eminent domain.
The argument of my distinguished friend becomes a little more significant when we look at certain bills which have recently been introduced into the House of Representatives; and of which it would seem that this bill is the forerunner. One of them is House bill No. 96, "to provide for the construction of a line of railway communication between the cities of Washington and New York, and to constitute the same a public highway and a military road and postal route of the United States;" and upon looking through that bill, I find in the sixth section thereof this provision:
That said corporation is hereby empowered to purchase, lease, receive, and hold such real estate or other property as may be necessary in accomplishing the objects for which this incorporation is granted; and may, by their agents, engineers, contractors, or workmen, immediately enter upon, take possession of, and use all such real ctate and property as may be necessary for the construction, maintenance, and operation of their said railway, and the accommodations requisite and appertaining thereto. But all real estate or property thus entered upon and appropriated by said corporation, which are not donations, shall be purchased by said corporation of the owner or owners of the same, at a price to be mutually agreed upon between them. And in case of disagreement as to price, and before the final completion of said railway and its appurtenances, the said corporation, or the owner or owners of such real estate or property, shall apply by petition to one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
And he is to appoint commissioners to view, value, condemn, and appropriate the land.
I challenge the gentleman from Massachusetts, with all his erudition, and I challenge the gentleman from Wisconsin, with all his ideas of a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, to adduce one solitary instance wherein any such power has been claimed or exercised by the Congress of the United States. That there are some things which the Congress cannot do in the exercise of its powers over foreign and domestic commerce there cannot be a doubt. There are two classes of powers which are
vested in the General Government under the Constitution; one consists of powers affecting relations which grow out of the Union itself as between different States; the other consists of powers in relation to matters over which, previous to the adoption of the Constitution, the States themselves had exclusive jurisdiction, and which previously existed in the States; and the doctrine has been maintained in the courts, so far as I have been able to gather it from the decisions, that as to the first class of powers Congress may exert exclusive jurisdiction without an exclusive grant of power in the terms of the Constitution; and that as to the other it required from the States an exclusive grant in terms in the Constitution; otherwise, it was not vested in the General Government. Now, sir, that the States have the exclusive right to their own territory, and had before the adoption of the Constitution, nobody can doubt; and I think it has been reserved for these latter days for gentlemen gravely to maintain that the General Government can, for the purpose of commerce, take without the consent or authority of the States a portion of their territory.
Why, sir, the Constitution provides, in so many words, that exclusive authority over any portion of the States, even for the purposes of forts and dock-yards, cannot be acquired by the United States except by the consent of the States; and if there is anything of authority due to the opinions of the eminent men who in the early history of the Republic were deemed the expounders of the Constitution, the gentleman will be left without even the shadow of a doubt from which to draw comfort. I have some books before me containing the opinions of three persons who are, I admit, somewhat old fashioned. One of them is Mr. Madison, another Mr. Jefferson, and the other is Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton in his day was considered rather a liberal interpreter of the Constitution, and was the acknowledged leader of the latitudinarian school, as it was called; but it seems he was far behind the learning of this advanced age. Mr. Hamilton, in his great argument, as submitted to General Washington on the power of the Congress of the United States to establish a corporation for the purposes of the National Bank, excludes from the powers of the General Government all authority to make any work of internal improvement requir ing that they should appropriate any portion of the land within the States without their consent; but I will refer first in order to what occurred in the Convention to form the Constitution of the United States. I quote from Elliot's Debates, volume five, page 543:
In other places it will be referred to mercantile
the modifications under which that assent may be given, will necessarily control the manner of apply
Precisely the ground upon which gentlemen ing the money. It may be, however, observed that in relation to the specific improvements which have now claim the power. been suggested, there is hardly any which is not either already authorized by the States respectively, or so immediately beneficial to them as to render it highly probable that no material difficulty will be experienced in that respect."
"Mr. WILSON mentioned the importance of facilitating, by canals, the communication with the western settlements. As to banks, he did not think, with Mr. King, that the power, in that point of view, would excite the prejudices and parties apprehended. As to mercantile monopolies, they are already included in the power to regulate trade.
