Mr. FOOT. I presume the honorable senator is correct in his statement of the case, and I say here thatl shall take an early occasion to renew my reading of that case, and if I find myself in error in any particular of my argument I shall very cheerfully make the modification. But enough on that point. Mr. President, this bill, in a former debate, has been assailed and denounced as an infrinvement, a contemplated assault, upon the rig is of sovereign States, and of NewJersey in particular. Nothing of this kind, in purpose or in effect, belongs to the bill. So far from eneroaching upon the rights of a sovereign State, it is a proposition to intervene in behalf of, and for the protection of, the sovereign rights of all the citizens of all the States from infringement or restriction by any single State. It is strictly an alleviative and not an aggressive measure. It is only the exercise ofapower which the States themselves voluntarily and unanimously vested in the Federal Government, and for the very purpose of protecting the people of other States from the imposition of commercial restrictions, and from commercial blockade, if you please, by the action of anyone of the States. NewJersey has no cause of complaint at the exercise of this power on the part of Congress. She was not on y the 1st of the States of the old Confederation to urge the surrender of this power in the States to the Federal Government, at in her charter to the Camden and Amboy Company this power in the Federal Congress is recognized by both parties the State and the corporation. By the original charter, in consideration of the exclusive privilege of carring all passengers and freight between NewYork and Philadelphia, it was provided that the company should pay to the State ten cents percapita on all passengers, and 15 cents perton on all freight and merchandise transported over the road between those 2 points. Call it a bonus for the privilege, or a tax upon the franchisecall it what you please; it is, in effect, a levy of tribute upon the peopleupon all pas sengers and freightfrom Without the State to that extent. by a supplemental act in 1854, this fixed%age on freight and assengers was commuted by the transfer to toState of an agreed number of shares of the capital stock of the company. The 6th section of the supplemental act contains this condition: “That when anyotherrailroad or roads for the transportation of passengersand property betwcen NewYork and Philadelphia. across this State, shall be constructed and used for that purpose, under or by virtue ofany law of this State or the U.S. authorizing or recognizinizsaid road, that then, and in that case. the said dividends shall no longer be payable to the State and the raid stock shall o re(sltllllifslfed to the company by the treasurer of this a o. Here is an express recognition of the authorit of the Federal Government, and of the probable exercise of that authority, to build another railroad between NewYork and Philadelphia; or to authorize another railroad which might be constructed under the authority of that State to carry passengers and freight between those cities just whatthis bill authorizes, and nothing more. NewJersey, it has been well remarked, occu ies a peculiar and most important geogrnph ica position in reference to this question of commercial intercourse among the States, situated as it is directly and for the whole distance between the twolargest commercial cities and most populous cities on the American continent; lo cated, as it were, directly across the great path way of travel and trade and commerce between the North and the South on the Atlantic side, and over whose territory there annually pass probably more travel and trade than over any other equal extent of space in the whole country. The citizens of NewYork and Philadelphia, of Boston and of Baltimore; of the States of NewEngland and NewYork; of Pennsylvania and Maryland; and of the States of the West, too, are most deeply and directly interested in having whatever existing means of transit for trade and travel across the territory of NewJersey there may be unrestricted by any prohibition of their use, or, what is the same thing, by any exclusive grant to one line of communication over another. Let all the public have nues of trade and commerce be open and common to all the people of the country. This is their right, their constitutional right their right of transit over the highways or the rail ways, no less than over the rivers and the navigpble waters of any State, pa in a reason able compensation therefor. iot are alike open and common to all the citizens of the U.S. under that provision of the constitution which declares that the “citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” I repeat it, Mr. President, it is not within the province of any State, it is not within the pre. rogative of any State, either directly or indirectly, either by positive prohibition to one road or by 5 com] privilege to another, to in hibit or restrict the right of transit of citizens of other States, or their merchandise, over anyone of its roads over which they machoose to pass, any more than it can inhibit their right of transit over anyone of its navigable rivers, or any more than it can inhibit their right to purchase and hold real estate within its territory. These are all rights common to all the citizens of the U.S., common to all the citizens of a common country, common to all the citizens of our common Government. Nor may a State any more inhibit the use of all but one of several roads over its territory to the citizens of other States than it may prohibit altogether and absolutely the use of an and of all its public roads for travel and tra e, especially so, if the general interests of commerce are at all impeded or impaired by such limita n n I 2. 3}tion and it is no answer to say that because a State has built one or more roads over its territory, and thereby provided better facilities of commercial intercourse with other States than if it had built no roads at all, that therefore it may interdict the use of all other roads which are or which may be built across its territory by citizens from without the State. The right of transit over any of the public roads and highways of any State belongs to every citizen of the Republic. Mr. Prelent, without pursuing this discussion further at present, I will say, in conclusion, that in my humble judgment congress has the constitutional right to pass this bill; that it has the constitutional right to remove these local legislative restrictions upon trade and commerce between or amongt o States; that it has, to this end, the constitutional right to authorize any or all the railroads of the country, so far as in its judgment it will facilitate commercial intercourse, to carry passengers and freight from anyone State to another State. This is the whole proposition of the bill. If it asses, its constitutionality can readily be tested before another tribunal whose decision will be final upon the question. lfit proves to be a valid act it will stand; if otherwise, it will fall, alike useless and harmless. As to the expediency of passing this bill, as suming that we have the constitutional right to pass it, and to remove these local restrictions upon trade and commerce, it is enough to say that its passage is demanded by high considerations of public interest, and no less of public alt.