Mr. MORRILL. It is not my nrpose, Mr. President to make a formal speec at this time upon this bill. When interrupted I was adverting to the fact that the system of railways in this country, upon which now the Government purposes to lay its hands, is the product of the industry and energies of the people of this country unaided by their Government, acting in their primary relations, and acting upon the exercise of those reserved rights which constituted the strength of this government in the past and will continue to constitute that strength in the future if they are left unim aired. It. il because the Government undertakes to lay its hand upon thisindustry, peculiar to the people, and in which the Government has not participated, and it is because the Government steps for over, I think, the line which uards and which should be held to guard those rights which have been delegated and those which have been reserved to the people, that I feel any solicitnde at all upon thisquestion. was remarking, sir, as to the character of this system. The grandest system of intercomniunication any country in any time ever saw, springing up out of the brain of the people 30 years back, now spans the continent, sends out great arteries from every Atlantic commercial city on your coast to the far interior, and these in turn branching in all direction over the States, have made the intercom munication of the people easy, cheap, familiar, and have brought to the door of almost every farmer in the land the best markets the country a.ilords. This has all been done upon that voluntary principle which the American people know so well by their guidance an by their direction; and who stands here to complain of it? Who stands here to arraign this American system, to en that it has not on the whole served the gran est purposes that any instrumentality ever served on people? The most that can be said of it its iat in the State of NewJersey it is suggested that a monopoly has been granted, which, I believe, to say the worst of it, exires in 1868 or 1869. Now, sir, what have the American people invested in this enter rise? I have shown you its operation, its woringsf, beneficent be and measure, stretching from i 9 to NewOrleans and the far West, and offering cheap, expeditious, safe intercommunication wiqthuicfii a the people; and it is in their hands. Let us consider for a moment what has been the excuse of this. What have this people expended? IOver 3000 million dol are have been invested out of the earnings and out of the I withdraw it for the ets of the people to the consummation of this grand system of railway and intercommunication, working all harmoniously, working admi rably and now, ifl do not misinterpret this bill, you assert a principle which authorizes the General Government to reach out its hand and take the direction of every mile of the rail way system in this count. Would that be wiser? Nobody will venture to say that; but that is the road on which you enter. I suppose the advocates of this measurewould not pretend that it would be wise. I dare sa they would deprecate it, that the General government should enter into this competition and take the direction of these railways; but, sir, you assert a principle which authorizes it, and that is what lpobject to. If you have a right to say that roads may connect and shall connect; if yon have a right to say that a railroad company in the interior of NewJersey and that is precisely this case may extend its road across that State and then across the Delaware river and connect with other roads, and that all roads, whether the States authorizing them will or not, shall have the right to connect one road with another, you have thereby asserted a principle which will justify the Government in establishing rules and regulations in regard to the commerce over these internal railways precieeiy as upon the navigable waters of the U.S and that is the doctrine maintained by those who advocate this bill; for it should be under stood that the bill comes from the ComCommerce; it came. in the other House, from the ComCommerce of that body, and is reported back here from the ComCommerce of the Senate. It is based on the power to regulate commerce; and if you can regulate commerce in one particular over these railways, you can in all. Of course it follows that you may establish your customhouse officers in every depOt and station house in these States, a the rules and reulations which are applicable upon the navigablle waters regulating the transitin vessels, however borne on the navigable waters, may be applied to these artificial highways. It is for this reason that I object to the bill. I object, to repeat, because I see no occasion for the interpositionof such apower. Thesystem workswcl enough as it is. I object because I believe it to e dan crous. ow. sir, one word in regard to the authority, and then I shall content myself with recording m vote against the measure. I have already said that the authority is justified apparent yin a 3 fold sense. 1st, the bill invokes the power of Congress, under the constitution, to regulate commerce; 2nd, the power to establish post roads; and 3rd, the power to raise and support armies. What this nation can do in a state of war we have all of as witnessed in the last 4 or 5 years. undoubtedly a state of war brings extraordinary powers. During the state of war we did not esitnte to put all the railways in the country for defense under the power of the General Government for the time being; but nobody supposed that that was a power to be exercised in time of peace. Nobody supposed that that power which we exercised for the time being, as the extreme war power of the nation, was to be the rule of action in time of peace, and that all of these railways were to be subjected in the future to the power of Congress and the control of the General Government under that law. That is the answer to that branch of the argument. Then, as to the question of the exercise of the power for postal service, let me ask, is there any precedent in the history of this Government which authorizes the pushing of this principle to this extremity? If I recollect the authorities, none of them go any further than to assert the establishment (if a post road over roads or ways already existin. The Government has never in a single instance claimed the right to make or construct, either in a State or 1. erritory, or anywhere within its limit: or jurisdiction, a road for the purpose of postal service. The uniform interpretation of the power of congress under that provision of the Constitution has been to establish as post roads roads existing in the several States; and I am confident that not asingle precedent, either executive, legislative, or otherwise, can be found