Mr. HOWARD. I will come to that. The honorable Senator will admit that already the State corporation has the authority to transport passengers and freight over and upon its road. There is no doubt about that; otherwise it would be aver useless corporation. But, says the honorable Senator, it also has the right to carry freight and passengers upon and over its connections. Sir, what is meant in the bill by the words, “connections, boats, bridges, and ferries?” Plainly, the connections which belong to the particular corporation, collateral railroads over which such corporation has a right to carry freight and passengers connections which become such lawfully and properly under the legislation of NewJersey, contract or by charter; connections which maybe here regarded as the property of the particular company; connections which are its property precisely in the same sense in which boats, bridges, and ferries are its property; connections, boats, 8.10., the use of which, for purposes of transportation, the railioad legit imately has, possesses, and enjoys under State laws; and that is all that is meant. It does not go a single inch beyond its own chartered rights, esta lished by the State. The bill assumes in no possible sense to impart to a State corporationany famlty, franchise, license, or right whatever, except such as may be already granted to it by the State save to this extent: it declares that although under its charter it may be prohibited from carrying freight and passengers which are bound from one State into another, the particular corpo ration shall have the right in spite of the prohibition to carry on this interstate commerce. That is the effect and the sole effect of this bill. Let me illustrate. Suppose the charter of NewJersey, as it seems to have done, prohibits any other railroad company in that State except the Camden and Amboy from transporting freight or asseners bound from one. State to another State t rough NewJersey; suppose the State prohibits one of its corporations from carrying assengers and freight thus destined; the bill declares that the State corporation so prohibited shall have the right to transport such passengers and freight; and I insist that we have a perfect constitutional authority to do so under the power to regulate commerce among the States. Railroad corporations are created for the purpose of transportation. They are in abroad sense common carriers as known in the common law, and the may carry commodities and plassengers boun from one State to another. O State has a right to make a discrimination between such commerce and its purely internal commerce, such a discrimination being incon sistent with the exclusive power of Congress over commerce. But the honorable Senator takes another objection to the bill; he objects to its passage because, he says, if we can pass it we may regulate tolls upon State railroads; we may increase the tolls; and he seems to discover in the future the danger of Congress interfering with State railroads by assuming to reulate the tolls upon property passing throng from one State into another . this a sufficient answer to this objection, if it is deserving of the name, that ithasno place; it isnot founded upon any clause of the bill; it does not grow out of its language or intention, but is a mere apprehension of the honorable Senator that at some future day congress maytake it into their head to interfere with the tolls upon State railroads. Mr. President, have we not precisely the same power over commerce among the States that we possess over foreign commerce? Will the honorable Senator deny it? Will he undertake to limit the power of Congress in the one case and not in the other? Whatever may be the extent of this commercial power, Congress possesses it and the whole of it; and if that power extends so far as to grasp within itself the tolls upon passengers or merchandise transported from one State to another, so be;it we can neither enlarge nor restrain it. When the proper occasion shall present itself it will be for us to determine, ifwe do possess the power, whether to exercise it or omit to exercise it; and this is a sufliciont answer to the argument of the Senfrom Maryland upont at subject. But, sir, in reference to foreign commerce, we have precisely the same power, and always have had;it and if there is any danger thatwe shall interfere injuriously or oppressively in the commerce among the States and control the States, has not the same danger existed ever since the commencement of the Government? and can the honorable Senatorpointto a single case where the U.S. have assumed to regulate the freights between foreign countries and the U.S., or the price of passages, or anything of the kind? I apprehend he will find himself at a loss to discover any such precedent. While, at the same time, we know that every State of the Union has always interfered in some form in regulating tolls upon bridges, turnpikes, canals, and railroads, the Government of the U.S. have never exercised the power in any instance, as far as I have been able to ascertain. So I think that this objection of the honorable Senfrom Maryland, that by passing this bill we shall establish a precedent of which we can avail ourselves hereafter to regulate tolls upon State railroads, is unfounded, rather in the nature of an alarm than an argument. I will not undertake to deny that Congress might, in an exigency, regulate the price of freight and passage moue upon the ocean. The time may come when the exercise of such a power will become necessary. We have never, thus far, exercised it, to be sure; we have not seen the necessity of exercising it and for the same reason I shall not deny that Congress have thteu power to regulate even tolls in the matter of the among the States, though we have never exercised it, nor assumed to exercise it, thus far. I am not, however, by such objections to be frightened out of my position, that the power of Congress is just as exelusive over the one kind of commerce as the other. His last objection is that if congress may pass a bill authorizing every railroagrto carry property bound from one State to another, as thio bill does, it may make a road; that it may incorporate a company for the purpose of carrying en commerce among the States, and for this purpose make a road. This objection does not frighten me; nor will I undertake to say that Congress is totally disabled from creating a corporation for the purpose of carrying on commerce among the States; it is not necessary to deny even this power. If it could create such a corporation, it could undoubtedly authorize the corporation to make a road for the purpose of carrying on this commerce; but the bill before as does not contemplate the making of a road or any part of a road; so that I do not see that the last 2 objections of the honorable Senator to this bill, in which he seems to apprehend that Congress may do this thing or the other thing in the future, have the slightest weight in the discussion of the present bill. The simple questions are, is this measure in accordance with the Constitution? Are we authorized to give this faculty and power to a State corporation, under the Constitution, or are we restrained from it? I have no doubt whatever upon the subject. I have no doubt that we have full authority to pass the bill in the very language which it contains; and I have just as little doubt that the interests of the public, the interests of the citizens of the various States who have been made tributary to NewJerse for so many years, and the interests of the whole commercial world visiting NewYork and Philadelphia require that this unblushin, persevering, corrupt, and corrupting monopo y of NewJersey on ht to be extinguished; and I trust there willgbe votes enough and determination enough on the part of the Senate to put a complete extinguisher upon it. It has cursed the and long enough; and the people, with united voice, are crying against it. I trust we shall obey that voice.