Mr. KERR. Mr. Speaker, under the parliamentary discipline which prevails in this House, it is impossible very often for members to get permission to discuss measures of the gravest importance, upon which, nevertheless, without discussion they are comelled to vote. This fact, however, does not relieve us from the solemn duty of giving full and careful consideration to all such measures. We may then simply announce our conclusions by our votes, or we may present our reasons therefor on some occasion like that accorded to me this day. On most matters of current business my judgment would be satisfied by the former course, but on subjects of such extraordinary importance as those to which I shall invite attention today, I prefer the latter. There have already passed this House, by the votes of the dominant party here, 3 hills which are wholly without precedent, either in form or object, in the entire history of congressional legislation. There are ten or more bills of like character still upon our files which may at any time be presented for our consideration. These several bills, viewed together, rest upon the novel and alarming assumption that congress possesses the constitutional power to create corporations generally, the theater of whose operations and business shall be some State or States of the Union, and to confer upon corporations created by State authority such additional privileges and franchises as Congress pleases, inconsistent with those conferred by the State, or to take from such corporations any privileges and franchises grante to them by the States; and, in short, carrying the the ory of these bills to its logical results, to take under Federal control our vast and unparal leled system and network of telegraphs, railroads, canals, and other chartered highways which have sprung into such rapid existence under the fostering care and energies of State authority, as to constitute the greatest achievements of this age. I am sadly conscious that it is not fashion able nowadays to question the omnipotence of Congress. But as a humble guardian of the liberties of the people, I gather ample motive from this fact niiine to scrutinize With jealous care every attempt to overleap the just and prescribed limits upon power. The very apathy of the people should arouse the greater watch fulness in their representatives. I shall now proceed to discuss in their order, briefly, the grave propositions involved in these bills. If Congress possesses these great pow era, is it unreasonable to suppose that they should be found in the Constitution, in plain and unambiguous language? 1st, then, I will inquire concerning the power of Congress to create corporations. No such power is expressly granted. It is not claimed by any intelligent public man to have been so granted. The history of the Constitution shows that a proposition to confer upon Congress, by appropriate words, such power, was rejects by a very large majority in the Constitutional Convention. (Sec Elliot’s De bates. vol. 5, page 543.) Alexander Hamilton in his great argument, in 1791, on the right of Congress to charter the U.S. Bank, conceded the entire absence of any express or substantive grant of such power in the Constitution, but he claimed thatt e right existed as an incident to other powers which were expressly granted, and that it could only be rightfully exercised in those cases in which sue a corporation was a necessary and proper means or instrument for the execution of such expressly granted power. As Congress was expressly empowered to levy and collect large revenues and borrow money for the uses of the Government, he insisted that it might create a great financial corporation as a necessary and proper instrument to aid in the adxninistration of its finances. In the great case of McCulloch vs. The State of Maryland, (4 Wheaton, p. 411,) which in volved the question of the validity of the char terofthat batik, CliiefJnstiec Marshall, in 1810, speaking of the alleged power of Congress to cr“eate corporations, said: The power of creatinga corporationis neverused for its own sake" but for the purpose of elfectin: somethinnclso. No sufficientreasonis thereforeper ceived why it may not [passas incidental to those powerswhichIH’GC lreu ygiven if ittm a directmode of executingthem.’ In 1824 the same great jurist in the caseof Osborn vs. U.S. Bank, (0 Wheaten, p. 860,) speaking of the alleged power of congr“ess to create corporations generally, said: It has never been supposedthat Congresscould createsuchcorporations. The whole opinion of the courtgnthe caseof McCullooh on.The state of Maryland is founded on and sustained by the idea that the bank is an jnohjumenlwhich is necessary and proper for carrying into ctTectthe powersvestedin the Governmento the U.S.” In perfect harmony with these judicial decisions are the opinions of every other enlightened jurist or statesman in our country’s history, except many of the early fathers, who earnestly insisted that these interpretations gave too much power to the Federal Government and excee ed the limits of safety and of sound construction. In my judgment“ they go to the verge of reasonable and just construction, and