Mr. MORRILL. I feel under a.sort of obligation to pay a passin compliment to this bill. I once had some t oughts collected on this subject on one or 2 points, but they have pretty much passed out of my mind at the present moment, and I am rather aprehensive that I shall not be able to recall t cm at this time in a way at all satisfactory or instructive to the Senate; but it is a matter of quite too much importance to be allowed to go by default. I am not going to speak against time, and I do not propose to make a very diseursive speech. I propose only to reply to 2 or 3 propositions which were stated on a tormer occasion on the other side of the Chamber. The honorable Senfrom Michigan [Mr. Howaun] when this question was up the other day denominated it a very simple proposition, by which I suppose he meant to convey to us the idea that it was an unmixed and plain proposition, one that was uncompouuded with other questions. I believe he thought it so plain, so simple, so unmixed, and c ear that even the great power and ingenuity of the honorable Senfrom Maryland [Mr. Joux sort] “to make the worse appear the better reason" could not obse ure it. Now, sir, what is the proposition so chame terized by the honorable Senfrom Michigan? I call know what the bill is. The bill, in its comprehension and swee, asserts that the Government of the U.S. may authorize the railroads in the several States to make connections with each other, without regard to the terms of their charters and without regard to the laws and constitutions of the several States. That is the general proposition; but the proposition which the honorable Senfrom Michigan maintains is so clear and explicit that no sophistry of argumentation can obse ure it. It is simply the proposition that the Government of the U.S. has the exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and commerce among the States. I do not mean to misstate the honorable Senator. I understand that to be his proposition, that it is clear beyond cavil and beyond controversy that the Government of the U.S. has the exclusive right to regulate foreign commerce and commerce among the States. I do not deny that proposition. I think that is clear and conclusive. The very statement of it carries conviction. Nobody denies it on this side of the Chamber that I know of. But is that all there is in this case? Does the honorable Senator mean to say that when he has declared that proposition to be a clear one he has ared his case and is entitled to a verdict? s there no other question of commerce than foreign commerce and commerce among the States? When the honorable senator has made that declaration and asserted that proposition he has not reached this case at afl). He has argued it, to be sure, very adroitly, he has shown that he understands the skill of the profession which he ornaments; but he has not begun to approach this case. This bill has nothing to do with foreign commerce, and I suggest to the honorable Senator that it has very little to do with commerce among the States. The cat distinction for which I contend, and which the Senator on the former occasion did not touch, nay, did not approach, is this: while I concede that the jurisdiction of the U.S. is exclusive and supreme over foreign commerce and commerce among the States, there is a commercewhich is internal, which is domestic, and which is exclusively within the power of the States. That is the proposition to which I invite the attention of the honorable Senator and to which I commend him. This bill invades that commerce, and therefore I oppose it. The honorable Senator will find in the history of the legislation of thiscountry, in the history of the constitution, in its interpretation by the wise men who inaugurated it, and in its interpretation by the courts, that the distinction which I insist upon has been recognized in every Dept of. the Government; that there is u commerce foreign and among the States, and there is a commerce of the States and in the States which is peculiar to the States and with which the Government of the U.S. has nothing to do, and upon which it cannot trench. That is the doctrine. The oint I shall undertake to establish today , if succeed in collecting myself sufficiently to make reference to the books, is, that this bill is unauthorized by the Constitution, because it trenches on the reserved rights of the States to regulate that commerce which is internal and in the States and not among the States. My honorable friendfrom Wisconsin, not now in his seat, [Mr. Hown] characterized this as “a very little proposition"I think thnt was his phrase so small and so harmless that it created surprise in his mind that it had ever arrested the attention of anybody. He was surprised that it should have been opposed by anyone. I believe he said it was as garm less as a walkinu stick in the hands of its owner or at his feet; that it contained no powers the exercise of which anybody should a prehend. But, sir, what was his argument? how did he illustrate the simple and harmless character of this “little proinsition?” Before he took his seat he contended that the Government of the U.S. had the authority, under and by virtue of its power to regulate commerce, to build roads or canals in any of the Slates, and to of the full length of fixing the rates of fare and freights upon the railways which have been created entirely within the States. That was his proposition “ a very little proposition, ” says the honorable Senfrom Wise ousin; such a one as should not create apprehension any where; which is explained to be a power sufficiently comprehensive and broad by the government of the U.S. to build railroads and canals anywhere and everywhere through the States without their consent and against their authority; and su radded to all that the power to appropriate a l the railroads and en nals which and industry of the American people in the States, by fixing the rates of tolls and fares on these internal avenues! It is needless to tell me that a power which goes thus far and which authorizes the fixing of the tolls and the freights is not a power to regulate and control and direct all these avenues. It was well said, long ago, that “You take my life When you do take the means whereby I live." and the power of the General Government which asserts the right to fix