"Colonel MASON was for limiting the power to the single case of canals. He was afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were by any means already implied by the Constitution, as supposed by Mr. Wilson.
"The motion being so modified as to admit a distinct question, specifying and limited to the case of canals
"Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, ay-3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, no-8.
The other part fell, of course, as including the power rejected."
Thus it appears that there was a flat refusal on the part of the Convention to insert that power in the Constitution; but there are some other authorities. Mr. Madison at a late period of his life, January 6, 1831, in a letter to Mr. Reynolds Chapman, who seems to have written a treatise, which was highly esteemed, on the constitutional powers of the Government, used the following language:
"Canals as an item in the general improvement of the country have always appeared to me not to be embraced by the authority of Congress. It may be remarked that Mr. Hamilton, in his report on the bank, when enlarging the range of construction to the utmost of his ingenuity, admitted that canals were beyond the sphere of Federal legislation."
Again, in the same letter, Mr. Madison said: "Perhaps I ought not to omit the remark that although I concur in the defect of powers in Congress on the subject of internal improvements, my abstract opinion has been that, in the case of canals particularly, the power would have been properly vested in Congress.
"It was more than once proposed in the Convention of 1787, and rejected, from an apprehension chiefly that it might prove an obstacle to the adoption of the Constitution."
"It cannot be denied that the abuse to which the exercise of the power in question has appeared to be liable in the hands of Congress is a heavy weight in the scale opposed to it. But may not the evil have grown, in a great degree, out of a casual redundancy of revenue, and a temporary apathy to a burden bearing indirectly on the people, and mingled, moreover, with the discharge of debts of peculiar sanctity? It might not happen, under ordinary circumstances, that taxes even of the most disguised kind would escape a wakeful control in the imposition and application of them. The late reduction of duties on certain imports, and the calculated approach of the extinguishment of the public debt, have evidently turned the popular attention to the subject of taxes in a degree quite new, and it is more likely to increase than to relax. In the event of an amendment of the Constitution guards might be devised against a misuse of the power without defeating an important exercise of it. If I err, or am too sanguine in the views I indulge, it must be ascribed to my conviction that canals, railroads and turnpikes are at once the criteria of a wise policy and causes of national prosperity; that the want of them will be a reproach to our republican system, if excluding them; and that the exclusion, to a mortifying extent, will ensue if the power be not lodged where alone it can have its due effect."
Mr. Madison was as zealous an advocate for railroads, canals, and other improvements as any gentleman on this floor, and yet he frankly admitted that no such power existed, and could only be exercised by the Government after a constitutional amendment granting the power. One of the most important and interesting state papers upon this subject of internal improvements, under the powers of Congress, is the report that was made by Mr. Albert Gallatin, April 4, 1808. After reviewing the principal works of internal improvement, as they then existed in the country, or had, at that day, been projected, Mr. Gallatin proceeds to consider the question as to how far and in what way the General Government might afford assistance to those works; and he says:
The manner in which the public moneys may be applied to such objects, remains to be considered. "It is evident that the United States cannot under the Constitution open any road or canal without the consent of the State through which such road or canal must pass. In order, therefore, to remove every impediment to a national plan of internal improvements, an amendment to the Constitution was sug
gested by the Executive [referring to Mr. Jefferson]
when the subject was recommended to the consideration of Congress. Until this be obtained, the assent of the States being necessary for each improvement,
Then I have before me the message of Mr. Jefferson, in which he recommends that Congress propose a constitutional amendment for the adoption of the States for the very purpose of conferring upon the General Government this power.
Now, sir, I have given, the opinions of Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Madison, who were considered as the respective heads of the three great schools of constitutional interpretation, and they all agree in the opinion that there was no such power in the General Government. But the Senator from Wisconsin cited with some degree of satisfaction an opin ion delivered by Mr. Justice McLean on that subject, from which he drew an inference favorable to his view of the question. The gentleman forgot a decision made by the same learned judge, reported by himself in the sixth volume of his Reports, page 524, in the case known as the Rock Island bridge case, in which he says, upon the precise point
"Under the commercial power Congress may deelare what shall constitute an obstruction or nuisance by a general regulation, and provide for its abatement by indictment or information through the Attorney General; but neither under this power, nor under the power to establish post roads, ean Congress construct a bridge over navigable water. This belongs to the local or State authority within which the work is to be done. But this authority must be so exercised as not materially to conflict with the paramount power to regulate commerce.