ought never to be extended further. I af firm, therefore, that Congress has no pewer to create any corporations, except such only as are necessary and proper, or constitute a direct mode for the execution of some erpressly ranted newer. such casesare fortunately very ew. The domain of congressional power does not extend to or require the creation of private corporations or monopolies to be controlled by the Federal Government and destroy the vitality of the States. Then, Mr. Speaker, where does Congress ‘get the right to enter a State, and tamper with her corporations, and entice them by the promise of privileges and franchises denied them by the State, or drive them by the threat of a diminution of those privileges and franchises, to desert their allegiance and obligations to the State, and seek protection uii er the ampler wing of the Federal Governmen' They get it nowhere. It is a myth. It is an assumption, a usurpation. It has no foundation in the Constitution, in authority, or reason. If Congress can empower a railroad company chartered by Indiana to extend its road beyond its lawful terminus to the boundary of the State of Ohio, and thence across that State to the boundary of Pennsylvania, and thence to the city.of Philadelphia, or the city'of Washington or elsewhere, contrary to the provisions of its State charter, and without the consent or authority of the States whose territory is to be invaded by it, then it would be hard indeed to imagine what Congress cannot do. Yet the party that dictates the policy 0t this House, by 2 or 3 bills which they have already passed, and several others still pending. assert the right to exercise these extraordinary pow ers. Iwill cite enough of these bills to indicate their general character. The 1st section of House bill 637, which passed this House on th"e 81st of May last, reads as follows: That the clevelandandMalioning Railroad company, a corporation created by the state ofOhio and existing as aforesaid, be, and the some is hereby authorisedand empowered to continue the line of tithserreaoilfr, oad, and the location and constrpetton county from the village of hounustown, in be of Mahoning and State of Ohio, (to which point its railroad has been constructedfrom the city of Cleveland.)to the westline of the State of Pennsylvania, at the county of Lawrence, i nsaid State and thence to cross said line into said State, and thence to the city of Pittsburg, or near thereto. by trhouetme, ostndvantageou. ccoiiomioal, and practicable and at or near said city to connect with any other railroads extending therefrom; and to have and continue thesamecorporate power ind authority, rights and privileges create to said company by said State." "The 2nd section prondesThatand companyshall have power and authority to enterupon any lauds, roads or places.for the purpose of loeatinir its saidroadtosaid city of Pittsburg and to cross any road. street. alley, canal. stream. river or waterin the construction and maintenance ofsaid road. switches, turn outs and Olllff proper appendages;and shall have powerand authority to acquire by purchase.grant. deed or gift. any lands. roads. streams, or places necessaryfor the right of way upon which to constructs d road for single or doubletrack.with all necessary.suitable, and proper turn outs, switches.side tracks, and branches: an also. all necessary izroiindstorstution Houses.depots. water tanks, engine houses. machine and repair shops, and other necessarystructuresand appendages for the economical worlting and useof saidroad; and shall also have authority to receive gifts and conveyances of land to aid in the construction of said read and all its appendages." It is further provided that if the railroad company cannot negotiate satisfactory terms with the private citizens whose land or property it wants, then it may institute proceedings to appropriate their property, not in the courts of their own State, where their rights may be determined by their neighbors, but in some remote Federal court, where their vindication may cost them more than they will ain. It is further provided that said railroad company may exempt itself from all liability to answerin the tribunals of the State for wrongs done to its citizens by at once removing from the State court to the Federal court any action instituted against it in the former, and compelling the citizens of the State to abandon their just demands or follow it into the latter court, which in many cases is equivalent in. its results to a denial of justice. These facts sufficiently indicate the nevel and most alarmingr nature of the propositions contained in this series of bills, and I shall quote no more from their particular provisions, but Only consider the principles involved in them. They claim for the federal Government the right to go into the States and against their laws and constitutions to authorize the construction of railroads, canals, and telegraphs, to run wherever Congress may direct, to acquire rights of way in and title to the soil of the State, and to carry on their business within the State without regard to and in defiance of the laws thereof. They claim for the Federal Government, also, the