Mr. JOHNSON. If my friend belon s to the ComCommerce, I have no doubt he knows both the termini; and if not, his friend who sits next to him [Mr. CHANDLER] can set him right in that particular. But it will be authorized, if this bill can be legitimately passed, to do what it is not authorized to do by its NewJersey charter. If that be so, then the question broadly presents itself, can Congress, under any authority which it possesses of regulating commerce between the States, or of establishing PostOffices, exempt one of these companies from the limitations contained in its charter? If it can, then the whole country has been under a delusion upon the subject of this power; every State in the Union has shared in that delusion; every court in every State in the Union and the SCOTUS have partaken of the same delusion; for it never has been questioned (and I think I speak with certain knowledge upon the subject) y any State Legislature, by any State judicial tribunal, or by the SCOTUS, that a company chartered by a State to make a railroad may have its franchise forfeited if it undertakes to exercise powers not included within its charter and of the powers which have heretofore been supposed exclusively vested in the State governments, that of regulating the tolls which they may charge, that of regulating the service for which the tolls may be charged, that of regulating the manner in which t 6 business of the company shall be conducted, are powers supposed to be exclusively intrusted to the State governments, or rather, to speak in the spirit and in the letter of the Constitution of the U.S., they are powers not delegated to the General Government, and therefore reserved to the States. Now, what will this bill do? The charter of the particular company, the name of which was given to me by the honorable chairman, does not authorize the company to carry pas sengers and freight as it will be authorized to carry passengers and freight if this bill passes. Have we the power to do that? In the 1st place, what the bill does is to enlarge a charter f granted by a State; it is amendatory to a State 5 charter. It assumes, as vested in congress, therefore, the power to take into its own and s the charters granted by the several States, and to modify them just as they think proper, not only by extending the authority which the charter may grant, but if, in the judgment of Congress, at any time hereafter, or now, any of the restrictions in those charters are calculated to interfere with commerce between the States or to impede the transportation of the mails, they have the authority to repeal, practically, any of the limitations in the charter or any of the powers conferred upon the company by the charter. What do those 2 powers prove if they exist? That the charter of every railroad company of every State in the Union may be mod ifie by Congress whenever Congress thinks proper to exert the power of modification either y enlarging the franchise or by restricting the franchise. IfCongress should, therefore, come to the conclusion that the tolls which one of these companies is empowered to charge by its franchise are too high they can reduce them; if they think they are too low they can increase them. What power is that? It is the power, not of establising a road for the 1st time by any inherent authority existing in Congress, or any delegated authority existing in Congress to make roads and canals, but it is an authority to interfere with the chartered rights of companies established under charters granted by a State; and that is just what this bill does. If the gentlemen whose minds are not made up upon the question will turn to the bill the Will find, I think, that the criticism to which am about to subject it is well founded. It is sweeping in its terms. Every railroad company in the U.S. is liable to its provisions. It recites the authority conferred upon congress I do not give the words now to regulate commerce, to establish post roads, to raise and support armies; and therefore this bill is to be enacted under all or anyone of the authorities which Congress by this recital is correctly said to have. The power to reulate commerce among the States, to establish post roads, to raise and support armies, either by itself or all collectively, are relied upon as showing that what is proposed to be one by the bill is within the power of Congress. Therfore be it Resolved That everyrailroadeom pany w oneroad is operatedby steam, its suoccssors and assigns be, and is hereby.authorized to carry upon and over its road, connections, boats, bridges, and ferrics, all passengers, troops. Governmentsup plies. mails, freight, and property on their way from any State to another State and to receive compensation therefor. It assumes, then, stopping there, that there are railroad companies now operated by steam that have not the authority to carry over their roads, &c., property and passengers on the way from one State to another State, and to receive compensation therefor. Stopping, therefore, at that part of the bill as it is now before the Senate, we are undertaking to give to these several railroad companies apower which the have not under their charters a power which the bill upon its face assumes that they have not. Let us see how that will work