.3 
 69 
 
 WILLARD 
 INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
 
OJnrnpU Ham ^rlynnl BJibrary 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LlBfiAflY 
 
 3 1924 062 071 430 
 INTERSTATE COMMERCE; 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 
 
 HON. CHAELES W. WILLARD, 
 
 OF VERMONT. 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 MARCH 34, 1874. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRIJSfTING OFFICE. 
 
 1874. 
 
 5155:> 
 

 W4t 
 
SPEECH ' 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. CHARLES W. WILLAED. 
 
 Tlie House having nnder consideration tlie bill (H. R. No. 1385) to regulate com- 
 merce by railroads among tlio several States — 
 
 Mr. WILLAKD said : 
 
 Mr. Speaker, ■when tliis subject of the regulation of rates of trans- 
 portation of merchandise among the States was last before the House, 
 1 obtained the floor by the courtesy of a member of the committee, 
 the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Stone ; ] and I was prepared at thafr 
 time to spoak with more method and directness than I shall now be 
 able to do. If I proceed, therefore, in a some what desultory way, 
 and with little attimtiou to tlie logical order of my remarks, I hope 
 this will be a partiiil excuse for so doing., 
 
 I deem it a favorable circimistance, in connection with this discus- 
 sion, that it cannot fau-ly be said to take a party character. Gentle-- 
 men who have been always and still are associated with the dem- 
 ocratic party have spoken in favor of this bill, and announced their 
 purpose to vote for it. Gentlemen upon this side of the House, who 
 have always acted with the republican party, have criticised sharply 
 many of the features of the bill, and have announced their purpose 
 of voting against it in its present shape. It does not, therefore, seem 
 possilile, Mr. Speaker, that party lines can or ought to be drawn in 
 the settlement of so important a question as the iiroposed measure 
 presents for the consideration of this body. 
 
 I know, sir, that in the discussion on the bill something has been 
 said of State rights, as though that were a party tenet, as though one 
 side of this House held exclusively the doctrine that the States had 
 certain rights as against the Federal Government, and the other side 
 of this House held the doctrine that the States had no rights as 
 against the Federal Government. Now, sir, from my observation of 
 political parties, and of the divisions that have taken place upon this 
 question of State rights, I have not discovered that it can fairly be 
 said to be a liai-ty question. It is not a principle ; it is only a weapon, 
 and the weapon of the party that is in a minority in the coimtry. 
 The party that is out of power in the Federal Government is always 
 the party to assert and insist upon this doctrine of State rights, and 
 the party that is in power, whatever may be its professions, whatever 
 may be its platform, is more or less the party that always ignores or 
 overrides State rights. 
 
 Why, sir, it is in the memory of every member on this floor that 
 at the time of the enactment of the fugitive-slave law the party in 
 power, the democratic party, stretched the doctrine of Federal con- 
 trol over matters of that sort beyond what had been claimed as pos- 
 sible by the wlug party before that time. We all know that the State 
 of Massachusetts, then a repubUoan State, and the State of Wiscon- 
 sin, then arepublican State, andalmost every republican State through- 
 
out the North, hy thciir Legislatures, by their resolutions, and by the 
 directions they gave to their State oiBcials, insisted that the States 
 had rights as against the Federal Government which they would not 
 surrender. The question of what these rights are, or where the divid- 
 ing line shall be drawn in each particular instance, is not a pcflitiical 
 ciuestion, and ought never to be made a political question. It is a 
 question of good government and wise legislation as much as a ques- 
 tion of constitutional power; a question, independent of the limita- 
 tions of the Constitution, of what is the best jurisdiction and where 
 is the best legislative body to solve the various problems that arise 
 in the administration of public affairs throughout the United States. 
 It is a question how far the local governments are a better jurisdic- 
 tion to settle these questions than the Federal Government, and how 
 far the Federal Government is a better jurisdiction to settle these 
 questions than the local governments. Some powers, as a matter of 
 course, have been and must be conceded to the Federal Government, 
 because the Federal Government alone can properly exercise such 
 powers ; and wherever such powers are granted to the General Gov- 
 ernment by the Constitution, as a matter of course the legality and 
 constitutionality of their exercise are beyond question. But it does 
 not follow even then, Mr. Speaker, were it settled that the power is a 
 constitutional power, and that Congress had authority within the Con- 
 stitution to exercise a given power, that therefore it must exercise it 
 whenever anybody asks for its exercise ; or that any measure which 
 is not open to a constitutional objection is therefore wise and judi- 
 cious. 
 
 Now, sir, the question has been argued in this case by some who, 
 support this bill much as though the only point to be settled here was 
 the power of the Federal Government, or of the Congress of the United 
 States, to regulate interstate commerce ; as though, that point once 
 settled, there was no escape from an afSrmative vote on this bill. Now, ' 
 I do not see why there is any occasion to deny, for political reasons or 
 any other, or for the sake ef making an argument against this bill, that 
 the Federal Government has the same power and the same aiithority 
 to regulate interstate commerce that it has to regulate foreign com- 
 merce. The terms <of the grant in the Constitution are identical, and 
 of course the power must be the same in the one case as in the other. 
 But, sir, when you get beyond that, and proceed to consider what a 
 regulation of commerce is, and what the regulation of commerce is 
 that is proposed by this bill, and whether the propositions in this bill 
 do not antagonize and are not hostile to other provisions of the Con- 
 stitution, we meet at once, it seems to me, the very gravest and most 
 serious objection to the measure we are now co'nsidering. 
 