right to conferupon such corporations, created by the State. new and extraordinary powers, in direct violation of State authority. such. legislation, if sustained by the Federal courts, (which I do not believe to be possible,) would lead inevitably to the complete subversion of the rightful control of the States over their greatest material interests, their internal policy and commerce and their citizens and property. The General government could thus wrest from the States and assert for itself the absolute and sovereign control over the vast accumulations of capital and influence and power embraced in the great systems of internal improvements which iave been hitherto established and managed by the States. for the advancement and development of their own interests, and which have become under their generous care, without Federal oi or interference, after long years of struggling. most fruitful sources of prosperity to their people and of needful revenue to themselves. I now proceed to consider some of the results of such measures, which will be found to be more intolerable than the assumption of the power itself. The laws of Congress, constitutionally enacted, become the supreme law of the land. When Congress rightfully creates a corporation, or what is the same thing in principle, confers new privileges and franchises on State corporations to be exercised under Federal authority and protection, such laws necessarily override all State legislation, and such corporations become means or instruments of the Federal Government in the execution of some of its exressly granted powers. such corporations, with all their property. are thus, by the greedy hand of Federal power, snatched from the rightful control of the States and subjected to the exclusive manner ment of the former. Ifthe States are there after allowed to exercise any control whatever over them for taxation of their property or otherwise, it can only be done y gracious permission of the central Government. The l corporation called the U.S. Bank was i such an instrument, and the Supreme Court have repeatedly announced these principles in connection With it, and have expressly ield it beyond the power of the States to tax it or its property. the lancnuge Of that tribunal, from the pen of Chief justice Marshall, presents these propositions in a most. forcible and unmistakable manner. I will quote a few para gr"aphs: It is of the very essence of lsuprcmacyto remove all obstaclesto its action within itaown sphere and soto modify every power vestedin subordipato governments,:is to exemptits ownoperationsfromtheir influence, This effect need not be stated in terms. ltis so involved In the declaration ofsiiprem acy.so necessarily implied in it. that the Exprgssiog gfit coAullldwnhoittm catrkoeveitrwmhoircehctchretwaione."rcian power of a State extend: are objects of taxation; but Ihon cover which it do" not extendare upon the wonder principles exempt from taxation. 'The proposition may almost be pronouncedself evident “The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority or is by introduced its permission: but does it extend to those means which are employed by Congress to carryinto exbeution powers conferred on that bod by the people of the U.S.? We think it demonstrable that it does not." “ “We find. then. on just theory, a total failure of this original right to tax the mean employedby the Government of the Union for the execution of its powers. The right neverexisted, and the question whether it has been surrendered cannot arise.".lIcCulloeIivs. The State of Maryland, 4 Wheaten.427. The same doctrines are reaffirmed by the same court in the subse ucut case of Osborn vs. U.S. Bank, 9 Wheaten, 283,) and in many other cases. They all rest upon the theory that these corporations. thus created or endowed by the Federal Government, become instruments, as it were, in the hands of that Government, and that to suffer them to be taxed at all by the States would be equivalent to allowing them to tax the machinery of the Government itself, and that if the States had the power of such taxation they might abuse it, might tax such instruments out of existence. Hence the denial of the power. In other words, Congress having no power to create such corporations except in cases where they are a preper and necessary instrumentality for the execution of some granted power, when they are created they at once become totally exempt from all control save that of the creating power, and to admit that they were subject to any other control in the important matter of taxation would be to endanger their very existence. Because, if the States could tax them at all without the consent of the General Government, they could tax them as much or as little as they please, and they might please to impose such burdens upon them as would wholly defeat their objects. The States might then discriminate against them and in favor of their own corporations, and thus drive them outof existence. It was upon such reasoning and arguments the Supreme Court held 30 years ago, and has ever since held, that such corporations and the bonds of the Federal Government are entirely exempt from State and municipal