If Congress can construct a bridge over a navigable water under the power to regulate commerce or to establish post roads, on the same principle it may make turnpike or railroads throughout the country. The latter power has generally been considered as exhausted in the designation of roads on which the mails are to be transported; and the former by the regulation of commerce upon the high seas, and upon our rivers and lakes. If these limitations are to be departed from there can be no others except the discretion of Congress."
Without further reference to the books, I think, Mr. President, it is perfectly safe to leave the question of constitutional power on the authorities cited. And unless gentlemen can controvert these authorities it seems to me they have no standing before the Senate in claiming that any such power should be exercised. I am aware, however, that when driven from the open field they will say that the argu ment does not apply to them, because they do not attempt by this bill to exercise any such power, inasmuch as they do not propose to build a railroad. But if we look at the bill, it will be found to authorize all railroad companies throughout the country whose roads are worked by steam to carry upon and over their roads, connections, ferries, boats, and bridges, all passengers, troops, Government supplies, mails, freight, and property on their way from any State to another State, and to receive compensation therefor, and to connect with the roads of other States so as to form continuons lines for the transportation of the same to the place of destination. It authorizes these roads to carry freight and passengers and to charge compensation therefor, and to connect with other roads throughout the country.
Now, sir, either the bill is worth something or nothing. If it conveys no power, invests in these roads no right which did not exist under State authority, then the bill is utterly useless and nugatory; but I apprehend that the friends of this measure expect to accomplish something by the legislation they propose. They expect that these roads will, under the provisions of this bill, derive and exercise rights and franchises which have been denied to them by the States. This bill if it be operative at all must confer privileges which do not already exist. That, in my judgment, is the exercise of the same power, not perhaps the same in extent, but certainly the same in kind, which is claimed by those who assert that the General Government has the power to construct railroads and to build canals from one end of the Union to
the other; an argument just as strong can be made against the one as against the other upon the general principle of want of power.
It is not only unconstitutional but it is unjust in the extreme for Congress to attempt to usurp this power at this late day. To do so is to cripple the States most seriously in their resources. To do so is to cause Maryland as one of them to lose, not only the $27,000,000 of unproductive capital which she has invested in these works, but the $7,764,797 which are still productive.
The companies are authorized to carry passengers and freight "upon and over their roads," &c., and "to receive compensation therefor." Now, sir, if it be doubted whether these companies have or can have under any bill passed by Congress any right to charge tolls, certainly that argument may be applied to this bill; and the same objection may be made to that provision in regard to compensation. But the object of the bill, as it is claimed by its friends, is to destroy monopoly; and the only case cited by gentlemen who argue in favoring of its passage is the case presented by the condition of affairs in New Jersey. It should be considered that under the phraseology of this bill these railroad companies are only " authorized" to connect with other roads. They are not obliged to connect with other roads; and, in my judgment, the result will be that they will exercise such a discretion that all the stronger roads will unite to the exclusion of all the weaker, and instead of a monopoly confined to the State of New Jersey, you will have a monopoly stretching from Boston to New Orleans, and wielding an amount of capital that will be strong enough to draw all the trade of the country along the lines of their railroads, and so far to paralyze the spirit of enterprise as to prevent the construction of any other roads to compete with them; so that if I am right, this bill, instead of destroying existing monopolies, will rather operate the other way. It will serve as a nursery for monopolies, and will enable one great monopoly, by destroying all competing roads, to exert a pernicious influence upon the legislation of the country and all its industrial interests.