the tolls, the rates of fare and freights on these roads, takes the vital forces from these roads. This measure naturally raises the question of power between the Government of the U.S and of the several States; and of course, in the consideration of such a subject, it becomes necessary to draw the line some what between the authority of the Government of the U.S. on the guestion of regulating the commerce of the U.S. with foreign nations and among the States and that power which is peculiar to the people of the several States. know it has been attempted in this argument, now and heretofore, to prejudice this side of the case by the argument that we were raising here the old doctrine of State rights and State sovereignty; that those who see to oppose this bill seek to oppose it upon the ground of State rights and State sovereignty and State rights and State sovereignty in an offensive sense. Now, Mr. President, for myself I disclaim all such purpose, and I disclaim any desire or purpose to put it upon any such ground. Sir, am not a believer in the doctrine of State sovereignty and never was; that is, in the sense in which it has been contended for. I believe that State sovereignty is a myth, a political myth, in the sense in which it has been or ever could be contended for. The right of absolute sovereignty never did inhere in any of these States; it never was in the colonies. While the colonies were integral parts of GreatBritain they were, of course, subject to the grisdiction of GreatBritain, and it was idle talk about sovereignty in colonies. When the colonies revolutionized, they did not revolutionize for themselves individuall, but for the country at large. It was unite America that accomplished the Revolution. It was not a revolution in favor of 13 independent nations, but a revolution for the American people; the American people in unity effected the evolution; and there ore the sovereignty inhered in the American people at large, the have been built by the enterprise i American people united. United America achieved the Revolution, and it was not a revolution of 13 independent and sovereign nations. Therefore no such thing as absolute sovereignty ever did inhere in the 13 States, except in the 13 States as represented by the American people united. I therefore. sir, go entirely wide oil“from the doctrine of State sovereignty and State rights; but while I do that, I stand upon the doctrines of the Constitution as represented in the reserved rights of the American people. I maintainthat the Government of the U.S. under the Constitution of the U.S. is a limited and not an absolute Government; that while the American people delegated certain functions to the Government of the U.S. which were to be exercised by it, and the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States among those functions, it expressly reserved to itselI all the powers not therein expressly delegated; and, sir, the interests which I advocate today are the interests which were expressly reserved. While the people did grant, I concede, to congress the right to regulate commerce among the several States an with foreign nations, it reserved to itself the rightto reguIate domestic commerce, commerce which was exclusively internal and in the States. That question which springs necessarily from the right of eminent domain belohgs exclusively to the States and never was in the General Government. Nobody has contended, and I presume nobody will contend, that the right of eminent domain exists anywhere except in the States.l Nobody ever did contend, and I am sure no body ever will, that the right to land, the title to real estate ever vested in the Government of the U.S. The people of the several States do not draw their titles to their property from the Government of the U.S., nor hold of it nor under it; but those rights are now all in the States, and necessarily the right of eminent domain is in the States; and from the earliest. period of this Government down to the present time never has the General Government undertaken to enter upon the soil of any State to exercise the right of emi nent domain in its own right or to take possesion of the soil of the several States except by the consent of the States. I commend the honorable Senfrom Michigan, when he again takes up the line of his argument, to his reading on this subject, and he willfind through the whole history of the legislation of this country and throughout the judicial decisions no single instance where the Government of the U.S. has ever undertaken to exercise the right of eminent domain in anyone State; and simply for the reason that the right belongs to the States and not to the General Government. Of course, sir, I am not now discussin the extraordinary powers which are exercise in time of war; I am discussing the power of commerce, commercial questions. In this way I undertake to go entirely aside from the questions of State rights and State sovereignty which are raised here; and the only distinction I seek to raise is the distinction between commerce foreign and among the States and that which is in the States an pe culiarly of the States and springs up from the exercise of those reserved rights which belong to the people exclusively. Whenever this distinction ceases to exist in the minds of the American Congress, then, sir, your Government is transformed from a Government of delegated an limited powers to an absolute and imperial government. Now, sir, to show that there is some danger on this subject, and thatI do not misapprehend the tendency of the times and the tendency of the doctrine which is contended for in this bill, having nlread adverted to the ground maintaine by the honorable Senfrom Wise onsin[Mr. Hows] as to the power of the governmentto build railroads and canals in the several States and to fix the tolls and rates of freights and fares upon existing roads let me call the attention of the Senate towhat is transpirin in this very Congress in this direction as il ustratin the dangerous tendency of the exercise of this power and the extent to which it is proposed to carry it. I have before me a bill originatin in the HoRep, and whic, if passed there, will be sent here for the concurrence of the Senate. It is abill with this significant title: “A bill it authorize the construction of national