 The bill provides in general terms for the appointment of a com- 
 mission of nine persons, who shall have power, without any appeal 
 from their decison, except the appeal that is subsequentl y provided 
 for in the court, to determine what is a reasonable price f o r the trans- 
 portation of freight over any raUroad in the country that has athrough 
 connection. ■ 
 
 These prices, having been once established by this board, are to be 
 held, in all proceedings that may arise under them, as prima facie rea- 
 sonable rates to be charged upon these roads ; and the burden of proof 
 is thereafter to be put upon the roads, if they attemptto attack such 
 rates, to prove that they are less than a reasonable charge for trans- 
 portation of freight over such roads. 
 
 We have as a starting point in the Constitution this provision in 
 respect to the regulation of commerce. First, "Congress shall have 
 
power to regulate commerce among the several States.'' Very well. 
 Then there is a provision that by no regulation of commerce shall 
 preference be given to the ports of one State over those of another 
 iState. So it will be seen that we have really gained little or nothing 
 in determining what the power of Congress is in respect to the regu- 
 lation of Interstate commerce, when that power is conceded, inasmuch 
 as any exercise of that power must be sub.iect to all the limitations 
 expressedor imphedin other partsof the organic law, and is especially 
 subject to the limitation as to the preference of theijortsof one State 
 over those of another. And it is noticeable that the provision that 
 one port shall not have preference over another port by any regula- 
 tion of commerce is more imperative than the provision " that Con- 
 gress shall have power to regulate commerce ;" because one is per- 
 missive and not mandatory, the other is prohibitory. Here, then, is 
 one very significant limitation. What further? 
 
 I suppose no gentleman here will contend that any regulation of 
 commerce is not open to constitutional objectionwhichis not uniform, 
 and by that I mean uniform in its operations. I understand that the 
 Constitution does not in terms say that the regulations of commerce 
 must be uniform in their operation. Congress may make uniform 
 laws on the subject of bankruptcy; and certain legislation, like natu- 
 ralization laws and tariff laws, must be uniform by the express terms 
 of the Constitution. But I suppose no one will pretend for a moment, 
 although the word " uniform" is not used in the Constitution in that, 
 connection, that regulations of commerce need not necessarily be 
 uniform. In other words, there must be no injustice and no ine- 
 quality in any respect in any regulations of commerce adopted by the 
 Congress of the United States. All regulations must be alike. It 
 must be one law for all, one regulation for all. 
 
 For instance, it would be an unequal and unjust regulation of com- 
 merce if the Congress of the United States should declare that one 
 class of passenger-boats might run with greater pressure of steam to 
 the square inch than another class, because they were navigating 
 different waters or carried fewer passengers ; or to say that one class 
 of vessels should have one kind of accommodations for passengers, 
 and another, although similar, class of passenger-vessels should have 
 another kind. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Will it disturb the gentleman if 
 I ask him a question at this time ? 
 
 Mr. AVILLAED, of Vermont. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I desire to ask the gentleman 
 whether this provision requires a, uniform regulation? In regard to 
 quarantine, one regulation of commerce would be that the port of 
 Mobile or New Orloane, for instance, might be put in quarantine ; and 
 there might be another regulation that there was no occasion for 
 quarantine at Portland, Maine. That would be a regulation of com- 
 merce, but it would not be uniform. 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Averment. I agree with the gentleman, and for 
 the reason that in the case he puts the regulation would only be 
 applied to the ports where there was supposed to be need of it ; but 
 if the regulation was not applicable to every port in danger of infec- 
 tion it would not be uniform. It is not that if these commissioners 
 should establish freights for one railroad and should not establish 
 them for another, there would necessarily be a violation of what 
 ought to be uniformity in the regulation of commerce ; as it might 
 happen that some of these roads now charge such low rates that no 
 one would think of reducing them ; although the regulation would 
 
6 
 
 certainly lack uniformity if tlie law did not mate it applicable to all 
 tlie railroads of tlie country; and it -would besides be partial, un- 
 equal, and unjust. But in the very nature of tbe case the proposed 
 regulation cannot be umforna. It is, not one law for all, nor one price 
 for all, and cannot be. 
 
 Let me illustrate, and I wiU come to the other point in relation to 
 the ports of entry further on. . _ _ 
 
 I understand that this bill is based substantially on the Illinois 
 legislation upon this subject. As I understand, the commissioners 
 under the Illinois legislation, or the board, or whatever it is, that 
 settles the question there, have classed the various railroads in the 
 State of lUinois in proportion to the net profits of the business of the 
 road. For instance, the Chicago and Alton Eailroa,d is put into the 
 first class as a railroad that has |4,000 net profit per mile, while other 
 railroads doing a less profitable business are put in other classes. 
 There are, I think, four classes in all. They have determined in that 
 State that freights carried over the Chicago and Alton Eailioad 
 shall pay a certain price per ton per mile ; much less per ton, as I 
 understand, than the charge for freight that is carried over other 
 roads in the State which have not so large or profitable business. This, 
 I agree, is just as between these roads; but it does.not seem to me 
 that it can in any sense of the word be said to be a uniform regula- 
 tion. In other words, it seems to me, the objection is that, in the na- 
 ture of things, it is impossible to regulate rates without establishing 
 nearly as many different rates as there are difterent railroads. Can 
 this be a uniform regulation ? 
 