sum of nearly $36,000,000 she has received
Mr. President, I am not speaking in the interest of any railroad company; I am as willing as the friends of this bill to destroy all monopolies wheresoever found; but I do speak in the interest of the State which I in part represent upon this floor. I object to the passage of this measure because I believe it will have a most injurious effect upon the commercial interests of the country, and especially upon the great interest which is now known as the railroad interest. Sir, gentlemen talk of the exercise of the power of constructing railroads by the States as if, instead of having accomplished more than the industry and enterprise of peaceful men ever accomplished before in the history of the world in the same period, they had been resting supinely and had really accomplished nothing. The Census Report for 1860 shows that in the preceding decade there had been built lines of railroad stretching over 22,204 miles, and that in the same period $854,900,681 had been invested in railroads in this country. All that money was invested upon the security afforded by State charters; much of it was brought from abroad; and a large part of it was gathered from other localities than those in which the roads were constructed. If Congress shall now assume the right to revise these charters and to restrict them, notwithstanding the fact that ever since the adoption of the Constitution no one has claimed such a right, and that it has been conceded that the authority to construct railroads, canals, and all works of internal improvement except so far as the Government might aid them by making contributions in money or lands, belonged to the States, the effect, in my judgment, will be most disastrous upon this great interest.
How is it with my own State? I find, on looking over the last report of the comptroller of the State, that Maryland, without any aid from extraneous sources except what capital she could borrow upon her State faith, has invested in public improvements the sum of $35,844,816. Of that money she has lost entirely $27,090,019, and all that she received from all sources in the shape of income from her investments in internal improvements, amounted during the last year ending 30th September, 1865, to $544,162 32. On all this
Gentlemen from the West will bear with me
this subject. The policy of Maryland has
Mr. SHERMAN. Will the Senator allow
Mr. CRESWELL. Certainly.
Mr. CRESWELL. Certainly. Mr. JOHNSON. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company and the city of Baltimore both are exceedingly anxious to have the Connellsville railroad completed. A charter was obtained from Pennsylvania for that purpose, and a charter from Maryland. The Maryland charter authorized the company chartered by Pennsylvania to come to Cumberland, so as to connect with the Baltimore and Ohio railroad. Owing to causes which it is unnecessary now to mention, Pennsylvania after having granted a charter to that company repealed Sheit; repealed it upon the ground that the company had not complied with the conditions of the charter. There was some suspicion that the cause of that repeal was to prevent the trade coming to Baltimore. Whether that is true or not is immaterial. There is a suit now pending between the Connellsville Railroad Company and another company chartered by Pennsylvania, in which the validity of the repealing act is in issue. I tried a cause involving that question in the circuit court at Williamsport, Pennsylvania, during the last summer, and the judges there decided that that law was unconstitutional. The controversy is not yet settled. That question was upon a motion to dissolve an injunction. But since then I am glad to say to my friend from Ohio that under a charter granted by Maryland, the object of which is to bring the Baltimore and Ohio railroad more directly in connection with Washington than it is now by virtue of the existing road, a route has been surveyed from the Point of Rocks, coming through the neighboring county of Montgomery, and the company are about to commence that work at once, and I have very good reasons to believe that that road will be completed in a very short time, the effect of which will be to give a direct communication from the city of Washington to the West, which everybody must see is very desirable. Whether if such a communication had existed before two or three million dollars would have been saved to the Government is perhaps problematical, because the great expense and trouble to which the Government was put, and to which the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company was subjected, was from Mr. CRESWELL. I was speaking of the the raids upon that road, and those raids would conduct of the State of Maryland with refer- have applied just as well to a road continu ence to the promotion of the commercial inter-ously running from this District to the nearest ests of the nation. point upon the Baltimore and Ohio railroad as upon the road as it existed.
Mr. SHERMAN. You cannot speak of the State of Maryland in this connection without speaking of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad.
Mr. SHERMAN. I know that; but the Senator was saying that the State of Maryland and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company had been very liberal. It seems to me that they have not been so liberal.
Mr. KESWELL. I spoke of the State of Maryland, not of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad.
Mr. SHERMAN. Then I will make another complaint against the State of Maryland. Up to this time the State of Maryland and the State of Pennsylvania-for I make the complaint against both of them-have stood in the way of a railroad between Cleveland and Pittsburg and Washington city-a road that must some time or other and that ought to be speedily built a road which if it had existed during the recent war would have saved this Government two or three million dollars. I speak within limits when I say that.
