Mr. CRESWELL. So far as it goes; but the question is, how far does it o? The Gentleman extends it so far as to destroy all the powers and all the rights of the States. He makes not only the power as granted by the fathers in the Constitution imperial and exclusive, but he deni, all power to the States over their own soil. e usurps from them the exercise of the right of eminent domain. The argument of my distinguished friend becomes a little more significant when we look at certain hills which have recently been introduced into the HoRep; and of which it would seem t int this bill is the forerunner. One of them is House bill No. 96, “to provide for the construction of a line of railway communication between the cities of Washington and NewYork, and to constitute the same a public higlhwn and a military road and ostal route of the U.S.;” and upon Hooking through that bill, I find in the 6th section thereof this provision: That said corporation is herebyempoweredto purchase. lease. receive, and hold such real estate or other propertynsmay be necessary in mopmplishing the ohiccts for which this incorporation is granted; and may. by their agents, engineers.contractors, or workmen, immediately enter upon, take possession of, and use all such real etatoand property as may be necessaryfor the construction.maintenance, and operation of their said railway, and the accommodations requisite and applertaining thereto. But all real estateor property t us enteredupon and appropriated bysaiiIcor oration, which are not donations, shall be purchase by said corporation of the owner or owners of the same at a price to be mutually agreed upon betweenthem. An in case of disngreamentps to price and beforethe final completion of said railway and its appurtenances, the said corporation, or the owner or ownersof such real estateor property shall appl by petition to one of the justices of the Supreme(Ibnrt of the U.S and he is to appoint commissioners to view, value, condemn, and a prepriate the land. I challen the Gentfrom Massachusetts with all his erudition, and I challenge the Gentfrom Wisconsin, with all his ideas of a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, to addnce one solitary instance wherein any such power has been claimed or exercised by the Congress of the U.S. That there are somethings which the Congress cannot do in the exercise of its powers over foreign and domestic commerce there cannot be a doubt. There are 2 classes of powers which are vested in the General Government under the Constitution; one consists of powers affecting relations which grow out of the Union itse lfas between different States; the other consists of powers in relation to matters over which, previous to the adoption of the Constitution, the States themselves had exclusive jurisdiction, and which previously existed in the States; and the doctrine has been maintained in the courts, so far as I have been able to gather it from the decisions, that as to the 1st class of powers Congress may exert exclusive jurisdiction without an exclusive grant of powerin the terms of the Constitution; and that as to the other it required from the States an exclusive and in terms in the Constitution; otherwise, it was not vested in the General Government. Now, sir that the States have the exclusive right to their own territory, and had before the a option of the Constitution, nobody can doubt; and I think it has been reserved for these latter days for gentlemen gravely to maintain that the General Government can, for the purpose of commerce, take without the consent or authority of the S v s a portion of their territory. Why, sir, he constitution provides, in so many words, that exclusive authority over any portion of the States, even for the purposes of orts and dock yards, cannot be acquired by the U.S. except by the consent of the States; and if there is anything of authority due to the opinions of the eminent men who in the early history of the Republic were deemed the expounders of the Constitution, the gentleman will be left without even the shadow of a doubt from which to draw comfort. I have some books before me containing the opinions of 3 persons who are, I admit, somewhat old fashioned. One of them is Mr. Madison, another Mr. Jefferson, and the other is Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton in his day was considered rather a liberal interpreter of the constitution, and was the acknowledged leader of the latitudinarian school, as it was called; but it seems he was far behind the learning of this advanced age. Mr. Hamilton, in his great argument, as submitted to General Washin on on the power of the Congress of the U.S. to establish a corporation for the purposes of the National Bank, excludes from the powers of the General Government all authority to make any work ofinternal improvement requiring that they should appropriate any portion of the land within the States without their consent; but I will refer 1st in order to what occurred in the Convention to form the Constitution of the U.S. I quote from Elliots Debates, volume 5, page 543: Dr. FRANKLIN moved to add, after the words post roads, article 1. section 8, a power to pro“vide for cutting canals when: deemed nocessary. Mr. WILBON 2nded