railroads and establish the same as militar and commercial roads.” That is the sounding title of the bill a bill to establish national railroads! Upon an examination of this bill you will find its scope and comprehension to be this: it authorizes, in the 1st section any 5 or more persons, being citizens of the U.S., to associate themselves together as a body politic and corporate with full power to designate by a certificate a route for a railway across this continent. There is no limitation in the bill. Any 5 persons who choose to associate themselves under the power of this bill, having filed a certificate in the Bureau of National Railroads, which is authorized by the bill may build {1. railway in any direction muiiii the limits and jurisdiction of the U.S., through any State or any Territory, and may exercise the right of eminent domain as a corporation, goin any direction they please, and bring to their backs the entire anthorit and power of the Government of the U.S. to take and condemn property, no matter what, real estate, highways the several States, railways of the several States, navigable streams of the several States, or whatever they choose to appropriate. I do not misstate the force of this bill or what is contemplated under it. It is a bill to organize a bureau in a Dept of this Government, with the power in a General way to associate any number of individuals, not less than 5, with the power to construct national railwa s in any ireetion and in all directions. I as the honorable Senfrom Michigan whether he is prepared to go quite that length; for, sir, this bill is following exactly in the track of the bill which is before the Senate; it is the legitimate fruit of the doctrine of that bill, no more, no less. The 3rd section of this bill is that “there shall be assi ned to the Comptroller of National Railroad s” we are to enter upon a grand system of national railways; these railways are to be constructed through the several States in any direction or in all directions, limited only by the desire and the ambition and the ability of lthe parties who are thus organized by this bil. Mr. President, was it ever supposed until now, was it ever dreamed by anybody in congress or out of Congress until now, that there was power in the Government of the U.S. to authorize a body of men to build rail ways without regard to the laws of the several States or the improvements of the several States, in any direction and in all directions, throughout the length and breadth of the republic? Why, sir, it may sound well to talk of a national railway system! The term has a large sound, I admit; and if we were in imperial France or in the Russias, I could understand how such a bill as that could be introduced. If these States were mere Depts of an imperial and absolute GOvernrnent, I could understand how you could have a national railway system inaugurated here at the seat of Government which might build its railways in all directions; but when I know that this government is a Government of limited powers, when I know that it has no pOWer except what it derives from the Constitution, and that (low stitution is silent on this subject, and when I know, moreover, that the powers that are not delegated are reserved to the people, and that the people for half a century have been exercisin these very powers and have built up a gran system of railways threading this whole country, I hesitate to believe that the Governmentoi the U.S. either has the power to exercise any such functions or that it is at all expedient to exercise them if it had. Mr. President, it is a great mistake to suppose so that the strength of this nation lies in the l government of the U.S. The government of the U.S. is not strong. The strength of this nation is in the American people; and the strength of the nation is in the American people as they exercise it on the basis of their reserved rights. There is no strenvth outside of that. The Government of the U.S. is absolute weakness standing by itself; when not backed by the people we have seen during this war that it was weakness itself. From the very nature of the case it must be so. It was designed to be so. The Government of the U.S. was never designed to be strong, only for protection, only for general defense. But, sir, in all the relations which constitute the strength of the nation you must rely on the people. The strength of this nation and the power of this nation is in the people; the strength and pOWer of the SeOple are in their reserved rights rights in ependent of the Government to direct their primary relations. As illustrating this same principle, to show the tendency to do everything in a national way for nothing is supposed to be legitimate about these times except it has the indorseinent of nationality let me read the title of another bill. They not only propose, you see, to frame a general bill by which you may form national railway corporations to make railroads through out the length and breadth of the land, but they propose to do it exactly as you would form private corporations for manufacturing estab iishments in the several States, exactly on that plan; but they propose something more. Here are 2 bills that have a practical bearing on this question and a practical application of the "eneral principle contended for in this general bill and growing out of the bill we have under consideration today, and illustrating the power which the friends of this bill claim to assert on the part of the} General Government. Now, let me read the title of a bill introduced into the HoRep on the 30th of April: A bill to authorise the Cleveland and Mnhoning Railroad com)any, ucorporation createdand existing under the awsof the Statesof Ohio and Pennsylvania. to continue and construct the railroad of said company from the village of Youngstown. may linuinir county in said State ofOliio. to and into the said State of Iennsylvunia and thence by the most advantageous and rwtiouble route to the city of Pittsburg. in said State of Pennsylvania and to establish said road as a military. postal and commercial railroad of the U.S. Now, what is the effect of that bill? Here is a cororation chartered by the State of Ohio to bail a road within the limits and jurisdiction of Ohio, of course, and this is aliillwhich authorizes that corporation, the