Mr. CRESWELL. Does the gentleman refer to the Connellsville road?
tion of a road from the city of Washington to the Point of Rocks.
Mr. JOHNSON. My colleague will permit me to state what they are doing, as perhaps I know it better than he does.
My colleague will pardon me for adding a word further. The late lamented President of the United States and the present Secretary of War have over and over again told me, and they have communicated it officially to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, that the service rendered by that road to the United States during the rebellion was invaluable. It not only saved thousands and thousands of dollars, but it saved this capital. One of the feats which they achieved at the instance of the Government, and without which perhaps we might have been defeated at Richmond, was bringing forty thousand soldiers of General Sherman's army to the relief of the capital in order to join Grant's army. They brought the whole of them, I think, in two or three days, without losing a man or losing anything connected with that branch of the Army, even a cannon or anything else; and they were as speedily as possible sent to the front, by that means enabling General Grant with the force he before had to accomplish the victories which were so priceless in their results, and have thrown so much splendor upon his own name.
Mr. SHERMAN. I had not quite completed the charge that was made against Maryland. I do this not from any unfriendly feeling to the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, which is one of the great arteries of the commerce of the West, but for the purpose of directing the attention
through and give tickets through. The Balti more and Ohio railroad, however, give tickets through everywhere except by way of Harrisburg.
of the Senator from Maryland to the complaints that prevail in my own State and throughout the whole Northwest in regard to the railroad system of Maryland. In regard to that little complaint about the baggage, I may say, although the Senator has not charge of the baggage, that I presume it has created more dissatisfaction with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company than all other things combined. It arises from the fact that every woman, child. or man who desires to go from here to the West, through Baltimore and Harrisburg, cannot get through the city of Baltimore with the ordinary facilities that are furnished in all other places that I know of in the United States. We cannot buy a ticket from here to go any way except one; and that little impediment of a mile between the end of one railroad and another in Baltimore is made more onerous and more troublesome than five hundred miles of railroad travel; and in some cases I have myself gone to Baltimore for the purpose of seeing ladies who were traveling to the West through that gap. Every Senator
who travels to the West knows that he cannot get his trunk checked from here to Harrisburg, and so westward. It is one of those little annoyances which are very hard to bear, and I have been surprised again and again that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company have not adopted the plan which is adopted in almost every city in the Union. You can go from here to Boston, through Philadelphia and New York, and check your baggage through; but you cannot get a ticket from Cleveland to Washington. You can to Baltimore, and then must get through Baltimore the best way you can, and perhaps have to hire a hack at considerable expense to get yourself and baggage through the city.
I desire to state another point if I do not interrupt my friend
Mr. CRESWELL. Not at all.
Mr. SHERMAN. The other complaint is that the State of Maryland has by some means or other by legislation prevented the completion of a road up the beautiful valley in which Hagerstown lies, so as to connect in that way with Harrisburg, and there is no means of communication between Washington and Harrisburg by way of Hagerstown.
Mr. JOHNSON. A road is being built there now.
Mr. SHERMAN. These are matters of complaint against the Baltimore and Ohio railroad and the State of Maryland, and they are generally grouped together because it is said that the Baltimore and Ohio railroad controls to some extent the legislation of Maryland. That it is so I do not vouch for; but these are complaints constantly made by the people of my State, who, as they lie right in the road of travel westward, feel these things more, perhaps, than any other State. I will say, in regard to Ohio, that our laws from the first have been extremely liberal; they allow anybody to build railroads anywhere in the State of Ohio who is willing to risk the investment. It seems to me that rule ought to be applied to all the States. As the Senator had alluded to the policy of his own State and to the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, I deemed it but right and just to say that these complaints are general, and especially the first one, almost universal.