the motion." This was a motion to amend aclause now in the Constitution. I may say here that in that day railroads were unknown, and canals were the only eat mode of intercominiinication between istaut points for heavy articles of commerce. " Mr. Susanna objected. The expense.in such cases, Will fall on the U.S and the benefit accrueto the places where the canals may be cut. " Mr. Winsos. Instead of beingan expenseto the U.S. they maybe madea sourceof revenue. “1th. bianisox sug cslod an enlargement of the motion into apower to grant charters of incorporation where the interest of the U.S. might require and the legislativeprovisions of individual States may be incompetent. "Mr. Madison was a friend of the motion; he desired to have the power granted to the U.S. His primary object was.however.toseourean easy communication between the States which the free ipnotleitripeoaul rsonow to be opened seemed to call for. The obstacles being removed, a removal of the na“tural ones, as far aspossible.ought to follow. Mr. RANDOLPH 2ndod the proposition.: Mr. KHINLSGON thought it necessary to nperceevsesnatry a State from obstructing the general welfare." Putting it upon the very ground gentlemen now do. “ Mr. Kisn. The Stotes will be prejudiced and divided irito partiesbyit. In Philadelphia and NewYork who ihtvhvailsl bbeeerneafewrrheedetlo. The establishment of a bank, of contention in those cities. In other places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies.” Precisely the ground upon which gentlemen now claim the power. "Mr. WILSON mentitined tho importance of facilitating. by canals. the communication with the western settlements. As to banks.he did not think, with Mr. King, that the power inthntpoint of view.would excite the prejudices and parties apprehended. As to mercantilemonopohesJ icy are already included in the power torcgulute triido. “Colonel Mason was for limiting the power to the single case of canals. Ile was afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were by any means already implied by the Constitution, as supposedby Mr. Wilson. “The motion bein so modifipd nsto admit a distinct question specifying and limited to the case of caiiuls “Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, ily3; NewHampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut NewJersey, clswnre. Maryland, NCarolina, SCarolina, iio S. “The other part fall, of course, as including the power rejected." TIHIS it appears that there was a flat refusal on the part of the Convention to insert that power in the Constitution; but there are some other authorities. Mr. Madison at a late period of his life, January 6, 1831, in a letter to Mr. Reynolds Chapman, who seems to have written a treatise, which was liighl esteemed, on the constitutional powers of the Government, used the following language: “ Canals as an item in the general improvement of the country have always appearedto me not to be embraced y the authority of Congress. It may be remarked that Mr. Hamilton, in his report on the bunk. when enlarging the range of construction to the utmost of his ingenuity, admitted that canals were beyond the sphereof federal legislation." Again, in the same letter, Mr. Madison said: " Perhaps I ought not to omit the remark that.al though I concur ip the defect of powers in Congress on the subject of internal improvements, my abstract opinion has beenthat in the caseof canals particuliirly, the power would have been properly vestedin o“n ress. t was more thanonce proposed in the convention of 1787 and rejected.from an apprehension chiefly that it might provo an obstacleto the adoption of the Constitution." o “ It caunot be denied that the abuse to which the exercise of the power in questionhas appeared to be liable in the hands of Congressis a heavy Weight in the scaleopposedto it. But may not the evil have grown, in a great degree, out of a casual redundancy of revenue, and a temporar apathy to a burden benring indircctly on the people and mingled. more oItvemri, gwhitth the dischnrge of de ts of peculinrsanctity? not happen, under ordinary circumstances. that taxes oven of the most disguised kind would ese apeitwakeful control in theimposition and application of them. The late reductlon of duties on certain imports and the calculated approachof the extin uishment of the public debt, have evidently turn the popular attention to the subject of taxes in a degree quite new, and it is more likelyto increase than to relax. In the event, of an amendment of the Constitution guards might be devised against a misuseof the power without defeatingnn imliortantexercise of it. If I orr or am toosanguine in the yiews I indulge, it must be ascribed to my conviction that equals.railroads and turnpikos are at once the criteria of a mac policy and causesof national prosperity: that the want of them will be a reproac to our republican system, if excluding them: and thatthe exclusion, to a mortifying extont. Will ensueif the power he not lodgedwhere alone it can have its duo effect.” Mr. Madison was as zealous an advocate for railroads, canals, and other improvements as any gentleman on this floor, and yet he frankly admitted that no such power existed, and could only be exercised by the Government