 Let me illustrate further. I suppose whatever else may have been in 
 the minds of those who framed that provision of the Constitution as to 
 the regulation of commerce, it was unquestionably contemplated that 
 the regulations could only be made by Congress in cases where no 
 other proper regulations could be made or established ; in other words, 
 where there was no other power competent to make regulations. Of 
 course interstate commerce, in the ordinary sense in which we speak 
 of it, can no more be regulated by one State than foreign commerce 
 can be regulated by one State ; we all understand that. Therefore, 
 if it is regulated at all, it must be regulated by the Federal Govern- 
 ment. But when we come to look at the question from the other 
 side and see an attempt made to regulate it in some specific way, 
 may we not say with great force that the fact that you cannot make 
 a uniform regulation, a regulation that will apply to all railroads alike 
 shows that no such regulation should be attempted? Is it not evi, 
 dent from this aspect of the question that no such regulation, was con- 
 templated by those who made the Constitution, since it is so manifest 
 that it must lack every element of uniformity ? 
 
 Mr. G. F. HOAR. Allow me to ask the gentleman whether a rule 
 of law providing that the charges for carrying freight or passengers 
 should reach only a reasonable sum, and no more, would not be uni- 
 form in every constitutional and legal sense, although the reasonable 
 sum might vary in each particular case ? 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. So far as that question is pertinent 
 to the discussion I will reply to it, although I was intending in another 
 part of my argument to make allusion to common carriers. 
 
 Mr. G. F. HOAR. My question relates directly to the point the 
 gentleman is now discussing.- 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, 
 that the regulation of rates of freight transported by common carriers 
 is based upon the power of governments to regulate commerce ; and 
 
I suppose that wlienever that regulation is resorted to, the sov- 
 ereign power resorting to it would have the right to decide arbitrarily 
 in the particular circumstances what should be the nature of the 
 measure adopted. 
 
 Jlr. 6. F. HOAR. The gentleman does not understand my point. 
 He is arguing that different railroads in different circumstances may 
 charge different rates for the same character of freight carried similar 
 distances ; and hence he urges that it is impossible for us to adopt a 
 regulation which shall be uniform. Now, my question is whether a 
 rule of law which should require the railroads in each specific case to 
 charge only a reasonable sum, and which should provide a means of 
 ascertaining the sum and enforcing the obligation, wpuld not be uni- 
 form within the meaning of the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. I think it clear that it would not be 
 uniform in the sense intended by the Constitution. The word "uni- 
 form " is not used in the Constitution in respect to the regulation of 
 commerce ; and I have suggested this as a serious difficulty, and because 
 it seemed to me to be a strong objection to any congressional inter- 
 ference with this matter, that it is quite impossiWe for Congress 
 to adopt any rule that will apply to any two railroads alike. A 
 reasonable rate cannot be a uniform rate, unless it is the same rate 
 for equal distances, anymore than a reasonable price for a commodity 
 to be sold in the market would be a uniform price when different 
 prices were fixed for the same commodity. 
 
 But, sir, let me call attention to the other provision of the Consti- 
 tution, that no regulation of commerce shall give any preference to 
 the ports of one State over those of another. Now, I hold that it is 
 utterly impossible for the provisions of this bill to be carried out 
 without bringing about precisely such a result ; in other words, it is 
 utterly impossible for nine men to attempt to regulate freights, how- 
 over h,onestly they may set about the work, without preferring one 
 port of the United States to another. 
 
 To illustrate : The city of Boston gets a large amount of freights 
 from the West, that come in part over the Grand Trunk Eaihvay 
 of Canada, and over the Central Vermont Railway in Vermont, or 
 by way of Portland ; and in summer partly by water, via Ogdens- 
 burgh. I apprehend that if an examination were made it would 
 be found that in fact the Erie Railroad, the New York Central, the 
 Pennsylvania Central perhaps, and the Baltimore and Ohio — those 
 roads which have the shortest lines, taken altogether, from the West to 
 the sea-board — fix the rates for the long lines ; and that the long lines 
 are obUged to agree to those rates, whatever they may be, because 
 otherwise they do not get the freight. Gentlemen living in New 
 England, especially those who reside in the vicinity of Boston, under- 
 stand that the Vermont Central line, which carries much of this 
 freight through my State to Boston, has been the line largely relied 
 upon by Boston merchants and shippers as their line of transportation 
 to and from the West. They have always felt a strong interest in it, 
 though not, perhaps, so strong as their interest in the Boston and 
 Albany road. What is the consequence ? They have put their money 
 largely into that road, and they have not expected large, if any, divi- 
 dends on their money so Invested, and certainly have not been dis- 
 appointed in that respect. They cared much more to get their freight 
 from the West to the sea-board cheaply, and from the sea-board back 
 to the West cheaply, than they did about getting dividends on the 
 §5,000, or $10,000, or $50,000 each that they might have put into that 
 corporation. The capital that they invested in it went out of sight 
 
8 
 
 ■svitWn five years after tlie building of the road, not by any dishonest 
 management of the road, but because its business "would not support 
 it ; because these Boston merchants insisted— and they insisted rightly, 
 and the managers of the road looked upon the matter much in the same 
 light — ^that freight should be brought over that line from the West 
 to Boston as cheaply as it couldbe brought to New York by the Erie and 
 New York Central roads. That road has carried freight right past 
 my town from Chicago to Boston, month after month, at twenty-five 
 cents per hundred pounds, the distance being more than a thousand 
 miles ; while we have been charged for the same classes of JEreight 
 from Montpelier, Vermont, to Boston, a distance of two hundred mUes, 
 from seventy-five cents to ninety cents per hundred pounds. Carry- 
 ing through freight in that way from the West to the sea-board, that 
 road has helped to build up Chicago and other towns of IlMnois, and 
 of States farther west; it has contributed vastly to their develop- 
 ment ; while we at home have been charged upon our local freights 
 as much for our short distances as has been charged to those who live 
 a thousand miles beyond us toward the Mississippi Eiver for the long 
 distances which separate them from the sea-board. 
 