Mr. JOHNSON. If my colleague who is entitled to the floor will permit me a word, I will say that I do not know where the fault lies in regard to the absence of any arrangement about checking baggage and selling tickets through; but there has not been, unfortunately, an agreement between the Baltimore and Ohio railroad and the railroad that runs from the city of Baltimore to Harrisburg. General Cameron has been at the head of the latter company; and either with or without cause, I do not know which-I do not pretend to decide which is to blame, if either is to blame-there has been no accord between them. It is because of that difference that they have been unable to make an arrangement which it s necessary to make in order to check baggage
Mr. CRESWELL. As the honorable Senator from Ohio has made certain inquiries in regard to the present and proposed action of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, I will state that I happen to have in my hand a speech of the president of that company made at the last annual meeting, which speech I think will afford the Senator all the information he may desire on the subject he has presented. If the Senator will pardon me, I will read some passages from this speech:
'Under the charter granted by the Legislature of Maryland at its last session, your engineers have been diligently engaged in locating a route from the Point of Rocks to Washington. I am gratified to inform you that they have so far progressed as to be able to state that the line from that point, which is now via the main stem and Relay House to Washington, ninety-one miles, will be reduced to forty-five miles, thus securing for the travel of the Southwest and the great West, a reduction in distance of forty-six miles.
"Notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and the Northern Central Railroad Company, whilst overflowing with professions to members of Congress and others regarding their anxiety for an improved line to the Capital; notwithstanding those parties have antagonized a further improvement of the highest utility and importance to the seat of Government, namely, the prosecution of the Pittsburg and Connellsville road, from Connellsville to Cumberland, I am gratified to state that the United States district court have, in a decision heretofore rendered, distinetly maintained the rights of that company, under its charter, to construct the line.
"You all remember that the State of Pennsylvania granted the charter for this road; that fifty-eight miles of the road were constructed, and when the Baltimore and Ohio Company, recovering from its disasters and losses in the early part of the war, feeling it a duty, in the then situation of the country. prepared for the construction of that work, that the Hon. Thomas A. Scott, vice president of the Pennsylvania road, visited Harrisburg, and by his personal efforts and the influence of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, as reliably stated, insisted upon that Legislature rescinding the charter of the Pittsburg and Connellsville road for the unfinished portion of its line.
"But, gentlemen, the great requirements of the country, fully allied with the rights and equities of the case, will overwhelm and control the unjust efforts of parties who, in attempting to aggrandize other interests, improperly oppose those of the public.
The Baltimore and Ohio Company and those associated with it are prepared to complete that short line to Pittsburg, and thus by this improved route reduce the distance to Washington seventy-two miles from that central point in the West. While the relations to the national capital of the vast populations of the States of the Northwest are identified with this enterprise as well as their great agricultural interests, which would thus secure a route so much shorter and more economical to the sea-board, the city of Pittsburg and western Pennsylvania are still more deeply and thoroughly interested in the prosecution of this work.
Almost as one man, the merchants and manufacturers, the capitalists and the people of that city and of western Pennsylvania demand the construction of this road; and well they may, for with this line completed, and a direct outlet to Washington and Baltimore thus effected, the city of Pittsburg has in its future a position scarcely secondary to Philadelphia itself. With its vast mineral resources and varied natural advantages, it is already the Birmingham of America; and with this double and powerful avenue thus opened for its people, a concentration of trade, and increase of manufacturing wealth and progress in all that makes communities great and prosperous, is before that city, of an unparalleled character."
He then proceeds to state the manner in which he proposes to secure the means necessary for
"In this connection, it is proper to state that the distinguished gentlemen from England who recently visited this country in relation to American railway interests, were struck with the marked necessity as well as the great importance of this line; and that eminent, sagacious, and able gentleman, Sir S. Morton Peto, on behalf of the Atlantic and Great Western Railway Company, stated that in connection with the construction of the roads from Point of Rocks to Washington, and from Connellsville to Cumberland, capital would be promptly furnished and vigorous measures taken to complete the road from Cleveland, via Youngstown, to Pittsburg, and thus furnish to members of Congress and all other parties visiting the capital of the United States, a route from Cleveland and the whole region of the lakes and Northwest, eighty-four miles shorter than any existing linc."
