« AnteriorContinuar »
of the country now, and it is as much our duty to provide for this class of commerce that goes across the country as it is to keep the river clear. The river, to be sure, is a natural channel, but it has no more claims on Congress or the country or mankind than these artificial channels have; and to embarrass a company with such a kind of bridge that they cannot build it, and that is not good for anything when it is built, is such unfriendly legislation that we ought not to encourage it. We should extend the greatest possible facilities for bridging these streams everywhere; and the only provision of law I want on the subject is precisely that contained in the Pacific railroad act. Let the companies themselves judge of the character of the structure. Let them be allowed to build it where they have to cross a stream, and only require them not to obstruct the navigation of the river more than such structures necessarily do. That is the language of the law in regard to bridging the Missouri river.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. President, my impres sion is that all these bridges on the Mississippi and Ohio rivers should be built without a draw. When we wanted to build a bridge at Louisville, Congress required it to be ninety feet above low-water mark. We applied to Congress for liberty to build it with draws, and that privilege was granted at the last session. I put the matter immediately into the hands of an engineer to ascertain the difference between the cost of a bridge with and a bridge without draws, and the advantages of the two methods. My engineer reported to me that it would be cheaper and better to build it without draws. I have great confidence in his judgment; I have built several bridges of his drafting.
Mr. POMEROY. What was the length of draw required in the law? That was the obstacle.
to make a good job of either kind of bridge; but draw-bridges do not keep up like continuous-span bridges, and even if a continuous-span bridge should cost a little more than the other, in my judgment that expense is compensated by saving after-troubles which the draw-bridge would entail upon the company. If we had had a charter allowing us to build the Louisville bridge fifty feet above high-water mark I think it is likely we should be at work now, or if the law had allowed us to build it seventy feet above low-water mark we should certainly be at work this summer building the bridge. I have not asked Congress to modify that law because I left instructions for the prosecution of the investigation and the obtaining of estimates of the cost of the two kinds of bridges and an examination of the ground, so that we should know certainly what expense would be required whichever mode we took. We have a bridge with a draw at Nashville, and we have had multitudes of suits growing out of it, and are having them every year. In high stages of the water vessels are frequently no longer under the power of steam, and they run against the piers, and the owners of the boats seek to hold the company liable.
Mr. HENDERSON. One hundred and fifty feet in the Ohio bridges.
Mr. POMEROY. But the bridge would have to be twice that length and that would make it three hundred feet.
Mr. HENDERSON. But there is a pivot pier in the center of it. The passage way is only one hundred and fifty feet. The pivot rests on a small pier.
I became convinced that it was not best for the Jeffersonville railroad and the Louisville and Nashville railroad to build a bridge at Louisville at present. Congress required it to be ninety feet above lowwater mark. At the falls the highest rise of the water is forty-four feet. It rose to that extreme height only three times in the memory of the oldest citizens there, in 1792, in 1831, and in 1847. Of course, if you build bridges sixty feet above high-water mark, they must be some height above the bank of the river, and you must have an embankment on each side for nearly half a mile in order to get the proper elevation of the bank and then carry the bridge of the proper height to the center of the river.
My conclusion is that a proper continuousspan bridge can be built as cheaply as a safe bridge with draws, and that it is much better for the company because vessels descending the river will get on to a draw-bridge in some way or other and the companies will have suits continually with the owners of boats and the owners of cargoes. If you build a continuousspan bridge of such a height that vessels can pass under it from above and from below you get clear of nearly all difficulties of litigation and all difficulties from negligence, some watchman not being in his place-and it is almost impossible to keep them in place at all timesand as the boats run through the night there is great difficulty from this cause.
I think the suggestion of the Senator from Missouri as to an investigation by engineers to ascertain whether the bridges across the Mississippi river should be draw-bridges or continuous-span bridges is very proper. I think every bridge engineer will tell you that he can make the one bridge just as well as he can make the other. It is in the power of a good builder
I rather think that experience and investigation are in favor of continuous-span bridges. My own opinion has changed since I had the estimates made in relation to the bridge at Louisville, and changed very materially, and I am satisfied that a skillful engineer who takes the whole subject into consideration, as well cost now as trouble, vexation, and cost in the future, will decide in favor of continuous-span bridges.
Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair, then, will put the whole question as one motion. It is moved that the present and all prior orders be postponed, and that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the House resolution indicated by the Senator from Michigan, and that the present order be postponed until to-morrow at one o'clock and made the special
order at that time.
that the special order naturally came up this morning.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. As the Chair understands,the Senator from Maine was broken off in his speech by a motion to go into executive session. Some other and informal busi ness was received by the unanimous consent of the Senate, but that bill was the unfinished business of yesterday, and that, by the rule of the Senate, takes precedence of a special order assigned for the same hour; so that the unfinished business of yesterday, House bill No. 11, is in order at the present time. The Senator from Michigan moves to postpone that bill until to-morrow at one o'clock, and to make it the special order for that time, and to proceed with the House resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The special order, I believe, was fixed by a two-thirds vote; can it be overridden by a majority vote?
Mr. HENDRICKS. I believe there was a special order for to-day at one o'clock, made sometime last week-the Colorado bill.'
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is true. Mr. HENDRICKS. I did not know that the bill of which the Senator from Michigan [Mr. CHANDLER] has charge was the unfinished business upon the adjournment of the Senate yesterday afternoon. I thought it was laid aside and the Senate proceeded to other business, and therefore it was not the business before the Senate at its adjournment, and
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is not presented in that form precisely.
Mr. HENDRICKS. That is the effect of the motion.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. By the rule of the Senate, the unfinished business takes precedence of a special order fixed for the same time.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I am aware of that fact. I have no objection to taking the vote on postponing the bill which is the unfinished business; but the motion to postpone the special order ought to be a separate vote by itself, because that special order for one o'clock to-day was made by a two-thirds vote of the body. The effect of this motion is to reverse the action agreed upon by a two-thirds vote by a majority vote. Therefore I ask that the question shall be divided, and the vote first taken on the motion to postpone the present order.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator from Indiana, I apprehend, is discussing a question not before the Senate. The special order is not before the Senate at all, and cannot come up except by unanimous consent. We have under consideration the unfinished business of yes terday. The Senator from Michigan makes a motion to postpone that and all prior orders for the purpose of taking up a particular subject. There can be but one subject before the Senate at a time, and that is now the question.
Mr. CHANDLER. With the consent of my colleague, I will ask that the bill which is the unfinished business be laid over informally, so that he may call up his joint resolution.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Then if the proposi tion of the Senator from Michigan is agreed to, that is, that the unfinished business be postponed by unanimous consent for the present, presume the special order is before the body. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is so. Does the Senator from Michigan withdraw his motion to postpone?
Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir, he does; and I ask that the unfinished business be laid aside informally for the purpose of allowing my colleague to take up the joint resolution he has
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Michigan withdraws the motion, I renew it. I move that the unfinished business of yesterday and all other business be postponed for the purpose of proceeding with the joint resolution indicated by the Senator from Michigan who
made the motion.
Mr. HOWARD. I did not intend to be understood as withdrawing my motion to postpone all other business.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The mo tion is still before the body, made by the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I ask for a division of the question, that a vote be taken upon the proposition to postpone and then a separate vote on the business that shall occupy the attention of the Senate after that postponement. I make the point that the special order being established by a two-thirds vote, it cannot be postponed by a majority vote to give place to another piece of business.
Mr. CHANDLER. I will then renew my motion, that the unfinished business be postponed until to-morrow at two o'clock.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion of the Senator from Illinois is that the present and all prior orders be postponed, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution from the House of Representatives proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That is now the motion before the Senate.
The motion was agreed to.
or for payment of bounties or pensions incident thereto, shall remain inviolate.
YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cowan, Cragin, Creswell, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Guthrie, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Norton, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, and Wilson-43.
ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Dixon, McDougall, Sprague, Wright, and Yates-6.
So the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HOWARD. I now offer a series of amendments to the joint resolution under consideration, which I will send to the Chair.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Take them one section at a time.
Mr. HOWARD. I will state very briefly what they are. I propose to amend section one of the article by adding after the words "section one" the following words, which will of course constitute a part of section one:
All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.
The second amendment
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let us take a vote on the first one.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator had better state all the amendments.
Mr. JOHNSON. I hope we shall hear them all.
Mr. HOWARD. The second amendment is to amend the second section by striking out the word "citizens," in the twentieth line, where it occurs, and inserting after the word "male" the words "inhabitants, being citizens of the United States;" and by inserting at the end of that section the words any such State.' The third section has already been stricken Instead of that section, or rather in its place, I offer the following:
SEC. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or an elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; but Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The following is to come in as section four: The obligations of the United States incurred in suppressing insurrection, or in defense of the Union,
Section four, as it now stands, will be changed to section five, and I propose to amend that section as follows: strike out the word "already,' in line thirty-four, and also the words " which may hereafter be incurred," in line thirty-five, and also the words " or of war" in lines thirty-five and thirty-six, and insert the word "rebellion" in lieu thereof; and also strike out the words "loss of involuntary service or labor" in line thirty-seven, and insert "the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be forever held illegal and void.”
