Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know that it is the purpose of any of the friends of the bill to discuss the question of authority which is involved. If there is any such purpose, I should like to hear them 1st before I submit to the Senate the views which I prouse to submit. [A pause] I presume from their silence that it is not the design of any of the friends of this bill to debate it. It would seem alittle singu lar, if that be the fact, that a bill containing provisions never before even suggested in any Congress, and apparently so much in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S., should not receive at least some support from those who think it does not violate that instrument. Upon a former occasion, when this measure, in a somewhat different shape, was before the Senate, I presented to the Senate the reasons which, in my judvment, demon strated (to use a strong term) that it went be yond the constitutional authority of Congress; and plain as I thought that was in reference to that bill, if the Senate will turn to the articular bill upon their table, I think they will agree that this is still more obnoxious to objection. The bill upon its face professes to be based upon the authority conferred upon Congress to regulate commerce between the States, and upon the authority conferred upon the same Dept to establish post roads. It does not profess, therefore, to be a measure called for y any military exigency; it does not intimate that we are not in a state of peace; nor does it state that what it proposes to have done under its provisions will become necessary hereafterif we should at any time hereafter be engaged in a war, civil or foreign. The power, therefore, which it assumes to exercise, is a power, if it exists at all, to be found under the authority to regulate commerce between the States, an to establish PostOffices. I had supposed until these modern days that the meaninr of those 2 powers in the Constitution oft le U.S., with reference to such a proposition as this bill involves, had beenso long and so uniformly established that it could not well be considered as open to further doubt. A constitution is worth nothing practically if it is not to be considered as authoritatively settled after years of deliberation and frequent decisions by every Dept of the Government. If it is to be one thing today and another thing tomorrow, just as the members of Congress may be different tomorrow from what they are to da, we might as well have no Constitution. If) the individual judgment of each individual member is to be exercised without regard to what has been the construction of the instrument uniformly up to the time when he undertakes to exercise his individual Judgment, we are without a Constitution and it is essentially (as I think? mise hievous if that individual judgment is to )e exercised in relation to any of the supposed restrictions upon the powers of Congress, or upon any of what have been in the ast supposedJ to be the clearly reserved riuhts of the States. In myjudgment and I speak it with all due deference, when we swear to support the Constitution of the U.S., we are bound to construe it, in order to support it, as the framers of the instrument are known to have construed it, and the people by whom it was adopted are known to have construed it and to have adopted it because of that construction. Looking to what was said by the members of the Convention, contained in the debates preserved by Mr. Madison with great accuracy, as was admitted by all who participated with him in the delib erations of that great body of great men, and in the proceedings of Congress while this Dept of the Government was filled by some of the leading members of that Convention, it is perfectly obvious that such a proposition as the one upon the table never would have been suggested by any member, because, in his judgment, it would have been wholl without the constitutional authority of this Dept of the Government. With these general remarks, permit me to call the attention of the Senate to what this bill seeks to accomplish and what powers it under takes to confer. Nobody even now, as far as I am aware, denies that the States have authority to charter railroad companies and having authority to charter them, it would seem to follow that they have the authority not to charter them; and having the authority to exercise the discretion of chartering, or of not chartering, they necessarily have the authority, if they decide upon chartering, to state the terms, the conditions, upon which they will charter them; and consequently, having the authority to prescribe the terms orconditions upon which they will charter, they have a right to prescribe what ivileges they will confer upon the holders oipihe franchise and what they will with hold. Those are propositions that need no argument, as I thinlf the Senate will all admit. Vhat have the States done in the exercise of this admitted authority? They have char tered such companies for the construction of railroads as they have thought proper to charter and they have given to them certain lim ited powers and only limited powers. Having the authority to charter and to limit the franchise, another consequence necessarily results: that if the powers granted are abused, if powers not ranted are sought to be exercised, the franc ise is subject to forfeiture. That would seem to be clear; and if that is clear, then the question of forfeiture or not must depend upon idie law of the State by which the franchise is granted. The right of the State to forfeit, if it be a right, is one with which the Congress of the U.S. cannot interfere, because that would be to interfere with the right of the State to charter and to fix the terms upon which she is willing to charter. Now, what does this bill do? One company is sutheient to illustrate the argument, and it somewhat simplifies it. NewJersey chartered a company, the name of which, as well as I recollect, was the Raritan and Delaware Railroad Compan. I am not sure that I recollect the name. Ihe honorable chairman of the ComCommerce will oblige me by giving me the name, for I suppose it has been before him in the deliberations of the committee on this particular measure.