 And yet this raOioad in my State was obliged to carry freight at 
 that rate because the New York Central and the New York and Erie 
 were carrying freight at that rate to Boston and New York, and in 
 order to help Boston trade, and Boston merchants who had put their 
 money into that road, they carried these freights for a good deal less 
 than cost from the West to the sea-board, and made up in some degree 
 their loss in that respect by charging to us at home who live along- 
 side that railroad five or six times as much, ay, ten or twenty times 
 as much per mile, as they charged these foreign shippers. Now, sir, 
 this is not right, but it is a matter which cannot be regulated by 
 statute. It will not be regulated, by this statute. That road will 
 have to carry freights at whatever price is fixed by the New York 
 Central or the New York and Erie, or it cannot get them' to carry. 
 And if this commission should fix the rate of freights at five miUs per 
 ton per mile, or less, over the New York Central and the New York 
 and Erie, the road in my State will have to carry them at the same 
 rate or it win not get the freights. What will be the result ? It will 
 carry at that rate, and possibly less than that rate, and then it will 
 turn around and grind us at home between the upper and nether mill- 
 stone. It will put the burden upon our local freights from town to 
 town in the State. It gives these low rates to foreigners, to persons 
 who live a thousand miles away from the line of the road, but as 
 compensation for it it charges higher rates upon us. There is no re- 
 dress. We could not have any redress if we tried. 
 
 A commission in Vermont would be obliged to say that this national 
 regulation is of superior right, if it has any right at all, and would be 
 compelled to allow our raih-oads to charge a larger rate for short dis- 
 tances and for local freights, that they might earn enough to pay 
 more than running expenses. They would be obliged, if a commis- 
 sion were estabUshed in my State on the same basis as the one in lUi- 
 noLS, to let these railroads charge exorbitant local rates in order that 
 they might thus compensate themselves for the loss on through freight 
 from distant points. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, I will consider how this regulation of rates of 
 freight will interfere with the constitutional prohibition against pre- 
 ferring the ports of one State over those of another by a regulation 
 of commerce. It seems to me to be apparent that such regulation as 
 is contemplated by the proposed legislation wiU inevitably bring 
 
about such a result. . Portland and Boston are farther from the Mis- 
 sissippi than New York or Baltimore, and are the termiui* therefore, 
 of the longer and less profitable lines of railroads. Rates, therefore, 
 from the West over these longer lines will be iixed at a larger maxi- 
 mum per ton per mile than over the shorter lines ; and as the bill f or- 
 hids discrimination in favor of one shipper and against another, the 
 longer and poorer lines will be obliged to reduce rates for all if they 
 reduce them for any customers. This they cannot do and leave any 
 margin for interest on their investments ; and as the shorter lines are 
 to be compelled to take all freight offered, the termini of these roads 
 will most certainly thus be preferred as points of shipment, or New 
 York, or Philadelphia, or Baltimore will have preference over Port- 
 land or Boston. The New York Central, the Pennsylvania Central, 
 the Baltimore and Ohio, while alio wed to charge less possibly than 
 now, could -still do a profitable business. They could carry freight, 
 doubling their capacity for that purpose i^ need be, and perhaps would 
 make more money than now, while these longer and less favored lines 
 would be driven from the business of carrying these long freights, 
 and could only transport the merchandise that might be shipped from 
 point to point along their roads. Is it not thus clear that you would 
 give preference to one port over another? And the same would be 
 true if you fixed the rates for freight and iDassengers from any foreign 
 port to the United States. Supi)0se, under some law similar to this 
 bill, the fare for passengers from Liverpool to Boston should be a cer- 
 tain amount, while that for passengers from Liverpool to New York 
 would be greater, the price being fixed by the mile ; passengers com- 
 ingfrom Liverpool to Baltimore, Savannah, or Charleston, the distance 
 being greater, would pay more still. Would not that regulation be 
 a regulation on the face of it which preferred one port to another ? 
 It seems to me clear that it would ; and yet it is inevitable that it 
 should be so in any attempt to regulate the matter of prices for trans- 
 portation. 
 
 Admitting that the commissioners will be as honest and intelligent 
 "entlemen as can be found in the United States, men who sincerely 
 desire to make a schedule of rates which shall be in all respects just 
 and reasonable, yet it would be impossible for them to do it without 
 making this preference of the ports of one State over those of another. 
 
 Mr. FORT. I ask my friend from Vermont whether in arranging a 
 schedule of rates the commissioners are bound to take into consid- 
 eration that distance regardless of all other considerations ' 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. It provides for fixing reasonable rates 
 ■which must be with respect to the distance. A long line which has 
 the least business will be allowed to charge larger rates, but shorter 
 lines like the New Yoit Central and Erie will be required to charge 
 less. Rates will be fixed on such lines so low that the longer lines 
 cannot carry except at rates much less than would be fixed as reason- 
 able for them. 
 