After consultation with some of the friends of this measure it has been thought that these amendments will be acceptable to both Houses of Congress and to the country, and I now submit them to the consideration of the Senate. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first question in order is the amendment proposed to the joint resolution by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. WADE.]
Mr. WADE. I ask leave to withdraw that amendment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is still in the power of the mover, and he can withdraw it if he pleases. The amendment is withdrawn. The question now is on the amend ments proposed by the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. SAULSBURY. It is very well known that the majority of the members of this body who favor a proposition of this character have been in very serious deliberation for several days in reference to these amendments, and have held some four or five caucuses on the subject. Perhaps they have come to the conclusion among themselves that the amendments offered are proper to be made, but this is the first intimation that the minority of the body has had of the character of the proposed change in the constitutional amendment. Now, sir, it is nothing but fair, just, and proper that the minority of the Senate should have an opportunity to consider these amendments; and I rise for the purpose of moving that these amendments, together with the original proposition, be printed, so that we may see them before we are called upon to vote on them. Certainly there can be no graver question, no more serious business that can engage the attention of this Senate than a proposed change in the fundamental law.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will say to the Senator that if any gentleman on that side of the Chamber desires that these amendments be laid upon the table and printed, there is no objection to that.
Mr. SAULSBURY. Then I will defer any further remarks, and make that motion.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is moved that the amendments be printed and that the further consideration of the joint resolution be postponed until to-morrow.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SUMNER. I wish to give notice of an amendment which at the proper time I intend to offer to Senate bill No. 292, entitled "A bill to provide for restoring to the States lately in insurrection their full political rights." It is to strike out all after the enacting clause of the first section and to insert a section as a substitute which I ask to have printed.
Mr. JOHNSON and Mr. STEWART. Let it be read.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The proposed amendment will be read, if there be no objection.
The Secretary read it, as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause of the first section of the bill and insert in lieu thereof the following:
That when any State lately in rebellion shall have ratified the foregoing amendment and shall have modified its constitution and laws in conformity therewith, and shall have further provided that there shall be no denial of the elective franchise to citizens of the United States because of race or color, and that all persons shall be equal before the law, the Senators and Representatives from such State, if found duly elected and qualified, may, after having taken the required oaths of office, be admitted into Congress as such: Provided, That nothing in this
Mr. CLARK. I ask that the Senate give me a little time on Friday next for the purpose of disposing of certain private claims, if there be no objection.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I shall object to that unless the constitutional amendment is disposed of by that time.
Mr. CLARK. I will state that I will not antagonize them with the constitutional amendment, or a public necessity of that kind, but I should like to have an understanding that I . may have an hour or so on Friday next for the consideration of private claims, if there is no other public business of pressing importance in the way.
APPROVAL OF BILLS.
A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. COOPER, his Secretary, announced that the President of the United States had approved and signed, on the 26th instant, the following act and joint resolutions:
An act (S. No. 318) to authorize the appointment of an additional Assistant Secretary of the Navy;
A joint resolution (S. R. No. 74) providing for the acceptance of a collection of plants tendered to the United States by Frederick Pech; and
A joint resolution (S. R. No. 97) to authorize certain medals to be distributed to veteran soldiers free of postage.
Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I move to take up Senate bill No. 237, granting a pension to Mrs. Martha Stevens, which has been returned from the House of Representatives with an amendment. The bill as it passed the Senate gave a pension of twenty dollars a month; the amendment of the House reduces it to seventeen dollars a month, the amount allowed in the case. of a first lieutenant.
The amendment was concurred in.
DISTRICT SUPREME COURT.
On motion of Mr. WADE, the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 184) to define more clearly the jurisdiction and powers of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, were
Mr. CHANDLER. I hope that amendment will not prevail. It is well known that the State of New Jersey has refused not only to permit connections to be made, but to permit roads to carry freight or passengers within the State. The object of this bill is to control the commerce passing from one State to another. The State of New Jersey has seen fit to levy a tax upon the transit both of passengers and of freight through the State. She has assumed a power that we believe she does not possess ; nor did she believe it, because in the very contract which she made in this railroad monopoly in New Jersey was a stipulation that in a certain event, to wit, in the event of Congress authorizing any other road or route, then the bonus which she was receiving from this corporation should cease and be void. The very object of this bill is to control the commerce passing through any State ;.if you please, the State of New Jersey or any other State. The Constitution says that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. Now, if the State of New Jersey possesses the power to levy a small tax upon passengers and upon freight passing through the State, she has the power to levy a larger tax. If she can levy ten cents on every passenger going through she can levy ten dollars. We deny the power of a State to tax property in transit or passengers in transit through her borders. Now, sir, if this amendment should prevail, of course it would destroy the object of the bill. I hope it will not prevail.
referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.