taxation. Now, apply these principles to Federal railroad, canal. telegraph, and other corporations. If the power to create them exists. the power to control them follows. Then what becomes of the sacred and boasted rights of the States to control their internal affairs and commerce? To raise revenue to pay the expenses of their government by taxation of all the property of their citizens, whether individual or corporate ‘2 They have wasted away under the absorbing power of the central Government. Their judicial tribunals are stripped of half their jurisdiction. The great aggregations of wealth in the States, brought into existence by their efforts, and often in part by their means, are added to the great central iower to augment its patronage and all pervading influence and end anger the liberties of the people and destroy our glorious system of government. If congress can enact such laws as the one to which have particularly referred, it can by parity of reason and under the some authority enact laws and charters which will give it absolute and sovereign control over all our great works ofinternal improvement. It can thus no uire, in like manner, the like control over a urge portion of the territory of the States without their consent. Does the Constitution afford a shadow of authority for such enactments? 1 answer “No; nowhere, by no legitimate construction ofun of its provisions.” it says, in section 8 of ar“ticle one, that Congress shall have powerTo exercise exclusive legislationin all caseswhat soever over such district (not exceedingten miles square) as may by cession of particular States and the acceptanceof Congress become the seat of the Government of the U.S.: and to exercise like over all places nit chasedby the consent of the Legialalureof the i'lute in which the same shall be.forthe erectionefforts. inasazinesmrsenall. dock yards and other needfulbuildings." It appears. therefore, that it is the intention of the Constitution that the U.S shall acquire no title to or jurisdiction over any portion of the soil of a State without the consent of the Legislature thereof. And this has been the practice of the Government ever since its organization. It has never attempted in a single instance to do otherwise, except during the late war, when its acts in this particular were dictated by an overruling necessity which can supply no precedent for times of peace. Whenever the U.S. has desired to occupy any part of the soil of a State for courthouses, navy yards, or other national purposes, it has 1st procured the consentof the State by a solemn act of State legislation, expressly ceding jurisdiction to the U.S. over the desired territory. When it was thought desirable to construct a highway to connect the waters of the Chesapeake and the Ohio. congress would not permit the Cumberland rodd to be constructed until the consent thereto of the States of Maryland. Virginia, and Ohio, was expressly granted. James Monroe, in his great constitutional argument which accompa nied his veto of the Cumberland road bill in 1822, held that Congress has exclusive control over the revenues of the Government, and may appropriate them to aid in the construction of internal improvements, but has no power itself to construct on such improvements, because [0' do that inrohxd the exercise of territorial jurisdiction, which belongs to the State alone. fliere is nothing better settled in American law than that the right of eminent domain is in the States. The right to control the territory within the several States belongs to the States alone. But in these days of radical and reckless statesmanship wc are told that Congress can create corporations to build great highways wherever it pleases, and can take charge of those already created by the States, and under one pretext or another divest the States of the ir original and unquestionable control over the same and of their right to tax them or to regulatet lemanner in which they shall enjoy their franchises, or cariy on their business, or an swer for their wrongful acts toward their citizens. This kind of legislation will inevitably robthe States and the people of their most precious and invaluable inheritance the right of local self government. No evil ruler on earth could devise a mere appropriate or wick edly cunning plan for the attainment of such a result. It is claimed by the friends of these measures that Congress obtains the requisite power to enact them as an incident to the express power “to establish postoffices, " and to regulate commerce “among the several States.” If it can ever be' said in this country that the interpretation of a constitutional provision is settled, then it may now be said of the power to establish post roads. It has been the uniform practice of‘ the Government to carry its mails over the hiohways of the States to make them “ post roa s" to the extent of their commen use by its mail carriers but never to open up and construc t great highways for the purpose of facilitating the transmission of the mails. Mails never precede but always follow the opening it of n.country under its lngh v ways, and if ey are rude and imperfect at 1st, the demands of the people