practically. In every State in the Union there are to be found railroads whose termini begin necessa rily in the State granting the franchise, and which often terminate at some point short of its own territorial line n railroad from town to town within a State. We all know that. Doyou mean to take from the States the authority to charter roads of that description? I suppose not. But what is the benefit to the State of chartering roads of that description if the very moment they are chartered Congress can say that, in spite of State legislation and State policy, a road, both of whose termini are to be within the State, may disregard its limits and go anywhere with any passenger or freight that may be on board of their cars, provided they be destined eventually to some other State? But that is not all. You not only ive them the authority to carry freight beyond the terminus of their own road, but you give them the authority to receive compensation. What sort of compensation? How is it to be regulated? Is it to e regulated upon the ground 0t aqmm tum met nit? Can they charge an passenger just. what they please, or just whatt e jury of a State, if it becomes the subject of contest, may decide to be the value of the service? Can they charge for freight jun; what they please, subject to a like contingenc? Under thisbill they can do it, for the bill oes not undertake itself to regulate the charges which the companies may make for perorming the service which they are authorized by this bill to perform, but not authorized by their charters to perform. Why, sir, thatis at war with the pol icy of every State in the Union. It is at war with an obviously sound policy. Do you mean to subject the travel of passengers or the transportation of freight to the unlimited demand which a company may make for either service? Every State limits the compensation which the company is authorized to receive; but this bill leaves it without limit. But that is not all. The honorable committee, of which my friendfrom Michigan is the chairman, did not think it was sufficient to accomplish the purpose they had in view, that the bill) should pass in the form in which it came from the HoRep. They have, the refdre, amended it, and what is the amendment? The bill, without the amendment, merely gives the power to pass with asseugers or supplies that may be destined from any State to another State, and to charge for the transportation; but this question 00 curred to the committee evidently, and to the friends of the measure outside of Congress, how is a company, limited to some point short of the territorial line of a State, to carry passengers or freight destined from its own to some other State? How can it do it? lt can, only do it in one of 2 ways: by connecting at its own terminus with any road which may start from that terminus to the State line, or, if there is no such road, then by making a road; and that is what the committee, if I understand it, have advised the Senate to provide. They say, substantially, there are rnil roads to be found in some of the States which. under the limitations of their old charters, will not be able to transport passengers or freight or supplies on board their own roads, for transportation to the extent of their own limits destined for other States, unless they are a so authorized the same comny to form a connection with some road which will take the assengers or the freight into another State. nd you propose to give to the company whose power is limited by its own charter the authority, ifthere is no existing road with which it can connect, to make a connection, by making a road. How is it to be made? It can only be made by the exercise of the right of eminent domain, unless the parties through whose lands the road is to pass think proper to cede what maybe necessary for the purposes of the new road. What are to be the limitationsimpe: ed upon the company in the management of the road l that they are thus authorized to make in order to form a connection between the existing road l and a road in some other State, so as to enable, them to carry passengers and freight destined for another State? The power that you confer lit; a power involved in tie general authority which you give them to connect with roads of i other States in any way and anyhow. You f give them the authority, therefore, under this act of Enigress, without restriction to take possession of the land of a State, to take it away from its owners, and establish a road of their own; and, as I said before, after having established it to charge for the use of it just what the may think proper. Itven assuming the authority to belong to Congress to charter a road. it would be bad enough if you were to charter a company for i the purpose of making a railroad and giving! it at t all the powers necessary to accomplish t purpose, that you should not regulate the manner in which the ioivers are to be exerted, but ii States came to a different opinion as far as the l it is stili worse when you leave them at large lexigency of that casewas determined, and they to exert the authority that on propose to confer upon them in any way that they may think proper. But that is not all. The amendment goes further. It gives the power “ to connect with roads of other States, so as to form