INTER-STATE INTERCOURSE. Mr. SUMNER. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 11.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 11) to facilitate commercial, postal, and military communication among the several States.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this question the Senator from Maine is entitled to the floor.
Mr. MORRILL. When I gave way yesterday to a motion that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business, I had made up my mind that the Senate had perhaps been troubled with the consideration of this question about as long as it ought to be, and that though I considered it a question of very great importance, I had on one or two occasions done enough to call the attention of the Senate to the subject. I think that after so much I ought, perhaps, to content myself with recording my vote against the measure without trespassing longer upon the Senate; I will therefore make no further remarks.
Mr. CLARK. I move to amend the bill by striking out the word "connections" at the end of line five and the beginning of line six. I make the motion because the word " tions" in that part of the bill is ambiguous. It is explained as meaning a portion of the road; that is, the connections, the side-tracks, of the road; but it may have the meaning of other roads connecting with the road; and to prevent any such construction as that one railroad has a right to run over another road connecting with it, I move to strike out that word". nections," because if it can run over its own road, that means its entire road, the whole road. Mr. CHANDLER. I see no particular objection to the amendment if the Senator insists upon it, but I can see no necessity for it.
Mr. SUMNER. I hope there will be no amendment to the bill. It has been thoroughly considered in the House of Representatives and in the Senate during several sessions. It is very brief, quite to the purpose, and I do not think it needs amendment. Certainly we cannot afford to strike anything out.
Mr. CLARK. That may be the opinion of the Senator from Massachusetts. The bill is truly very brief. The Senator says it does not need amendment. I think on the whole it does need it, and I should be glad to make it more acceptable. That was the occasion of my moving an amendment to it. I think the word connections" as there used is very objectionable, and I hope that it will be stricken out. The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CLARK. I propose to amend the bill
Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator permit
me to call his attention to a word in line nine? Mr. CLARK. Certainly,
Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable member has stated his reason for striking out the word "connections," in lines five and six, and in that the Senate have concurred. It seems to me to be necessary also to strike out the word "connect," in the ninth line, for it goes on to say "and to connect with roads of other States, so as to form continuous lines." How is that to be done?
Mr. CLARK. I do not think it worth while to amend by striking out the words "to connect" there, because if a road can connect with another I am willing that it should do so.
Mr. JOHNSON. I have no objection to that either; but suppose it cannot do so by its charter?
Mr. CLARK. I was about proposing this amendment to be added at the close of the bill:
Nor shall it be construed to authorize any railroad to build any new road or connection with any other road, without authority from the State in which such railroad or connection may be proposed.
Mr. JOHNSON. I have no objection to that. That will do.
Mr. CLARK. I did not so understand the object of the bill to be that if this amendment prevailed it would destroy it. The amendment simply is, that this act shall not authorize the building of a new railroad or connection of railroad within a State without its authority. Now, is the object of the bill, and the confessed object of the bill, to authorize anybody to build a railroad within a State without the authority of the State?
Mr. CHANDLER. That is not the intention. Mr. CLARK. Then the amendment does not destroy the object of the bill. I understood the object of the bill to be to authorize the carrying of the mails and of freight on the railroads which are built, from one State to another. That is a very different thing from the authorization of the building of a railroad. Now, while it is entirely true, under the provisions of the Constitution, that you may regulate commerce between the States, or from State to State, I take it that does not authorize you to build the avenues of commerce. That is a very different matter; and to guard against any such construction of the bill, and to put it in such a shape that it might command some votes, I proposed this amendment. I do not debating it. I ask for the yeas and nays upon it. desire to take up the time of the Senate in
taken, resulted-yeas 24, nays 15, as follows: The yeas and nays were ordered; and being
YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Clark, Cowan, Cragin, Creswell, Davis. Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Guthrie, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Nesmith, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbury, Van Winkle, Willey, and Williams-24, NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Edmunds, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy. Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Wade, and Wilson-15.
ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Conness, Dixon, Doolittle, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Sprague, Trumbull, Wright, and Yates-10.
So the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSON. I would ask the honorable
chairman of the Committee on Commerce what was supposed by the committee to be the extent of the authority granted to these companies, which is given in the eighth line of the bill. Each of them is authorized to carry the mail, &c., and all property destined from one State into another State, "and to receive compensation therefor." Is it intended to enlarge the rate of compensation to which they are limited by their respective charters?