 Mr. FORT. They are not bound to do it. 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. They are not bound to do it, but they 
 will have to do it or not get the fi-eights. But as to these other 
 roads— indeed as to all roads— the bill contemplates a compulsory pro- 
 cess to compel them to carry freights at such rates as may be fixed. It 
 has been said in the course of the debate that the New York Cen- 
 tral had largely watered its stock, and its rates were adjusted with 
 reference to paying dividends on the whole of thatstock. The desire 
 of those urging this bill is to bring such roads down to hard-pan ; to 
 find out what was their actual cost, and to grade the price of freights 
 
10 
 
 on tliat actual cost and the running expenses, -wMcli we all under- 
 stand would bring the rates below what they nOw are on such roads. 
 Yet the long roads are now carrying their through freight in many 
 instances at less than cost, and if you cut down the rates on com- 
 peting roads they cannot except at ruinous sacrifices engage in 
 this competition, and the business must thus necessarily be diverted 
 from the long roads, thus bringing about as the result a preference 
 of one road to another, and as a con8ec[uence the preference of the 
 ports at the termini of such roads over the ports less favorably situated. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, I have been led by questions addressed to me a 
 little away from the order in which I proposed to discuss this bill ; 
 and inasmuch as I have so begun I may as well go on in this desultory 
 manner and speak of other considerations that have occurred to me 
 during, my examination of it. It has been argued that coimmon car- 
 riers must carry for a reasonable price, and that Congress may there- 
 fore, as a regulation of commerce, compel railroads to carry freight 
 at a reasonable price. Now, I have not been able to see any connec- 
 tion, so far as the constitutional power of regulating commerce is con- 
 cerned, between that and the law with respect to common carriers. 
 We cannot take charge of these railroads, we cannot regulate freights 
 upon these railroads because they are common carriers. This is not 
 the way we get the power, if we have it at all. We get the power of 
 regulation, so far as we have it at all, because they engage in com- 
 merce between the States ; and they may be engaged in tMs commerce, 
 not as common carriers, but quite independently of that, as express 
 companies, or in any other way. Our power comes from the pro- 
 vision of the Constitution to regulate <;ommerce. The question 
 whether they are common carriers has nothing to do with it ; ' nor has 
 the fact that at the time of the adoption of our Constitution the Par- 
 liament; of England had by statute fixed rates of freight over the 
 highways of the kingdom of Great Britain. The two powers are dis- 
 tinct, and should not be confounded in the consideration of this bill. 
 The only question is, is the measure embodied in this bill a proper ex- 
 ercise of the constitutional power of Congress to regulate commerce ; 
 and the analogies that are attempted to be found, therefore, in any 
 government regulation of common carriers, whether ancient or mod- 
 ern, are misleading, untrustworthy, and deceptive. 
 
 And so, sir, when the common law has been stated here in respect 
 to common carriers, it seems to me that that is not pertinent to 
 this inquiry. I have been unable to find any case which fully main- 
 tains the law that has been quoted here so often in respect to com- 
 mon carriers. I find enough dicta of the law writers to the efifect that 
 common carriers can only charge a reasonable rate; but I have been 
 unable to find a case where suit has been brought against them for 
 refusing in advance to carry goods at rates they had previously fixed. 
 Suits have been brought in many cases where they took the merchan- 
 dise and transported it without anything being said as to the price ; 
 and in the end the courts held that the price they exacted was too 
 large, and they were only allowed to retain what their services were 
 worth. But I have not been able to find a case, and none has been 
 cited, where that precise question has been before the court and it 
 has been denied that a railroad or other common carrier had a right 
 to make a contract or fix the price which it should receive for trans- 
 porting freight or passengers. And considering that, as is asserted, 
 this has been the law for a hundred years, it is singular that some 
 such case should never have arisen, and the courts should not have 
 settled lon^ ago that it was already within their x)rovince to regulate 
 
11 
 
 this matter of freiglit and tlie rates for carrying passengers on rail- 
 roads. 
 
 Mr. 6. F. HOAK. Does not tlie gentleman find in the ancient 
 English cases the declarations are very nnmerous that that is the 
 rale of law '! 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. I have found such declarations, but 
 I have always found the case to he something else. 
 
 Mr. G. F. HOAIi. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one 
 other question ? 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. G. F. HOAR. Has not the gentleman in his researches also 
 f oiind that it was the ancient English practice to regulate the charge 
 of the public carrier on merchandise by the court of sessions iixingm 
 advance his rates ? 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. O yes, Mr. Speaker; the English 
 Parliament passed a law providing that a certain commission, the 
 court of sessions I think it was, should regulate rates over the high- 
 ways of England. I so understand it. 
 