are relatively few and simple. As society advances, and population and intercourse increase, improvements in the facilities and manner of transportation keep pace with them. Hence, the encral Government has hitherto come after and not gone before these improvements in the extension of its mails. Shall it change this policy now, when the country is every where covered with a network of highways and railroads, and the people and States are everywhere inviting it to make them “post roads?" Shall it now enter into the business of constructing railroads and canals in order to provide ways over which to carry its mails? Is it necessary for it to usurp the control of the railroads and highways, established and constructed under the auspices of the States, in order to protect its postal service? These railroads and many other highways are private property. It was thought necessary by the framers of our Constitution to insert an express provision to enable the U.S. to exercise absolute jurisdiction over ten miles s uare for a seat of Government, and over sue places as should be ceded by the States for forts, arse nals, and other purposes. It would seem incredible that such solicitude should have existed about such inconsiderable spots, and yet that those great men should have been willing to confer the power to construct all kinds of highways throughout the country, with the consequent right to take great portions of the soil of the States and exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the same. There does not nQw and never did, and never can, exist a shadow of necessity or rational pretext for the inauguration of such a system. If inaugurated it could not fail, sooner or later, to prove fatal to the well being of both Governments. But ifI concede the power to build a highway for a “post read” it does not follow that Congress may create great corporations, with millions of capital, to erect nl kinds of highways in the States for private gain, to be subject to the exelusive control and jurisdiction of the U.S. It requires a most liberal charity not to believe that private gain, and not the interests of the postal service, is the inspirin" motive in these measures. The power asserte in this series of bills to do these t iings is wholly unaralleled in the history of our Government. why are they attempted now? Is it not done to subordinate the States more completely to the powers in this Capitol?. Dees the poiverto regulate commerce “among the several States” authorize this kind of legislation? It is claimed that it does. This power has been the subject of frequent and elaborate discussion in the courts of the country, and it has received judicial interpretation in many cases. If the word commerce in this provision is to receive its larflest and most comprehen sive signification, tien, indeed, the argument is with the friends of these measures, because thus defined it embraces nearly all the transactions and intercourse of human beings in society. But this definition has never been claimed or approved by any court or intelli gent citizen. it has always been held to refer only to those public and business transactions andyrelations which affect the citizens of different States in their intercourse with each other. Many of the laws of a State may affect commerce in a greater or less degree and yet not be in conflict with the power of Congress. This provision was designed to secure to the Statesa complete equality in commercial rights. No State has the power by her laws regulatin her internal commerce, or the transaction 0 commercial business over her great public or corporate highways, to impose restrictions or burdens upon the citizens of one State which she does not alike impose upon those of all the States. She cannot. discriminate against any State or section, but her laws and regulations must effect all alike who come Within their operation. Int he case of Gibbonsva. Ogden, (l) Wheaten, 13,) Chief Justice Marshall, in speaking of the I right of a State to enforce its inspection laws, says: "They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a State not surrendered to the General Government; all which can be most advantageously exercisedby the States themselves.Inspection laws, quarantine laws. health laws of every description, as Well its laws for regulating the internal COH|I)|crCE of a State, and those which respecttuniptke roads, ferries, (90., are component parts ot this mass.” In many other decisions by thesame court, substantially the same language is employed, and the same doctrine held. There is believed to be no opinion in the entire range of State and Federal decisions which is inconsistent with the one expressed by Judge Marshall. And not one of the great statesmen of our country has every put on record a contrary opinion, excepting always the bolder, but not wiser leaders of the dominant party of this day. Tn that great argiiment submitted by Mr. Hamilton to President Washington, already referred to, he, the great leader of the latitudinarian school of statesmen, denied to the General Government all authority to make any work of internal improvement requiring the appropriation by it of any part