Company favored the Connellsville road; but that was resisted by the Pennsylvania Central. The other road, though, from the Point of Rocks through Hagerstown to Harrisburg, is a point about which I think Mr. Garrett is not quite so satisfactory.
Mr. CRESWELL. I am not prepared to furnish the gentleman with information on that subject. I am not aware, however, of any hostility by the Legislature of Maryland to the construction of a railroad from Hagerstown to the Point of Rocks; and I know that a road is now being constructed from Hagerstown eastward to connect with the Baltimore and Ohio road, (at what point I am not prepared to say,) and that this connecting link, when completed, will afford to passengers from Harrisburg and the Cumberland valley an immediate outlet by way of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad to Washington and Baltimore. That, I suppose, is the desideratum the gentleman speaks of.
There is only one other complaint, and that is in reference to baggage. Now, in regard to that, let me say that I will use my personal influence with the president of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company-I know it does not amount to much-and I am sure if the gentleman's trouble in that respect can be remedied it will be done.
Mr. SHERMAN. I can tell the Senator that he will in that way do thousands of men and a great many very estimable ladies a great benefit.
Mr. CRESWELL. I will turn my philanthropy in that direction and endeavor to benefit my own sex and make the ladies happy.
Mr. President, I have only a few words more to say, and I think the interruption of the Senator from Ohio perhaps gives me an opportunity to say them with a little more pertinency. The State of Maryland has a right to call upon the West, whose works of improvement she has aided to nurture by the most liberal donations of public lands, at least to abstain from any legislation which will prove inimical to her most important interests. As I stated just now and proved, Maryland has invested $36,000,000 of her own hard money in her works of internal improvement. Not one dollar for that purpose, so far as I am informed, has she ever received from the General Government.
To the States of the West, Maryland has voted with a generous heart large portions of that great domain which she long ago relinquished to the Union for the common good. It has been my policy since I have been in Congress to respond cordially to all the claims of the West; I am perfectly willing, if neces sary, to give them a proper system of internal improvements; that they shall have every acre of the public lands. I am willing to aid them to the full extent of the Government. We ask no assistance from the Government; we merely ask that the Government will not subvert our own system and will not cause us to lose the immense amount of expenditure that we have already made for that purpose. We have already lost in our efforts to promote commerce between the other States of the Union and the internal commerce of Maryland one tenth of all the assessable property in the State. We have lost between twenty-seven and twentyeight million dollars out of two hundred and eighty millions; and if the scheme of which I believe this bill is the forerunner is now adopted, and the Congress of the United States shall assume jurisdiction over all these railroad interests, it will result not only in the destruction of the roads which have been made already, but utterly to destroy the prospects of
the State in the future.
Now, sir, what is the fact? In this country we are unable to build railroads by means of the capital of each separate locality. The Gov ernment does not purpose investing a thousand millions during the next ten years in railroads, as the States, and the enterprise of individuals assisted by the States, have done in the last ten years. The only security for all this money is found in the rights, franchises, and privileges conferred by State charters; and if Congress shall undertake by a new system of legislation
to usurp the right of eminent domain over the States, and thereby make new grants of railroads and canals to subvert the grauts of the States, it will utterly destroy that confidence which is necessary to enable the people of the United States to gather capital for the construction of any additional roads in the future. I believe that this policy will not only be detrimental, but actually destructive, of the great interests of my State and country.
Mr. MORRILL. Mr. President
Mr. GRIMES. The Senator from Maine desires to address the Senate at some length, I should judge from the indications; and I therefore move that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. CHANDLER. I hope that motion will not prevail. I desire to have a vote on this bill if it is possible.
Mr. FESSENDEN. You cannot get it to-night.
Mr. CHANDLER. The Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] informed me a short time ago that he would not read all the books on his desk, and he can get through in half an hour.
Mr. GRIMES. If he only reads one half of them it will take a long time.
Mr. CHANDLER. I shall be glad to get a vote to-night.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider will be entered.
Mr. SHERMAN. Before the Senate adjourns, I ask that the motion to reconsider made by the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. POLAND,] together with the bill to which it pertains the Post Office appropriation billbe postponed until Monday, at one o'clock, and made the special order then, so that we may dispose of it on that day.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is no objection to reconsidering it.