 Mr. G. F. HOAE. So that is it not true that when our Constitu- 
 tion was adopted our fathers found that the habit of fixing by a com- 
 mission the rates for puhho carriers for merchandise was an ancient 
 English regulation of commerce '? 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. My recollection is that this country 
 separated itself fcom Great Britain in a considerable degree because 
 it did not like English laws, and I have never supposed that they 
 adopted as laws in this country any laws other than those that the 
 courts might hold were just and proper. Now, I do agree that the . 
 Parliament of England had regulated freights by statute. I agree 
 that our State Le^latiu-es have power to regulate the price for 
 canying freights. The Parliament of England regulated many other 
 things ; they regulated the price of bread ; they granted monopolies ; 
 they regulated the price of grain in the earlier history of the country. 
 They considered that they had the prerogative to regulate almost 
 everything that subjects of the realm did. But I do not suppose, be- 
 cause they did such things, that we have the same power ; or if we had, 
 could wisely exercise it. I hope that we have got away from the 
 state and government regulations that used to'prevail in the earlier 
 history of civilization, and I should like some better precedents for 
 such a bill as this than the old English method of regulating by Par- 
 liament or royal decree everything which the subjects of that realm 
 might undertake to do. The law in regard to common carriers, where 
 there is no statutory regulation, is well settled ; but we all know that 
 our Legislatures are continually passing laws releasing to some ex- 
 tent common carriers from these ancient liabilities, releasing inn- 
 keepers from some of the old common-law liabilities, and allowing 
 them to make sijecial contracts in particular cases, limiting their lia- 
 bilities by notice to their customers. Our Legislatures have agreed 
 that they ought to he allowed by contract to limit their UabiLities ; 
 that A and B, as citizens of the country, are better able to settle their 
 own matters between themselves and determine what liabilities shall 
 rest upon each, than the Government is to settle the matter for them. 
 Indeed, sir, modern civilization, as I am glad to believe, is losing 
 faith in the sovereign virtue of legislative enactments to cure all 
 evils in the body-politic, and is, I hope, approaching the conclusion 
 that the best way to develop men or states is to give the individual 
 the greatest freedom consistent with order, and leave him to work 
 out tor himself his own destiny. 
 
12 
 
 Mr. Speaker, in. calling attention to two or three authorities on this 
 subject, in respect to whether a regulation of commerce can properly 
 be pushed to the extent provided tor in this bill, I shall be obhgedm 
 part to go over some of the ground which has already been traversed 
 by those who have preceded me in the debate, since the authorities 
 have been thoroughly examined and quoted very fully. I have one 
 or two authorities, however, which I have not seen referred to, and to 
 which I will call the attention of the House. 
 
 It has been asserted here that this right to regulate freights grows 
 out of the power to regulate commerce. I have discussed that to 
 some extent already, and have given some of the reasons why I do 
 not think the right exists to the extent claimed in this bill. I do not 
 think the authorities cited here in the argument go to the extent 
 asserted in this measure by any means ; in fact, the decisions of the 
 court upon this question, so far as they approach this particular 
 point, are. always adverse to the claim of those who advocate this 
 proposed legislation. In the Passaic Bridge case, which I believe has 
 not been referred to, the decision was rendered by Mr. Justice Grier. 
 The case, it will be remembered, was an action brought to remove a 
 bridge that had been built by the State authorities over the Passaic 
 Eiver. The court held that although it was an obstruction to com- 
 merce, yet they did not think it w.as such a bridge as the State had 
 not the power to erect in the absence of congressional legislation on 
 that subject. Mr. Justice Grier, in the course of an opinion printed 
 in 3 Wallace, uses this language : 
 
 Canals, turnpikes, Tjridges and railroads are as necessary to tlie commerce be- 
 tween and through the several States as rivers, yet Congress haa never pretended 
 to regulate them. "When a city is made a port oi entry, Confess does not thereby 
 assume to regulate its harbor, or detract from the sovereign rights before exercised 
 by each State over her own public rivers. Congress may establish post-offices and 
 post-roads ; but this does not aifect or control the absolute power of the State over 
 Its highways and bridges. If a State does not desire the accommodation of mails 
 at certain places, and will not make roads and bridges on which to transport them. 
 Congress cannot compel it to do so, or require it to receive favors by compnlsion. 
 Constituting a tpwn or city a port of entry is an act for the convenience and benefit 
 of such place and its commerce ; but for the sake of this benefit the Constitution 
 does not require the State to surrender her control over the harbor or the highways 
 leading to it, either by land or water, provided all citizens of the TJnitea States, 
 eiyoy the same privileges which are eiyoyed by her own. 
 
 Here the court say in very plain language that the power of the 
 State over its own canals, railroads, turnpikes, bridges, &c., is ex- 
 clusive, and that Congress gets no power over them to regulate them 
 in any way by virtue of the power to regulate commerce. 
 
 I accidentally came upon another authority, which has not been 
 presented to the House, and is not, I believe, in any printed volume 
 of reports. While looking over the letter of the Secretary of W»r 
 with a view to making up my mind in respect to what I ought to do 
 as a legislator here in regard to the Louisville and Portland Canal 
 project, now pending before the'House, I found an opinion delivered 
 by Mr. Justice Miller, who has been quoted on this floor as much as 
 any member of the Supreme Court of the United States as authority 
 in favor of congressional regulation of freights or tolls on railroads. 
 