Mr. CHANDLER. Does the Senator desire an answer now?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHANDLER. The facts in the case are briefly these: in 1861 and 1862 the Government was pressed for transportation; it could not transport troops and supplies to a sufficient extent through the State of New Jersey by the Camden and Amboy railroad; that company had not the capacity to do it; and a Government quartermaster impressed another railroad and passed over that road seventeen thousand two hundred and forty-eight men, and six hundred and forty-nine horses, and eight hundred and six thousand pounds of freight, and that company received compensation. The Government, in fact, took the road, because it required that road for its transportation. The Camden and Amboy Railroad Company sued that railroad company, and under a decision of the courts in New Jersey, compelled that company to pay back dollar of money every received for the transportation of Government troops and supplies, when they were actually forced by the Government to carry them. The intention of this bill is to compel any State to permit the traffic of other States to pass through it, if there be an open channel. The State of New Jersey has discriminated in favor of her own citizens. She permits her own citizens to take freight over this road and she will not permit the citizens of other States to do so. It is believed to be an unjust discrimination against the citizens of other States, and against the interests of the commerce of the United States. We intend, in this bill, to open up channels of communication for trade between the several States. That is the intention and meaning of it.
Mr. JOHNSON. With due deference to my friend from Michigan, I think he does not understand the question that I put to him. It is not whether one or the other railroad company is to receive compensation, but it is as to the rate of the compensation. It may be that under this bill any railroad company which may carry passengers, &c., on their way from any State to another State, and receive compensation therefor," may claim the right to charge just what they please. The question, therefore, which I propounded to the honorable member was, what was to be the rate of compensation; was it intended to free these companies from the rates limited by their charters?
Mr. CHANDLER. Not at all; it does not intend to interfere with them in that respect.
Mr. JOHNSON. So I supposed. Then, to make that plain, I propose to amend the bill by inserting after the word "therefor," in the ninth line, the words "not exceeding the rates allowed by its charter." I think there can be no objection to that.
Mr.CHANDLER. I see no particular objec tion to that amendment, nor do I see any necessity for it. Of course, these companies cannot charge more than their charters authorize them be to charge. The amendment seems to me superfluous, and I would rather not have it on the bill, because it is not needed.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish the attention of the Senator from Maryland for one moment. I do not understand the force of his amendment exactly. If the State legislation was in the nature of prohibition to a particular company to carry freight or passengers, what would be the rate of compensation in that case? Or, suppose the State had failed to prescribe any rate of compensation, what then would it be?
Mr. JOHNSON. At the rate of similar services. This bill is intended to give the right, and I assume now that Congress has authority to pass the act. I do not propose to argue that question; but, assuming the authority to be in Congress to pass the act, the whole effect of the amendment will be that the road is not to charge more than the same rate it is authorized to charge for similar services, or any services in carrying passengers or carrying freight.
Mr. CHANDLER. The State of New Jer sey prohibits any but one road from transporting at all, and of course does not permit any compensation; and I am rather of opinion, on reflection, that the amendment of the Senator from Maryland would have the effect to destroy the bill.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is certainly not my purpose. If I had designed to defeat the bill, I should have tried it by an open warfare and not by a guerrilla warfare. The honorable member might as well apply that suspicion to the member from New Hampshire.
the State; but for through transportation across Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, I do not
Mr. CLARK. Oh! don't bring me in. Mr. JOHNSON. "Misery likes company." [Laughter.] All I want to do is to guard against giving to these companies the right to charge whatever they may think proper, and to limit them to a charge in the nature of a quantum meruit. They are all now limited in their tolls, and the whole effect of the amendment is to say that for the duties they are to perform under this act they shall not exceed the rates of compensation fixed by the State law that is all; not to say that they shall not be compensated. To apply it to the case which the honorable member seems to suppose is the only case to which the bill applies-but that is a great mistake, for it applies to all the roads in the country-the Amboy railroad in New Jersey is authorized to charge a certain rate of tolls for carrying passengers and for carrying freight; any other company there who may be authorized, if it connects with the Amboy road, to carry freight or carry passengers through, are to be limited to the same rate, or if the Amboy road is to take the freight and the passengers from the termination of the connecting road, they shall not be at liberty to charge more than their charters authorize. I assure the honorable member I have not the lightest desire to defeat the bill by any such movement as this.
The question being put, there were, on a division-ayes 17, noes 15.
Mr. CONNESS. Let us have the yeas and
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish to suggest to the Senator from Maryland that I presume no objection will be made to his amendinent if he will add the words "in all cases where the State laws prescribe the rates."