Mr. SHERMAN. I hope, then, that the motion will be now acted on, and then let the bill be postponed until Monday.
Mr. SUMNER, and others. Why not act now?
Several SENATORS. You cannot get it.
Mr. CHANDLER. The Senator from Maine informed me that he should be very brief in his remarks. I could make a long speech myself, but I will omit it, as I do not wish to occupy time.
Mr. GRIMES. The Senator from Nevada told me that he desired to address the Senate. I withdraw the motion to adjourn for the present, as I understand there is some other business which it is desirable to attend to.
POST OFFICE APPROPRIATION bill.
A message was received from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, returning to the Senate, in compliance with the request of the Senate, the bill (H. R. No. 280) making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department during the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1867, and for other purposes, with the amendments of the Senate thereto.
Mr. POLAND. I move to reconsider the
vote by which the bill making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, was passed. I was desired to state the reasons for moving this reconsideration. I do not propose to enter into discussion of the subject, but merely to state in a word the ground on which I make the motion.
The amendment for which I voted, and which was offered by the Senator from Illinois, clearly recognizes, as I think on examination, the power of the President to make removals from office, and to fill them by appointing other persons. The amendment to this bill provides that in such cases, and where officers are removed for cause, their successors shall receive no pay. It seems to me that if we concede that the President has the right to make removals and to fill the vacancies thus occasioned by the appointment of other persons, so that they are legally invested with the office, it will not do for us to say that they shall not receive the compensation which the law provides. That is revolutionary; we might as well refuse to make an appropriation to pay the salary of the President if his action does not suit us.
Upon this question of the power of the President to remove officers, this vexed question, which has always been a vexed question, I do not propose to make any argument, because I do not propose to ask to have this matter considered now. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENDERSON] informed us yesterday that he was preparing a bill upon the general subject of the power of removal from office. I desire that this motion to reconsider shall lie on the table until we may have his bill before us, and see whether it will not remove the difficulty. I submit the motion to reconsider, and ask that it lie on the table for the present.
Mr. TAYLOR asked and obtained leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. J. M. HUMPHREY, for two weeks.
Mr. BAKER asked and obtained leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. Cook, for three days, including yesterday.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania, asked and obtained leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. MOORHEAD, for four days.
Mr. BINGHAM asked and obtained leave of absence for Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut, for one week.
REORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, the first business in order this morning is the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the vote on the Army bill.
Mr. WRIGHT. I ask the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] to allow me to modify the motion that I made yesterday. I made the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill had been rejected, and to lay that motion on the table. I did it with no unkind feeling toward the friends of the bill, but I think it requires a little more consideration, and with the permission of the House I will withdraw my motion to reconsider and move that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Military Affairs, in justice to the chairman.
The SPEAKER. Before the bill can be recommitted the vote by which it was rejected must be reconsidered.
Mr. WRIGHT. I withdraw my motion to lay on the table.
The SPEAKER. That leaves the motion to reconsider pending.
Mr. SCHENCK. My purpose in rising was to give notice that if the House should reconsider the vote by which the bill was rejected, I myself would move to recommit. I demand the previous question on the motion to reconsider. Mr. CHANLER. Is it in order to move to lay that motion on the table?
The question then recurred on seconding the demand for the previous question on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was rejected.
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The question then recurred on the passage of the bill.
Mr. SCHENCK. I now make the motion, or rather the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WRIGHT] has made the motion, to recommit. I suggest that he accompany the motion with another, that the bill as amended be printed.
Mr. WRIGHT. I will make that motion also. Mr. ROSS. Is it in order to move to add instructions?
The SPEAKER. It is.
Mr. ROSS. I move that the committee be instructed to report back an Army organization not exceeding thirty-five thousand men. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will reduce his motion to writing.
Mr. SCHENCK. I demand the previous question on the motion to recommit and the motion to add instructions.
Mr. ROSS. I have now reduced my proposed instructions to writing, as follows:
That the committee be instructed to report a bill for an Army not to exceed thirty-five thousand men,