 Now, if the House will be patient with me long enough to state as 
 briefly as possible what this case is, they will see the point of the 
 authority as I quote it. The Portland and Louisville Canal was 
 originally built by the State of Kentucky, or by a corporation created 
 by the State for the purpose, and tolls were allowed to be levied for 
 the use of the canal. Gradually the United States became the owner 
 of all the stock except five shares. After it had become the owner of 
 
13 
 
 suoli stock, application was made to Congress for leave to mortgage 
 the canal, issue bonds on that security, and go on enlarging and im- 
 proving it. Bonds were issued on the strength of that permission to 
 the amount of nearly |1,500,000, and the canal was mortgaged for that 
 purpose. Those bonds are still outstanding. After that the United 
 States made an appropriation for work on the canal, I thiuk ui 1872, 
 and I read an extract from that appropriation bUl : 
 
 For continuing t.he work on tlie canal at tlie Falls of the Ohio Pjver, ^300,000. And 
 the Secretary of "War in hereby directed to repoi-t to Congress at its next session, or 
 sooner, if practicable, the condition of said canal, and the provisions necessary to 
 relieve the same from incumbrance, with a view to such legislation as will render 
 the same free to commerce at the earliest practicable period, subject onl.y to such 
 tolls as may he necessary for the superintendence and repair thereof, wliich shall 
 not, after the passage of this act, exceed iivo cents per ton. 
 
 I ask gentlemen to mark the phraseology of this provision, "sub- 
 ject to such tolls as may be necessary, &c., which shall not, after the 
 passage of this act, exceed five cents per ton." This is the first instance 
 I have found of legislation by Congress to regulate the rate of freight. 
 Here was 5m act of Congress providing that after a certain time tolls 
 on this canal should not exceed five cents per ton. 
 
 Now, what followed ? The United States proposed to go on and 
 make the improvement under this appropriation. The persons inter- 
 ested in the bonds issued by the canal company filed a petition 
 before Mr. Justice Miller, asking to have the United States enjoined 
 from going on with the work, and setting forth as a reason for the 
 injunction that if they accepted this appropriation under the terms 
 of the act they would be bound by this limitation of the rates of toll 
 per ton to be levied upon the commerce that might pass through that 
 canal. They asked for an injunction on that ground, in order that 
 the security for their bonds might not be impaired. Mr. Justice Mil- 
 ler went over the ground somewhat at length, holding that the rights 
 of the parties would not be imperiled in the least by allowing the work 
 to proceed. He then used tliis language : 
 
 The argument is, therefore, not without force, that Congress meant, when they 
 said such tolls should not exceed five cents per ton after the passage of this act, 
 such act as they contemplated in future to pass to satisfy or remove that incum- 
 hrance. 
 
 Suggesting that Congress did not mean that the toll should be reg- 
 ulated at five cents per ton after the passage of the act of appropri- 
 ation, but only after the passage of some subsequent act, he then 
 goes on to say : 
 
 It must be confessed that the language is not after this construction, and that in 
 their caution the directors might have well supposed that Congress intended to 
 Umit the tolls at once to five cents per ton. 
 
 If this construction of the statute be correct, then I have no hesitation in saying 
 that that part of it which so limits the tolls is void, for the plain reason that it is a 
 legislative attempt to destroy vested rights and a taldug of private property for 
 public use without due compensation. 
 
 I think I have shown that the prosecution of this work is for the benefit and 
 advantage of all concerned ; that it does not seriously interfere with the ordinary 
 use of the canal, and that the accomplishment of the work will neither confer on 
 ConCTCSs the right to regulate the toll nor validate the attempt already made to do 
 so, if Congress really intended to make such attempt. 
 
 Now that is the only authority, to my knowledge, which goes to 
 the very question whether Congress has power to regulate the price 
 for carrying freight when that regulation might impair vested rights. 
 
 Mr. HAWLEY, of Illinois. Will the gentleman permit me to ask 
 him one question right here, if it does not interrupt him too much f 
 
 :Jlr. WILLAED, of Vermont. It is only a question of time. If I 
 
14 
 
 can have my time extended so tliat I can go a little beyond tlie hour, 
 I do not object to interruptions. ■ .„ , ^ 
 
 Mr. HAWLEY, of Illinois. I wish to ask the gentleman it he does 
 not know that Mr. Justice Miller has decided in regard to railroads 
 that Congress has power.to regulate the prices which railroads shall 
 charge for freights ? 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of "Vermont. I do not understand that he has so 
 decided. 
 
 Mr. HAWLEY, of Illinois. I so understand. 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. I do not understand that any such 
 decision has been made or has been quoted in this debate. In the 
 Clinton Bridge case, which has b6eu quoted here, Mr. Justice Miller 
 decided that Congress had the same power to regulate commerce by 
 railroad that it had to regulate any other commerce. But he did not 
 in any other particular touch the question of the regulation by Con- 
 gress of the rates of freight to be charged by raih-oads. 
 
 Mr. HAWLEY, of Illinois. I understand he did go to that extent. 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. Do you understand that it was so in 
 the Clinton Bridge case ? 
 
 Mr. HAWLEY, of Illinois. I do. 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. That is a case familiar to almost 
 every gentleman in the House. I- have read the case several times, 
 and I have not seen that point touched upon. I do not understand 
 that it was touched at all. The only question decided in that case 
 was, whether the power to regulate commerce among the States 
 authorized Congress to validate or legalize a bridge over the Mis- 
 sissippi; and the court held that Congress had that power. The 
 point that Mr. Justice Miller did discuss and decide, was, that Con- 
 gress had the same power to regulate commerce by railroads as to 
 regulate commerce on navigable waters. I suppose the right to be 
 precisely the same in the two oases. 
 