Mr. JOHNSON. I have no objection to that. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be so modified.
Mr. STEWART. I do not see the object of the amendment. Of course we do not say in this law that these companies may charge higher than the rates allowed by their charters; and those laws of course would control in this matter. We have not undertaken to abrogate those laws by any language I can see in this bill. There is nothing in this bill to be so construed.
Mr. JOHNSON. If that is so the honorable member ought to vote for the amendment so as to make it clear and certain.
Mr. STEWART. I think it is clear now. Mr. JOHNSON. It may be contended, and has been contended, that Congress has the authority of itself to construct roads or to authorize roads already constructed to carry on commerce between the States; and it may therefore be said that when Congress attempts to do that, and authorizes the charging of compensation without saying how the compensation may be regulated, they may charge whatever compensation they may think proper to ask and the public may be willing to submit to. The whole effect of the amendment is to limit them in their charges of compensation to the charges to which they are restricted by their respective charters.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I would like to ask the honorable Senator from Maryland whether the charter of the Delaware and Raritan Bay Railroad Company-I believe that is the nameprovides rates of toll which it is authorized by law to take.
The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 17, nays 19; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Creswell, Davis, Fessenden, Foster, Guthrie, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Morrill, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbury, Van Winkle, and Willey-17.
NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Edmunds, Grimes, Howard, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Wade, and Wilson-19. ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Cragin, Dixon, Doolittle, Kirkwood, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Nesmith, Sprague, Trumbull, Williams, Wright, and Yates-13.
So the amendment was rejected.
The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole were concurred in. Mr. CRESWELL. I renew the motion which I made, and which was acted on yesterday in committee, when the Senate was not at all full, which I deem important to this bill. It is to insert as a new section:
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That Congress may at any time alter, amend, or repeal this act.
The only object of this amendment is to retain in the future the entire control over this system of legislation. We are about entering on a new field; we are not apprised as to what may be the precise results of this kind of legislation, how it may affect commerce, how it may affect the great railroad and transporting interest of the country, and this amendment simply proposes to retain in the hands of Congress as against any interest, vested or otherwise, which may be created by this bill, the right hereafter to control it.
Mr. CHANDLER. I have not the slightest objection to the Senator's amendment. I do not think it has any effect one way or the other; but I have no objection to it. Congress has the power which this amendment calls for, any
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Shall the amendments be engrossed
and the bill be read the third time?
Mr. SHERMAN. I should like to have the bill read as it now stands amended.
The Secretary read it, as follows:
Whereas the Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress in express terms the power to regulate commerce among the several States, to establish post roads, and to raise and support armies: Therefore,
Be it enacted, &c., That every railroad company in
posed by the terms of any act granting lands to any
Mr. MORRILL. The bill is undoubtedly shorn of one of its features, which was the objectionable feature to me. A company cannot do what was undertaken to be done by the bill originally without the consent of the State authorities. That was the chief objection to the bill in my mind. It can do now all that it could have done before with the consent of the States. That is all there is of it.
Mr. SHERMAN. Could they not do this at any rate without this bill?
Mr. MORRILL. Without the consent of the States, of course there was no authority in the General Government by which the thing could be done at all.
Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator has examined the bill, and I ask him what power it gives to any railroad corporation not conferred by the charter of the State.
Mr. MORRILL. As against the State? Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, and against anybody.
Mr. MORRILL. As against the State, none at all.
Mr. CLARK. I cannot say what was designed by the framers of the bill; but it seems to me that the bill now secures all that its friends say that it was intended to secure, that is, the right to carry freight, passengers, troops, Government supplies, mails, &c., over the road. That it does now. The amendment which was adopted on my motion simply provides that you shall not enter into a State and build a new road or a new connection without the consent of the State. I understood the object of the bill outside to be to authorize some railroad in New Jersey to carry freight, mails, and supplies which now was prohibited from carrying them. If there is any force in such legislation, this bill now authorizes them to do that just as much as before the amendment was put there. The amendment has not touched the main features of the bill; it has build a new road in any State without getting simply put on it a guard that you shall not the consent of the State. It seems to me it has power enough, though some of its friends seem to think it has not.