after a constitutional amendment grantin the power. One of the most important and interesting state papers upon this subject of internal improvements under the powers of Congress, is the report that was may O by Mr. Albert Gallatin, April 4, 1808. After reviewing the principal works of internal improvement, as they then existed in the country, or had, at that day, been projected, Mr. Gallatin proceeds to consider the question as to how far and in what way the general Government might afford assistance to those works; and he says: “The manner in which the puhlic moneyspan be applied to such objects, remains to he considere. "It is evident that the U.S. cannot under the Constitution upon any road or canal Without the consent of the Stats through which such roadorcanal must pass. In ordqr. therefore to remoyo every impediment to a national plan of internal improvements, an amendment to the Constitution was suggested by the Executive [referring to Mr. Jefferson when the subject was recommended t9 the consideration of Congress. Until this beobtained. the assent of the Statusbeing necessary for each improvement, the modifications under which that assent may be given, will necessarily control the manner of applying the money. It ma by c, however, observed that in relation to the speciio improvements which have bern succcsted there is hardly niiy which is not either already authorised by the States IOSPBEUVED.r so immediutoly beneficial to probable that no material thdeifmficauslttyo wrqilnldbeerit highly experienced in that respect.” Then I have before me the message of Mr. Jefferson, in which he recommends that conggeszl propose a constitutional amendment for the O )tion of the States for the very purpose of coneriing upon the General Government this power. Now, sir, I have ven, the opinions of Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Madison, who were considered as the respective heads of the 3 great schools of constitutional interpretation, and they all agree in the opinion that there was no such power in the General Government. But the Senfrom Wiseonsin cited with some decree of satisfaction an opinion delivered by Mr. Justice McLean on that subject, from which he drew an inference favor able to his view of the question. The gentleman forgot a decision made by the same learned judge, reported by himself in the 6th volume ofliis Reports, )age 524, in the case known as the Rock Islan bridge case, in which he says, upon the precise point “Under the commercial power Congressmay de clare what shall conshtutqnn obstruction or nui sance by a general regulation. wdprovido for its abatement byiudictmentor information through the AttyGen; but neither under this power, nor under the powerto establish postroads, canCongress construct a bridge over navigablowator. This belongs 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 pa“rIafmount power to regulate commerce. 7 Congresse an construct a bridge over a navi gable watorunder the power to regulate commerce or to establish post roads, on the same principle it maymaketurnpike or railroads throughout the country. The latter powerhasgenerallybeenconsidered as exhaustedin the designntion of roads onwhich the mails are to be transported; and the former by the regulation ofcommerceupon the high seas, and upon our rivers and lakes. If theselimitations are to be departed from there can be no others except the discretion of Congress." Without further reference to the books, I think, Mr. President, it is perfectly safe to leave the question of constitutional power on the authorities cited and unless gentlemen can controvert these authorities it seems to me they have no standing before the Senate in claimin that any such power should be exercised. am aware, however, that when driven from the open field they will say that the argument does not apply to them, because they do not attempt by this bill to exercise any such power, inasmuch as they do not propose to build a railroad. But if we look at the bill, it will be found to authorize all railroad compa hies throughout the country whose roads are worked by steam to carry upon and over their roads, connections, ferries, oats, and bridges, all assengers, trOops, Government supplies, mai 3 freight, and property on their way from any State to aiiot ier State, and to receive compensation therefor, and to connect with the roads of other States so as to form contin uous lines for the transportation of the same to the place of destination. It authorizes these roads to carry freight and passengers and to charge compensation therefor and to connect with other roads throughout the country. Now, sir, either the bill is worth something or nothiu. If it conveys no power, invests in these roa s no right which did)not exist under State authority t on the bill is utterly useless and nugatory; but I apprehend that the friends of this measure expect to accomplish something by the legislation they propose. They expect that these roads will, underthe provisions of this bill, derive and exercise rights and franchises which have been denied to them by the States. This bill if it be operative at all must confer privileges which do not already exist. That, in my judgment, is the exercise of the same power, not