Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, I suppose it is beyond question that if the State of ewJersey had never incorporated a railroad company in that State, Congress would have no power to do it. Now, what has NewJersey done? Has she interrupted commerce by are sting a railroad across the State I All the old avenues of commerce are open still transportation by land and transportation by water, for ireight and passengers. NewJersey created, by this railroad, a new mode f commerce. She had a right. to do it, as a Sta; she had a right to decline to do itJ and it comes to that, as it seems to me. I only speak of this case of NewJersey as one case inpoint. Without oing into an argument on thisquestion at ength, I believe for one that our duty is not only to defend the rights of this GOvernment against those who assail it, but it is e ually our solemn duty to defend the rights of fine States, those rights which are clearly reserved to them in the constitution. It seems to me that the right of a State to build high ways, to build railroads, or to refuse to build highways or to build railroads, is one of the rights which belong to a State. I do not believe that there is a Senator on this floor who will rise and say that if the State of NewJersey had refused to build a railroad across that State, Congress unless it might be in a time of war would have the power to charter l railroad and build arailroad across the State of NewJersey. That is exactly the power that is involved in this bill. While I am opposed to all monopolies in the States, all monopolies that are oppressive, I am not opposed to a State having the power to exercise the right to judge for itself when railroads shall be built through its limits and upon what terms they shall be built; for I deem it essential to the independence of a State in its action upon those rights which are reserved to it. These are my views on the subject. I confess I have been brought up rather in the school of State rights. I am in favor of a prett strict construction of the Constitution of the U.S. In time of war I know the great powers of this Government are waked up, and we exercise powers thatwe do notexcrcise in peace; but, sir, in time of peace I would exercise no more power by this Government than is actu ally necessary. I would leave, as far as possible, the exercise of all governmental powers to the States, because, wien left to the States, they come nearer home to the people. The great idea of republicanism, which is a government by the people, comes nearer home to them when it is exercised by the States than when exercised by the Federal Government. If we assume to take all this upon ourselves, the business is so vast, so immense, that this Government will break down under its operations. I did not intend to go into an argument, but simply to state my general view on this question. The arguments of the honorable Senfrom Maine and the honorable Senfrom California weigh very heavy upon my mind and accord with my general views on this question.