Mr. O’NEILL. I decline to yield. I only wanted to show the House that the policy of Pennsylvania has been liberal in the extreme to her sister States. She also permitted the NewYork and Eric railroad to run through her north eastern corner, in Susquehanna county long before she finished her great line from the Del aware to the Ohio, and granted the right of way to railroads of NewYork, or in the interests of NewYork, to run through the county of Erie. She has also dealt generously with the State of Mar 'land, having given her Northern Central ms the right to run into her coal regions unim peded. And my colleague from the Lancaster district [Ma Sravsxs] complains because the House hesitates to incorporate a charter for the Connellsville railroad, an unfinished art of which is to run from that State into ours. did not Pennsylvania permit the State of Maryland to build her railroad along the west bank of the Susquehanna in competition and rivalry with our roads? Sir, Pennsylvania has been extremely liberal to her neighboring States, and intends to be so as long as they comply with the provisions of her enactments. But my friendfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] stigmatizes as narrow and contracted this legislation of our State restricting railroads, preventing them from running through her territory. Does he not remember that the States of Ohio and Pennsylvania fought together to prevent the building of the Wheeling bridge? Does Ohio now, only because it suits her present policy, wish to convince the House that she has never endeavored to prohibit the corporations of other States from coming into competition with her own companies? The time is too recent when she wished to cherish her own railroads and to save them from the loss of trade which rivals might have carried off before her numerous lines were fully, under way. I repeat it, all these privileges to which I have a verted were given y Pennsylvania to neigh I only wanted to show the boring States long before she had completed her great lines of railroad. Now. to come to the case before us. The Cleveland and Mahoning llailroad company was chartered in the State of Ohio in 1848, with a provision that it should be organized within 3 years and completed within 7 years from the date of its charter. The parties interested in the building of that road at that time, as I am led to believe from the provisions of a bill subsequently passed by the Ohio Legislature, did not even organize their company. Hence in 3 years after the charter was granted, it expired by neglect, and had to be reenacted into existence; afterward these parties came to the Legislature of Pennsyl vania, and in the year 1853 obtained an act of incorporation for their company in the precise words of the Ohio charter of 1848, with the privilege of extending the road into herterritory. But the Pennsylvania act contained the same provision as was in the Ohio act of incorporation which required that the railroad company should be organized ‘within thrcO years and completed and finished within 7, as appears by the preamble to the Pennsyl vania act of 1853. Now, the State of Penn 5 lvnnia did not demand that that enactment should be repealed until 14 years had elapsed since the original charter of the Cleve land and Mahoning road had been granted in Ohio, and not for 11 years after the passage of her own set of 1853. Sir, there is a misapprehension in regard to this matter. The State of Pennsylvania by her constitution has the power to add to. alter, or amend her laws, provided no rights of individuals are invaded. There is such a provision in almost every charter and almost every act of the Legislature givinrv privileges or franchises to corporations, and it does not come with a good grace from the Representatives of a State to one of whose railroad companies powers and franchises have been given in perect faith to proclaim here that the Legislature of Pennsylvania would do a wrong or abridge a right, while that company has never as yet, at least beyond the soil of its ovm State, complied with any of the terms of its charter. Mr. Speaker, ifI had time to read the act of 1864 repealing the charter of this company, in which the reasons for the repeal are set forth, it would be seen that it never commenced to build its road in the State of Pennsylvania, and I believe did not even commence, much less complete, the survey. My impression is that other rojects failing, and other connections being impracticable, the road was deliber ately stopped at the eastern line of the State of Ohio, and the legislation of Pennsylvania entirely disregarded and set at defiance. To show the good feeling ofher Legislature, during the very same session of 1858an act was passe to deprive of certain privileges a county which promised a subscription to the Ohio company and had failed to pay it. The noble old Commonwealth deals out even handed justice to all, and will not let her own citizens, in the violation of law and promises, escape her condem nation. Now, I say, for good reasons the State of Pennsylvania repealed this charter. She had a right to recal it. She did it upon sufficient grounds, an those grounds are stated in the repealing act. The charter provided that certain things should be done which had not been done; nota mile of the road had been built and not a mile surveyed, and even now this company does not mean to build the road, as originally intended. through Lawrence county. It asks now to be allowed to get to Pittsburg by any route it chooses to adopt, so as to save 16 miles. The State of Pennsylvania did right to revoke this charter. No one can complain of it. It was done in open day. There is the law upon her statute book. There are the reasons for it set forth. 1 rise here only to defend the course of the Commonwealth in this matter and to assert that she has a right to confer franchises upon such corporations as she pleases and where she pleases. She has I the sole right and I do not think that it is within the power of Congress, on the pretense oticstahlishing military roads, or on any other, pretense, to take that right from her.,