of the soil or territory of the States Without their consent. Thomas Jeli‘erson, another of the great sages of the Republic, seems to have been sadly behind the learning of this age. He, too, always denied the existence of any such power, and, in a message to Congress, recommended the proposal of a constitutional amendment for the adoption of the States, expressly granting it. Mr. Madison, too, unsurpassed in wisdom and practical statesmanship, and the zealous friend of railroads, canals, and other improvements, was equally confident that this power did not must and could not be exercised without the aid ofan amendment. Albert Gallatin, scarcely inferior to an in the great qualities of the early fathers, in his masterly report to congress, in 1808, reviewing this whole subject, used the followmg language: "The manner in which the public moneysmay be appliedto such ObJECLSr, emainsto be considered. It is evidentthat the U.S.cannot under the Constitution openany reader canal without the consentot‘the Statethroughwhich such road or equal mustpass. In order. therefore, to removecvery iin pediment to a national plan of internal improvements.an amendmentto the constitution was suggested by the Executive [referring to Mr. Jclferson] when the subjectwas recommended to the consideration of conreas. Until this beobtnined. the assent of the State ping necessary for eachimprovement. the modifications under which that assent may be given will necessarily control the manner of applying the money.” Justice McLean of whom it is not unjust to say that he was the foremost of“ our Federal judges of his time in the liberal construction of the powers of Congress, in his opinion in the Rock sland bridge case, 6 McLean, 521, referring to the powers in question, said: “Under the commercial power Congress may declare what shall constitute an obstruction or nuisance bycnatbiryoneral regulation, and provide for its indictiiientoi' ll]fo7lllll.l0lt'lh rough the AttyGen; but neitherunder this power, nor under the power to establish postroads.can Congress construct a bridge over navigable water. This he longs 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 powerto regulatecommerce. Congresscan construct a bridge overa naviga blo water under the power to regulatq commerceor to establishpostroai son the same principle it may make turiipikes or railroads throughout the couu try. The latter powerhaszonerully been considered usexhaustedin t 10designation ofrozitlson which the mails are to be transported; and the former by the regulation of commerceupon the high seas.andupon our rivers and lakes. I/these lmnlationaare tobe departedfrom therecan benoothersexcept the diner: (ion of Cbflgress.“ I might multiply such great authorities as these, but it cannot be necessary. These great men were at the birth of our Republic, and, guided and protected by their Wisdom and patriotism, it grew great and powerful, and ins ired mankind everywhere With new be, an furnished them a great example. It it is competent for the human mind to comprehend the jiist meaning of language or the true intent of law, it must be that that capacity was possessed by these men. Their interpretations are plmost equal as authority to the highest judicial decisions. The Representative who, havnig sworn to support the Constitution, should make them his guides as to its true meaning could notgo far astray, and would certainly shun the Wild chimeras and crotchets and more partisan dogmas of this day. I Will yield to the temptation to refer to one other deciSon of our Supreme Court, (Veazie vs. Moor, 14 Howard's Reports, 573,) because it is the latest, having been made in 1852, and is the unanimous judgment of the judges then on the beach of that court, who were Chief Justice Taney and Justices McLean, Wayne, Ca trou, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, and Curtis. In discussing the power of Congress to regulate commerce With foreign nations and among the several States, the court says: “The phrasocan never be applied to transaction wholly internal, between citizensof the same communlty, or to it polity and law: when endomid purpofee and operations are realn'cted(o‘tlu: territory and not!andjurmltetmn of such community. Nor can it be properly concluded that becausethe products of domesticenterprise in agriculture or munutnctures, or in the arts. may ultimately becomethe subJcctl of foreign commerce.the control of tlm meansor the encoiiragciiients which enterprise is fostered and protected.is legitimately Within the gmpprt of the phrase jun inn commerpeo, r fairly implied in any investitui c of the power to regulate such commerce. A pretmnioa as far reachingas this would extend to contracts between citizen and citizen of the same State. rw, otulilod cuoianitiurolal cthtuere pursuits ot the planter. the the meclianic, ‘tho im i uc|iscoperations at the collieries and mines and lurnaccs of the country; for thci'ois not one of theso ai'ociilions the resultsoi which may not becomethe subjects of loreign conimerce and be borne.Clllff by luriiyurra, mum/n, or railroads /rampmntloAmm!willitn rlir etuerrllSum. toward an ultimate estination, like the one.nbovumentioned. such a