Mr. SHERMAN. What I desire, what the people of the country desire, is some power in the General Government to prevent a State from lying in the path of a great public improvement demanded by the United States. I can state a case. Ohio is an agricultural State; the chief value of its products depends upon getting a market on the sea-board in the New England and middle States. By the policy of the State of Pennsylvania all the railroad power of that State is concentrated in one great corporation, with an annual income now of from fifteen to seventeen million dollars. The State of Ohio has thrown open its territory, and all the western States have thrown open their territory, to the building of vast nets of railway, intended to benefit the West and the East also. The great State of Pennsylvania, stretching from Lake Erie almost to the southern border of Ohio, lies there in the way, controlling and preventing the commerce of this great country from going
to the sea-board. We had almost a little war there at Erie about the connection of two railroads, until finally, I think, somebody in Pennsylvania was either bought off or coaxed off and a connection was made which enabled us to pass along the lake shore to the State of New York. Recently an effort has been successful in the courts of Pennsylvania to prevent a corpora tion from building a new line of railway through that State, and now the great corporation of Pennsylvania to which I refer is engaged in preventing a connection between Washington city, the capital of the country, and the great West. A line of railroad was chartered at one time from Pittsburg through Connellsville to the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, which would shorten the distance between this city and Pittsburg for every one traveling to the West perhaps one hundred miles, or it may be less than that; but this corporation lies in the way of this improvement and prevents its construction.
plied with one or more railroads, checkering the State all over. It is true some of the investments are very poor; but still we have the railroads, and they are of vast public service; but when they come to our eastern border we are there met by three great corporations, each of them of mammoth proportions, that refuse to let the products of the West go to a cheap market in the East without some unreasonable restriction. Take the case of the Pennsylvania Central railroad, the corporation to which I have already alluded. There are three lines of railroads concentrating at Pittsburg, running through the State of Ohio, one from Cleveland, one from Chicago, one from Cincinnati, and a great number of feeders running into these three roads. In this way the travel and the produce of any part of Ohio can readily reach Pittsburg; but how is the vast produce concentrated at this one important point to get from Pittsburg to Philadelphia, or any other market? Only over the Pennsylvania Central railroad; there is no other way for the vast commerce of the great West concentrated there to reach the eastern market; and that company has now an annual income of $17,000,000. They compel the products of every portion of the West which reach Pittsburg to go over their road; and they will not allow anybody else to build a railroad running from Pittsburg northwardly to get to New York or southwardly to get to Baltimore. They control, in a great measure, the legislation of Pennsylvania, and they lie right in the path of the commerce of this country.
It seems to me that since we have exercised some pretty strong powers, the time has arrived when, if we can, we should find in the Constitution some power to redress this evil. Every portion of this country labors under the evils growing out of this system. In New England they have to pay higher prices for the produce they consume. In New York they are crippled also, because the city of New York lies in a little peninsula stretching down south of the great body of the State of New York, and the recent action of this company in the State of Pennsylvania has prevented the construction of a new line of railway along the northern border of the State of Pennsylvania to reach the city of New York. The city of Baltimore is cut off from connection with us, and with the western portion of the State of Pennsylvania; and this corporation compels the Baltimore and Ohio railroad to creep down along and over the most difficult mountains in the United States to reach Wheeling and the southern part of the State of Ohio, while it has been considered, I believe, for more than a hundred years, since the time of Washington, that the natural outlet for the commerce of the West to the East is through the gap of mountains from Pittsburg to Cumberland. That was the route that was traveled by Washington in his early adventures to the West. It was the great line of travel long before any one of these railroads was made; it was the line of the old Pennsylvania wagons; it was the line of the old Cumberland road which I traveled in a stage and crossed the mountains before this railroad was built. And yet that line pointed out by nature is blocked up by a corporation.
Now, I believe there is power in this Government somewhere, under the authority to regulate commerce, or the authority to regulate the postal service, or in some of the great powers conferred upon Congress, to prevent a State from lying thus in the way of the commerce of this country. It is manifest that this bill in its present shape, which requires the consent of the State to the construction of any work through that State, utterly defeats the object of the framers of the bill. It will be ineffective; it will only deceive the public; it will only deceive the friends of the bill. I do not see, therefore, any object in passing it. If, however, the friends of the bill think there is any virtue in it, I am still willing to vote with them for it; but I cannot myself see any, be cause the amendment that has been adopted requiring the consent of the State to any authority exercised within the limits of the State, by any railroad company, destroys any virtue there is in the bill.
Mr. CLARK. My amendment does not go that length. It simply provides that a new road or new connection shall not be built without the consent of the State.
Mr. SHERMAN. Then the object which I have in view and which the people of Ohio have in view in supporting this bill is confessedly defeated; that is, there is no way to aid any corporation or any individual in opening new channels of intercourse from the West to the East.
Mr. GRIMES. Do I understand the Senator to say that he wants Congress to confer on corporations the power to build railroads?