continuous lines for the transportation of the same to the place of destination." Now mark, Mr. president, I have assumed that it will sometimes happen that there is no existing road with which they can make a connection, and that they are therefore to make a road. To give them the authority, if we have the power to authorize them to make a road, to c arge for the use of the road would seem to be all right. But there are railroads with which a connection may be made. Then what do you say to them? The Raritan railroad and Imention it only for the purpose of illustration connects with some other road in NewJersey which runs through the State, and it can by means of that other road transport the assengers on board its own cars and the freight destined to some other State, to their places of destination. Now, what do you say? That if their passengers and their freight are placed in the cars of the road with which they form a connection and by which they are carried to the place of their destination in some other State, they may charge for the transportation upon that connecting road. Nothing is plainer than that. They are to connect with roads of other States so as to form continuous lines for the transportation of passengers and freight to their place of destination, and they are to receive compensation therefor. What is the effect upon the passenger or the owner of the freight, if I am right? It is this unless it be the purpose of the committee to accomplish what I suppose they will hardly pretend to say the have the authority to accomplisli to mulct the assenger or the owner of the freight with dongle charges. The passenger upon the Raritan railroad, or the owner of reight which is transported upon the connecting road of which the Raritan railroad constitutes no part except under the authority of this biil, is to be charged for that transportation by the Raritan company; and you do not propose to take from the connecting road that power. Leaving, therefore, to the connecting road the power to charge for transportation, you give to the Raritau road the power to charge also, and you give it without any limitation. They may charge what they please. Not bein subject to the limitations contained in the c arter of the connecting road, they are left to fix their compensation upon the ground of a quantum mmit. Why, Mr. President, with just as much authority. I think, could Congress say that the passenger should be carried without compensation. The authority to increase the tolls involves in it the authority to diminish the tolls, and the authority to diminish the tolls involves the power to do away with the tolls altogether and make the roads free. I have not the books before me, Mr. President, nor if I had would I trouble the Senate with citations from them; but ever lawyer in the Senate who is at all familiar with the decisions of the SCOTUS knows that long before and subsequent to the case of Gibbons vs. Ogden, reported in 9 Wheaten, it was the received doctrine that the internal commerce of a State was exclusively in the power of a State. The great men who filled tic judicial Dept of the State of NewYork at the time when that decision was pronounced in the State court men whose superiors were never found upon any bench either before or since were of opinion in that case that the exclusive patent granted for the navigation of the waters of the Hudson river by steam was authorized upon the ground that the Hudson river was entirely within the State of NewYork, and it was therefore to be considered as included within the admitted right of every State to regulate its own domestic commerce. The SCOTUSO came to that opinion upon the ground that that authority to regulate commerce among the States included navigation, and was an authority which did not terminate at the boundary line of any State, but went into any State as far as its navigable rivers would permit it to go, and that Congress, therefore, ad the authority by license to authorize the vessels obtaining a licwse from the U.S. to pursue theirtrade from the State to which they clonged to the State for which the cargo was destined; but in that decision Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the whole bench, admitted that roads exclusively within the lim its of a State, commercc altogether internal, whether carried on upon the waters of a State or carried on upon the roads of a State, were entirely, exclusively, within the jurisdiction of the State. Now, what does this bill so 7 That a road constructed for the local trat e of a State, for the purpose of benefiting a commerce entirely interna as within a State, shall not be subject to any limitations contained in its own charter, provided it has on board its cars a passenger or a box of freight designed to go be ond the limits of which the road is authorize to carry it by its own charter. Once find the possession of one of these companies whose rights are limited, granted for the purpose of carrying on domestic trade as contradistinguished from commerce between the States once at on board a road of that description a article of freight or a single passenger, and it as a right to disregard its own charter, and the State has no authority to refuse that permission. It has no authority, therefore, to repeal the