prelenn'on wine teurldnaclfliImocptruoavlelympreenvtebnyttohrepaseravleyrzaele State: for it cannot be supposrd that the States would exhaust their capital and their credit in the construction of trac ryic, uririlfr and railroadl. theremuneration da Tbleffimlzmlf/eI‘dOiIaHt"e‘lIyItLrCrcIwI, afmqlf!rao”mctohnetmro, bloevcaeur sweshuicchh.pMuibaf/ide war/rowouldIefaciltttufor u commerce which, while availing itself of (lapse facilities, wan unquestionably iinutigelrint able. Caoltmhoetuogrhcing immediutely or ultimately it. " The rule herogivenwith respecttothe regulation of foreign commerce equally excludes /ram the regular tionQ!commercebrllqreulllfStolenout the lndiast tribes, Ihceanlroloocrluriipilconc, miula, railroads or flicclciirinq and deepening of water course aexcliui'uelu within the States or the management of t/i2trunaportatianupon and by mama of such unpropemfnta.The designand. oCbojnesettitoufttiohna, twpaoswteore.satsaebvliisnhcaepdeinr/etheelcqhuisutloitrvyaomftohneg the several Slates Q4 to cont/Herniar!ip/tle.an topre ventunjmt mid invuliou'f distinction which loculjcmf entries or local um!fill I‘ll"! interests might be disposed to introduce mull maintain. These were the views orresthsced aUdPoOpDtio‘HnIo Gulph Coast inttuitoine n by the udvocatosance therewith have been 11"“i!n accord the oxposmons of this instrumentpropoundedby this court." These views constitute a triumphant and authoritative refutation of the whole system of legislation to which I refer. Their statements are so clear and reasonable as to clic‘t approval from every unprejudiced mind. Their correctness becomes painfully apparent when we follow the opposite doeti ines to their r(: stilts. Admit these extraordinary powers to exist. in Congress, and then let any intelligctt man ask his ownjudgment what Congress may not do under their cover. It can go into the States and take from their hitherto undisputed control and regulate by its owiilaws and agents the cliief highways of the States, and such othei s as it may see fit to authorize; it may assume absolute control in that way of a great purtof the cor wrote and other property of the citizens o the State; and thus, without reducin; the burdens, immensely diminish the revenue s of the State, and thereby greatly increase the burdens of the pee 10. he sane man need, in these days of rec 'less extravagance and o licial infidelity, to be told that the vast interes s and property to be affected by the legislatic n in question can be infinitely better inauaged under the auspices of the States and of indviduals than under any possible system of Federal management. It is equally apparent lhl t this incessant absortion of State power at.1 jurisdiction by the diciieral Government cat not fail to weaken the former and instruct the r citizens to look here for that care and protection which until now they have obtained t home, and rapidly to loosen the bonds of the attachment to their States and to diminish their pride and interest in them. Then the blighting work of centralization will have been accomplished and local self government destroyc, and the small rivulcts and original sources of political power in this country will have become corrupted and the central government a despotism. The patriotic alarm.sounded none too soon by President Johnson on the 22d of February last, will then have become verified prophecy. It is not possible, if the history of our country has any value or contains any truth that it was ever intended by the framers of our Federal Constitution, who were at the same time pio neers and equally interested in the organization of our State governments, that the former should ever attempt to take the management of or legislate for the private and local affairs and interests 'of the people in the States. such policy is everywhere deprecated and denounced y them as most dangerous to the best interests of both Governments. They have always, and with singular unanimity and tenacity, in sisted that the chief element in our system of governments. which at once combines safety to liberty and great strength, is that of a well delined and faithfully observed division of powers between the general and the local governments. It was their most cherished aim to establish firmly and observe faithfully this division. let us not tolerate any other purpose. We cannot cultivate a sounder or more beneficent policy. Let us devote the energies of this General Government to its appropriate duties; to the wise superintendence of these general interests which pertain to and can be best administered by it; to its vast external affairs. Let us look more to the economical management of its finances and the reduction of the burdens of the people. Let us do jus tice promptly and with a liberal hand to the llant and selfsacriticing defenders of the ‘overnment and country and hasten to resume our career of union, peace, and prosperity. Let us discountenance all attempts at legislation calculated to produce discontent or seetional agitation. ct us give rest, not new commotion, to our country after its fearful struggles during the last 5 years, and we shall thus do the most exalted service to it and to mankind.