Mr. ERSWELL. It is not a very long section, and if there should be 2 or 3 words in excess, I do not think they will do much damage. It will not be much of a trial to the gentlemans eyes to read the whole of the amendment. Mr. President, this measure has engaged the attention of the Senate during the greater part of the last session and during so much of this session as has passed. One matter which has excited my suspicion somewhat with reference to the question, has been the difficulty of bringing its advocates to a precise presentation of their case. When we come to inspect the bill We find, in the preamble of it, that gentlemen claim to pass it under 3 of the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. When driven from the refuge which they seek under any specified power, they immediately resort to a 2nd, and if driven from that, to a 3rd, and if driven from the 3rd, the then claim, under the combined powers of a 1, that congress has the right to pass this bill. I shall refer particullarly to the argument of the learned Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] with referenceto the constitutional power of Congress over this subject, because mm the known, acknowledged ability of that gentleman, his untiring industry which, like aith, seems sometimes to move mountains, and his immenseerndition, I am satisfied if no authority can be found under the Constitution for the passage of this bill by that gentleman, it is only because none exists. In the preamble to the bill, the power to pass it is claimed, 1st, under the clause to regulate commerce among the several States; 2nd, the power to establish post roads; and 3rd the authority to raise and support armies; and the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts considered those powers in the order in which they are named. For the purposes of my argument I shall reverse his line O proceeding. He cites, as his only authority for the power as claimed under the clause to raise an support armies, the action of the last Congress with reference to the general management of the railroads of the country. I can hardly think that the Senator, nion reflection. would claim that act as a precedent, or insist that Congress should now exercise the power which it did by that act, namely, to place all the railroads in the country under the specific and exclusive charge of the military authorities; for that is the precise language of that act. A clause of the 1st section authorized the Government ag“eTnotsp. place under military control all the edition and employeesbelonging to the telegraphan railroad lines t us taken possessionof by the President. so that they shall beconsideredas a post road and a part of the military establishment of the U.S. subject toall the restrictiops imposed by the Rules and Articles of War." The 2nd section provided that all by any parties whatever to interfere awtittehmpts the exercise of the power granted in the bill should be punished “as a military offense by death or such other penalty as a court martial may impohsee.”th ird section authorized the appointment of 3 commissioners to assess the damages suffered by reason of the seizure of the railroad or telegraph lines under the act. In the 4th section it was provided “That the transportation of troops, munitions of war, equipments, military procrty and stores throughout the U.S. a all be under the immediatecontrol and supervision of the SecyWar and such agentsas he may np oint; and 1 rules. regulations, articles, usages, niu laws in conflict with this provision are herebyannulled." The 5th section declares “ That the provisionsof this not.sofar as it relates to the operating and using said railroads and tele graphs, shall not be in force any longer than in necessaryfor the suppressionof the rebellion." The very authority which the gentleman cites shows that the power which he claims is something altogether different from that which was exercised in that case. That was an exercise of the military power of the Government during the war in an effort to protect and to preserve itself; but as the rebellion has been suppressed no such necessity now rests upon the Government to claim the exercise of any such power, and of course it cannot exist. Indeed, by the terms of the law it is no longer operative. In the next place, this power is claimed under the clause of the Constitution with ref erence to the establishment of PostOffices. It is nowhere stated, and it cannot be stated with truth, that in any part of the country over which it is now proposed to extend the authority of Congress there is any denial of the right of the Government to transmit mails. believe that every railroad company in the land is already subjected to that clause of the Constitution, and willingly submits to the authority of the Government in the transmission of its mails. One thing is certain: they are all anxious to secure contracts for that purpose with the Government, and so far from the States attempting to interfere with it, it is their manifest interest to offer every possible facility for the transmission of the mails with a view to the accommodation of their own citizens; and the difficulty is, not that the States refuse to the Government the use of their roads for postal purposes, but that the States cannot procure from the General Government asufficient number of postoffices and the assignment of a sufficient number of post roads. Applications come every day to the Government for that purpose. The power, if it exists anywhere, must exist under the clause to regulate commerce. I was somewhat amused at the argument adduced by the Senator who has just ta on his seat. He began by calling this a “little bill, ” and he said it was as harmless as any mans walking stick, but before he took his seat he showed that that walking stick hadassnmed the dimensions of a huge bludgeon, with which he would knock out the brains of every railroad company in the land. It had, in his hands, and according to the powers that he claimed for the General Government, sufficient power to destroy the active capital now invested in railroads, amounting to $1,200,000,000, because he distinctly claimed that in the Wheehngbridge case the Supreme Court had decided that congress had the rightto constructrailroads, through and overan of the States without their consent.