charter. Let us look at that for a moment. The franchise is abused, clearly abused, or the State exercises a power reserved. as is done in most of these charters, of repealing or modifying the charter. You pass this act. A State insists upon her right to forfeit the charter of any particular company upon the ground that it is subject to forfeiture or an abuse of its franchise; or it undertakes to qualify the franchise; it undertakes to repeal the charter. Can the State do that if we have the authority to pass this bill? May not the company say, and say with success, ifwe possess the powerth is bill assumes to exert, “It is true we have abused the franchise; itistruethat independent of congressional legislation the charter may be forfeited; it is true that by the terms of the charter you have a right to recal it; but we stand upon the para mountautiiority of the Congress of the U.S., and they have decided that we shall have the authority to make a road, unless we can form the connection in some other way, so as to connect our own road with the roads leading to some other State; you have no right to interfere to forfeit our charter or repeal our charter, because to do either renders useless the object which Congress has in view, and as every legal act of Congress upon any subject over which the jurisdiction of tii mount to State legislation, we stand upon that paramount authority, and we defy the State to take away from us our franchise." Now, Mr. President, as far as we can do it, we have admitted Colorado; and it was put upon the ground that a territorial condition was not suited to the genius of the American people; they wanted the protection thatn State oft is Union can claim under the Constitution. Pass this bill, and as far as the particular power is concerned, heretofore deemed to be exclusively in the Stutes, we arein a condition neither more nor less than territorial. My friendfrom Oregon, [Mr. WXl.LIAslS, Bl who so well told us how important it was tot e people of a Territory to e permitted to form themselves into a State government, to become a part of this great brotherhood of States, to be one of the States comosing the Union, in order that they e body extends, is by the very terms of the Constitution parahave the powers reserved to the States an to the people of the States and ese ape the exclusive legisation of Congress, will find himl self sadly mistaken in the practical result, provided the principle that is to be found in this bill is adopted. (grevon may fanc that she has a right to charter rai roads and a x what terms she thinks proper; Colorado, if she comes in and that may be one of her purposes in coming may desire to charter railroads, and she may think that she will derive vast benefit from the right to have control over franchises of this description. But it is a delusion ifthe principle upon which this bill stands is a sound one. t will dependentirely upon the fancy of Congress. Let a ComCommerce, as enlight ened as the present committee of thisbody is, get it into their heads that the limitations contained in these several charters are danger ous and destructive to commerce between the States or to foreign commerce, and then they will claim not to usurp, because they do not consider it as usurpation, but they will claim the right to take the whole subject into the hands of Congress, thus throwing back in the instances to which I have alluded Oregon and Colorado into the clirysaiis state of a Territory, and liable to the mise hief so well depicted by my friendfrom Oregon. I tell him to take heed. Oregon is in danger. The people of Colorado, whom he is so anxious at once to bring into this Union of States, are in danger. It is not the old States only, but the new; one and all will be involved in the vortex of congressional power, until at last we shall become in relation to a subject of aramount importance, until lately considered to be exclusively vested in the States, a consolidated Government; and I stand upon the wisdom of our fathers wisdom which fell from the lips of those men who were foremost in giving a liberal construction to the Constitution after it was adopted and were members of the Federal party, among whom was the enlightened and eloquent Ames, when I say to the Senate, I do not repeat his language, I give the substance of it that consolidation in that sense will be destructive of American constitutional freedom. The Union consolidatedisone thing; the GOvernment of the Union consolidated so as to take within its own gras powers here tofore supposed to be reserve to the States, is another thing. Under the 1st no imagi nation can depict the renown, the prosperity, and the happiness which will be the fate, if not of ourselves, of those who are to follow us; and no imaination, lioivever fertile in conceiving mise hiefs that may come in the future, can depict the horrors that will sooner or later be the result of such a consolidation as I have juststated; internal dissension, civilWars without number, until we are reduced to the condition in which the South American republics are now placed for the most part, when some military nsiirper comin from abroad orspringing up within our own fiinits shall save us from the horrors of anarchy by ruling us with a des potic will. I am done, Mr. President.