creature of the power of Ohio, to extend its road to Pennsylvania, another State, and into Pennsylvania to a certain oint, some 100 miles more or less, With all the powers and privileges and immunities that that corporation has within the limits of Ohio. Is it possible that the government of the U.S. has any such power? Is it possible that the Government of the U.S. can authorize and empower a railroad corporation, chartered to build a road within a particular State, to run its road into another State, and there to exercise all the privileges, powers, and immunities that it may exercise in the State that gave it the charter of incorporation? That is this bill; that is the principle of the bill now before the Senate. To show you how rolitic this principle is, I will read you the ti e of another bill sprining from the same source; for I believe al have the same paternity, all come from the same quarter; and as they are laid hereupon our tables, for our instruction, I suppose, if not for our edification, I may allude to them by way of illustrating mylargument. This is “Abill to promote the construction of a line of railwa s between the city of Washington and the orthWest” for what? For commercialpnr oses? For military purposes? Why, air, to show you the looseness with which we go, here is “A bill to promote the construction of a line of railways between the city of Washington and the Northwest, for national purposes." Not only is it contended that you may do it for commercial purposes, that you may do it for military purpose s, but now you may doit “ for nation purposes” and what is “ nationa ” weare not told by this bill. The bill sets out With this interpretation of itself: Whereas there is now acomplote line of railroad betwcou the city Of Washington and Cumberland, in leghany county. in the State of Maryland. which is about being shortened nearly 50 miles by a line from said city of Washington to the Point of Rocks on the Potomac river. in Frederick county. in said State; and whereasaconipany has been incorporated by the state of Maryland toconstruct a railroad from tChuemdbireerclatniodna of Preitstasibdutroir.tdheos igPnenendstyolvenonuniuelcinte Wiith a railroad in Pennsylvania to the latter city; and whereas the Pittsburg and Connellsville Railroad Company incorporate by the StateotPeiinsylvaiiia. has completeda railroad from Pittsburg to Conncllsville. on a line to connect with the Maryland road aforesaid; and whereas but a comparatively short distance between Cumberland and Pittsburiz remains to becompleteclto furnish with the railroad between Washington and Cumberland a direct railroad communication, by a short and advantageous route, botwcon Washington citv and llibblllt: and the connections with the Northwestfrom the latter city; and whereas the Legislature of Pennsylvania has attempted to create impediments in connecting the railroads so as aforesaid authorized to be built i n Pennsylvania and Maryland. which prevent at this time the completion otn work of national importance and has thereby attempted to imiair the value of a franchise under which citizens of h aryluinlund Pennsylvania have madelarge investments; and whereas it is especially er for n iililury and postal purposes and to facilitate and regulate commercial intereourse among theStates: Therefore Abife that a railroad may be built to form these connections through the intervention of these State railroad corporations. I do not introduce these bills as arguments. They have not passed, and probably never Will pass, the congress of the U.S. I introduce them as illustrating the doctrine, the da erous tend ency of the doctrine of the bill which is now before the Senate. But, sir, the point to which I threatened to address myself if I sufficiently recovered to make myself explicit was to demonstrate the distinction between commerce external and among the States and commerce internal land ieculiar to the State and within its jurisdiction. fI maintain. that distinction by the authorities, I rule off this bill. Now, let us see what the books say on that subject. the honorable senator who champions this hill just at this time I do not know how many champions it has had I remember that on a former occasion it had one with whom I congratulate myself that I am not to deal now seemed to forget altogether that there was such a thing as internal commerce, seemed to forget that we had a system of railroads in this country that was the product of the energy and the enterprise of the people as against the Government, for the government did nothing for 50 years, while the people, in their own power and might, exercising the high functions reserved in the constitution, were buildin up a system of rail ways incomparable in to history of the world, investing some 3000 millions of their own money. building some 30,000 miles of railway, offering intercommunication and facilities for travel and intercourse and exchange, bringing markets home. to the door of every farmer in the land. Oblivious to all that, the Government all this time stood afar olI and did nothing. Now, Mr. Premdeut, I maintain that the Government has no power to lay its hands on that commerce, no pOWer to lay itshands on this system of railway intercommunication in the States. I read from Kents Commentaries; speaking of the commercial power of the Government of the U.S., and stating the decision in Gibbons vs. Ogden, he says: “ This power, like all theother powersof Congress was plenary and absolute within its acknowledged limits. but it was admitted that inspection laws rel ative to the quality of articles to be exported. a nd quarantine laws, and health laws of every description and laws"Now I.ask the honorable Senators attention to this “and laws for regulating the internal commerceof a State and those with respect to turnpike roads. ferries. 5w" were component parts of an immense mass of legislation not surrendered to the General Government." That is my oint, and this authority is to this effect: that a though the power of the General Government is supreme in the jurisdiction which is conceded to it, yet, says the commentator laws “regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those with respect to turnpike roads, ferries, &e., were component parts of an immense mass of legislation not surrendered to the General Government."