Mr. SHERMAN. If I had my way I would organize a corporation under an act of Congress to build a line of railway in the most direct possible manner from the city of Washington to the city of New York, and from the city of Washington to the West, and as many of them as are necessary for military purposes. Mr. GRIMES. If my opinion was that it would be to the advantage of the public and my own individual advantage to build a road in the State of Ohio within ten miles of and parallel with the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne, and Chicago railroad, ought the Government to do it? Where is the line to be drawn between the case the Senator puts and the one I put?
Mr. SHERMAN. The Government of the United States would only be justified in building railroads or exercising extraordinary authority under the military and postal powers in cases where it was manifest that the States prevented the building of railroads. In the State of Ohio the case put by the Senator occurs. Anywhere within that State any five men may build a railroad if they will risk the investment. Mr. COWAN. And buy the right of way. Mr. SHERMAN. No; we give them power to condemn if necessary, and we do not restrain them except by their own self-interest; and what has been the result? In the State of Ohio we have a network of railways running in all directions through that State, many parallel to each other. I do not think there is a county in the State of Ohio that is not now sup
It seems to me that if there is any power in the Government to prevent this, it ought to be exercised. I do not think the passage of this bill will do any good now, because it has been so cut up; and if, as my friend from Maine has urged in his argument, there is no power in the General Government to control or regulate the building of a railroad within a State, as a matter of course we shall have to submit to it until the people of the great State of Pennsylvania rise up in rebellion against the authority of this corporation.
Mr. COWAN. Mr. President, I think the apprehensions of the honorable Senator from Ohio in regard to the action of Pennsylvania in this behalf are entirely unfounded. It is true that she has one great railroad, and has been very careful of it and very liberal toward
it, and would be very unwilling to bring it in competition with another before the proper time; but when the time comes that the trade and travel of the country demand another outlet, it will be made and be made promptly.
I am opposed to this bill, Mr. President, because I think it is clearly a usurpation of power on the part of the General Government which it does not possess. If we can enlarge the chartered powers of a railroad lying within a State, we can diminish those powers. If we have any power over them whatever, we have all; or, at least, I know nowhere where there is to be found any limit. But there is a mischief, and a mischief which existed at the framing of the Constitution, and which was provided for, not affirmatively, by clothing this Government with the power to charter railroads, but in a negative way. What is the mischief alleged here? It is that certain States levy taxes to put into their State treasury through the medium of their railroads, and they levy these taxes upon the inter-State travel and tras. That is the mischief, as I understand, which is complained of. I am not certain that the mischief has risen to that height which would render it proper that we should interfere, but I am rather inclined to think that I would vote for a bill which would prevent a State from committing that mischief.
Under the original Articles of Confederation the citizens of all the States were only in the several States to be subjected to such burdens, themselves and their trade and travel, as the citizens of the State within which they were at the time were subjected to. That was found to be mischievous, because the citizens of a State lying, as Pennsylvania does, across the line of principal travel from the East to the West, or lying, as the State of Maryland or the State of New Jersey does, between the northern and southern travel, might well afford to pay this tax, provided all the strangers who passed through their State were obliged to pay it too; and I think it was the defective nature of that provision which gave rise to the present power of the Constitution given to the General Government to regulate commerce. But certainly that power does not extend so far as to enable Congress, in despite of the States and against their will, to make ways of commerce. However much it might operate upon common carriers and upon the right of the States to impose improper burdens upon trade and travel, it cannot extend to the chartered powers of turnpike and railway companies, because to say that it does is to say that the whole is vested in us: and, Mr. President, I know of no greater mischief that could happen this country than to bring all the railroad companies in the country here to have their charters either enlarged or diminished. I do not know anything which would be more likely to undermine the virtue of Congress and sap the very foundations of our institutions than to bring all the capital of the country here to buy special privileges from us and combine together to get them.
Mr. HOWE. I know of one thing that would be, in my judgment, a little more injurious than that. That might hurt, but not so bad, I think, as it would hurt to concede the power to any one State of this Union to actually prohibit commerce from passing through its limits from one State to another. The power which the opponents of this bill concede to the State of New Jersey is a power to throw a gate across one or two or all of its highways, and to say that commerce between the States on either side of it shall not pass over those highways. If New Jersey has that power, Ohio has it, and Ohio may at the very next session of her Legislature, or her railway companies themselves may, if they see fit to do it in the interests of Ohio agriculture, stop every pound of freight from passing through that State, or may levy a toll upon it, in the interest of her production, which would be ruinous to the agriculture of the country. Ohio can at the very next session of her Legislature impose such restrictions upon the railways of that State as would inevitably not only starve the East to