in the whole history of the Government where it has been attempted to push the interpretation of that provision of the Constitution beyond establishing as post roads roads already in existence. But, sir, this measure during this session of Congress, and particularly at the last session, was argued by its advocates principally on the power of the Government under the Constitution to regulate commerce. Never in the history of this country has the principle been pushed so far as is herecontemp ated. On this subject of the power of the Government to reg ulate commerce we certainly have a history by this time. How much iower Congress had under that provision of the Constitution very early sprang up in the history of this Government. As 1 recollect the facts, asearly as 1816 Mr. Madison called the attention of Congress to the general subject as involved in the question of internal improvements; but it was not contended then, and during the whole period of the history of legislationin this country from 1816, when the attention of Congress was 1st drawn to the subject, down to 1880, when the whole question was thoroughly discussed by the Executive at various periods and by Congress, it was never contended that Congress had the power to give facilitiesto commerce by the creation of artificial highwa sin the several States. and, Mr. President, Itink it is no stretch of reason to suppose that if Congress could not create these artificial highways, if Congress stood afar off and refused to make these internalimprovements, and the people undertook these improvements in their own right and upon their own account, I think the argument not far fetched at all that if Congress had not the right to appropriatethe peoples money to make these big ways, these articial ways of intercommunication in the several States, they have not the right to appropriate them when the people have made them themselves. Thercisnothingbetter settlediuAmericanlaw than that the right of eminent domain is in the States. The rig it to control the territory within the limits and jurisdiction of the several States belongs to the States and not to the General Government. It never did belong to the General Government; the General Government never claimed that it did. The General government never undertakes in a State to erect a fort or an arsenal or exercise any rights whatever in regard to the title to real estate except by consent of the States. When it was thought advisable to construct a national highwa between the waters of the Chesapeake an the Ohio, the Cumberland road socalled, congress declined to act at all upon the question until the consent of Maryland, Pennsyvania, and Virginia had 1st been obtained, and upon the ground that Congress could not authorize the construction of a highway, even for military puro505, for that was the great object of that roa, so declared, without having 1st obtained the consent of the States over which the road was to pass. This illustrates fully, I think, what very many similar acts in the history of the country tend also to show, that the right. of eminent domain is in the States. Congress never claimed to have the right to enter the limits and jurisdiction of anyone of the States for the purpose of building ordinary highways or railways, and I contend and it is connected very closely with the argument that if the Government cannot create these highways it cannot control them when created. But, Mr. President, all the authorities, judicial, executive, and legislative, recognize a broad distinction between that commerce which is external and that commerce which is mon the States, and that which is interngl an within the States. The distinction is broad, well understood, and has been recognized from the earliest period. All the authorities that were referred to by the Senators who have preceded me at this session and at the former session, recognize that distinction; it is obvious commerce internal and peculiar to the States, and commerce external and among the States. I would ask honorable Senators whose attention has been given to this subject, under which class does this system of internal communication fall? Is a railway constructed under a charter granted exclusively by a State, built entirely within its limits and jurisdiction a way for commerce peculiar to a State an entirely within it, or does it fall within that principle recognized in the Constitution of commerce amen the States? In all the boo s I have none of them at hand this morning this distinction is taken and made very clear. H recollect a casein my own State I think the honorable Senfrom Maryland had occasion to refer to it in the speech upon this subject which he made at the last session where a grant was made for the exclusive navigation of one of the navigable rivers of my State to a private company above a certain point held to be not navigable, and the court held that although that river was navigable to the sea and for some 70 or 80 miles from the sea inward, yct at the point where navigation terminated by reason of an obstruction, and above that point, although navigable for twice that distance, it was internal commerce and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the State; that the Congress of the U.S., although supreme in its power to regulate commerce orer external waters, here ceased to have any power at all; and simply because the way was wholly within the State and was not open to the sea. If that principle is applicable to a railway, I submit whether a railway, which is to be rerded as a way for commerce, chartered by a State, created by a State, built entirely by a State, and entirely within its limits and jurisdiction, can possibly be interfered with by the Government of the U.S. in any way whatever; whether it is not entirely beyond the power of the U.S.; and whether it is to be said that the Government of the U.S. may reach out its hand and require it to connect with roads outside of the limits of the State. I maintain that all these internal rail ways, which are within the limits and jurisdiction of the States exclusively, belong to that class ofinternal commerce whichis exclusively of the States, and over which the U.S. have no control and nojurisdiction whatever. I do not believe that it is for the interest of the country that this power should be exercised. To repeat what I have said before, I see no occasion for it, no exigency to call for the exercise of this power. That it isa doubtful power, to say the best of iIt, think no Senator on this floor will question. Mr. President, I have accomplished all that I rose to accomplish this morning. I have called the attention of the Senate to the importance of this bill; and, with these brief remarks, I shall content myself with voting against it.