perhaps the same in extent, but certainly the same in kind, which is claimed by those who assert that the General Government has the power to construct railroads and to build canals from one end of the Union to the other; an argument just as strong can be made against the one as against the other upon the general principle of want of power. The companies are authorize to carry pas seners and freight “ upon and over their roads, ” &c., an “ to receive comsensation therefor.” Now, sir, if it be doubte whether these companies have or can have under any bill passe by Congress any right to charge tolls, certainly that argument may be applied to this bill; and the same objection may be made to that provision in regard to compensation. But the object of the bill, as it is claimed by its friends, is to destroy monopoly; and the only case cited by gentlemen who argue in favor of its pas e is the case presented by the condition of a airs in NewJersey. It should be considered that under the phraseology of this bill those railroad companies are only “an thorized” to connect With other roads. They are not obliged to connect with other roads; and, in my judgment, the result will be that they will exercise such a discretion that all the stronger roads will unite to the exclusion of all the weaker, and instead of a monopoly confined to the State of NewJersey, you will have a monopoly stretching from Boston to NewOrleans, and wielding an amount of capital that will be strong enough to draw all the trade of the country along the lines of their railroads, and so far to paralyze the spirit of enterprise as to prevent the construction of any other roads to comshe with them; so that if I am right, this bill), instead of destroying existing monopolies, will rather operate the other way. ll will serve as a nursery for monopolies, and will enable one great monopoly, by destroying all competing roads, to exert a pernicious influence upon the legislation of the country and all its industrial interests. Mr. President I am not speaking in the interest of any railroad compan; I am as willing as the friends of this bill to destroy all monopolies wheresoever found; but I do speak in the interest of the State which I in part Represent upon this floor. I object to the passage of this measure because I believe it will have a most injurious effect upon the commercial interests of the country, and especially upon the great interest which is now known as the railroad interest. Sir, gentlemen talk of the exercise of the power of constructing railroads by the States as if, instead of havingvaccomp ished more than the industry and enterprise of peaceful men over accomplished before in the history of the world in tesame riod, they had been resting supinely and ha really accomplished nothin. The Census Report for 1860 shows that In the preceding decade there had been built lines of railroad stretchin over 22,204 miles, and that in the same period $854,900,681 had been invested in railroads in this country. All that money was invested upon the securit afforded by State charters; much of it was rought from abroad; and a large part of it was athered from other localities than those in which the roads were constructed. If Congress shall now assume the right to revise these charters and to restrict them, notwithstandin the fact that ever since the adoption of the constitution no one has claimed such a right, and that it has been conceded tbat the authority to construct railroads, canals, and all works of internal improvement except so far as the Government might aid them by making contributions in money or lands, belonged to the States, the effect, in my judgment, will be most disastrous upon this great interest. How is it with my own State? I find, on looking over the last report of the comptroller of the State, that Maryland, without any aid from extraneous sources except what capital she could borrow upon her State faith, has invested in public improvements the sum of $85,844,816. Of that mone she has lost entirely $27,090,019, and all that she received from all sources in the shape of income from her investments in internal improvements, amounted during the last year ending 80th September, 1865, a $544,102 32. On all this sum of nearly $36,000,000 she has received about one and a half%. in the way of returns. It is not only unconstitutional but it is unjust in the extreme for Congress to attemptto usurp this power at this late day. To do sois to cripple the States most seriously in their resources. To do so is to cause Maryland as one of them to lose, not only the 527,000,000 of unproductive capital which she has invested in these works, but the $7,764,797 which are still productive. Gentlemen from the West will bear with me while I presentto them one consideration touching this subject. The policy of Maryland has always been most liberal upon the subject of internal improvements. She has exerted her self to the ntmust to facilitate the commercial connections between the several States. She has never presented herselfas a barrier between the States of the North or the East or the West and the national capital. She has afforded them facilities to an extent which almostproved ruin ous to her own financial system.