 Mr. TEEMAIlSr. As this is a new question to me, I would like to 
 put an inquiry to the gentleman. In his judgment, would there not 
 he a distinction between the case he cites and the cases relied on by 
 the other side, for the reason that in this case there was no inter- 
 state commerce involved; for, as I understand, a mere local canal 
 was in question. 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. The question could not have arisen 
 in that form, because almost all of this commerce is interstate com- 
 merce. It is the commerce jiassing up and down the Ohio Eiver. 
 There is not a vessel going through that canal that does not go 
 through more than one State. The question did not seem to be 
 pressed on either side as to whether it was a proper regulation of 
 commerce. I only quote the authority of Mr. Justice Miller here upon 
 the point squarely raised, that an attempt to regulate the tolls over 
 that canal could not be enforced because it would be a disturbance of 
 vested rights. 
 
 This leads me to speak of one other point that has arisen in this 
 debate. It seems sometimes to be assumed in the discussion of this 
 question, as in the discussion of some other questions on this floor, 
 that the Congress of the United States can impair the obligation of a 
 contract ; that, for instance, if I happen to owe the gentleman from 
 MaBsachusetts, [Mr, Butler,] who sits in front of me,|500, which I 
 have by promissory note agreed to pay him in one year, Congress can 
 pass a law declaring me free and exempt from that contract ; and that 
 he shall not afterward have the power to enforce the contract in a 
 court of law. Now, Mr. Speaker, I suppose that if this doctrine has 
 
15 
 
 any autliority -whatever, it must rest on the idea tliat the Congress 
 of the United States is not bound by the same rules of honesty, jus- 
 tice, honor, and uprightness that ought to govern any other legisla- 
 tive body. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that no prohibition on the passage 
 of a law impairing the obligation of contracts or destroying vested 
 rights is put in the Constitution, except in one of the amendments 
 where it stands undoubtedly as a prohibition, providing that private 
 property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, 
 feut I understand the courts have always held, when that question 
 was presented squarely, that the Congress of the United States has 
 no more power to impair the validity of a contract than a State 
 Legislature has. They have held, to be sure, that where Congress, in 
 the pi-oper exorcise of some power conferred upon it, has enacted a 
 law that might in some remote degree impair the validity of a con- 
 tract, such legislation would not for that reason be unconstitutional. 
 But wherever the question has been presented, I have no doubt they 
 have held, and would liold, as Mr. Justice Miller held In this case, 
 that there is no power in Congress any more than in a State to divest 
 the vested rights of individuals, except by giving just compensation 
 therefor. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I am arguing this ease with reference to the rights 
 of railroads, not because I like railroad management ; for every in- 
 stinct of my nature, every impulse of my being is on the side of the 
 people in any controversy they may have with railroads. I will go 
 as far as any man in any measure which can be shown to be safe and 
 wise and constitutional, to put limitations upon these railroads. But, 
 sir, supposing this bill is j)assed, what does it accomplish ? It pro- 
 vides that these railroads shall charge only reasonable rates of freight. 
 Now, how do these railroads exist ? They come into operation, every 
 one of them, (except the few that have been chartered under con- 
 gressional authority,) by virtue of some State grant ; and tliey have 
 no rights or powers except those conferred upon them by that legis- 
 lative enactment. A railroad chartered in Massachusetts cannot do 
 any act except what the law creating it allows it todo. It cannot 
 even engage in interstate commerce, unless its charter allows it to do 
 so. It cannot carry a pound of freight out of the State nor bring a 
 pound of freight into the State if the Legislature has prohibited it 
 from doing so. It is an artificial person in every sense of the word. 
 It has no existence whatever except the existence given to it by 
 the State authority. The measure of its existence, its stature, its 
 dimensions, its x^owers, are derived whoUy from the State Legislature. 
 You cannot by congressional enactment give it any power nor take 
 from it any power. If at the outset, any powers granted to it were 
 in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, of com-se 
 it could not exorcise those powers, and the original grant would be 
 void to that extent, but in all other respects its cjiarter is the law and 
 reason of its existence. 
 
 Mr. FORT. WUl the gentleman indulge me in one more question? 
 I desire to ask him whether, in his opinion, a State can charter a 
 comijany with the power to do business outside of the State — to run 
 a steamboat, for instance, in carrying conuueroe from State to State 
 in violation of the laws of Congress? 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. I agree with the gentleman entirely 
 that the law of the State has no extraterritorial force. Whatever 
 powers a corporation exercises outside of the limits of the State cre- 
 ating it, it exercises wholly by theoonsent of the State wherein it may 
 exercise such powers. It does not exercise them by virtue of the 
 original grant, or by virtue of the laws of the State creating it. 
 
16 
 
 The point I mate is that the power, the rights, and the duties of 
 such corporations are created and defined by the State law, and can- 
 not, therefore, be afterward defined or bounded or limited by any 
 national legislation, without interfering not only with the right of 
 the State to control and govern them, but with the right of the 
 corporations to enjoy undisturbed the privileges which a State has 
 given to them and has never withdrawn. 
 
 There cannot be any concurrent control. The State control 
 excludes the Federal, as the-Federal woiild, if exercised, exclude the 
 State. And this regulation of rates of freight will thus tate.from 
 these roads a right given to them absolutely by their charters, to con- 
 tract with shippers upon such terms as may be agreed upon for the 
 transportation of commodities ; yet this right, as against_ the Fed- 
 eral Government, has become by all rules of law a vested right. 
 
 Besides, the power to fix a reasonable price involves the power to 
 fix any price and compel compliance. It may be fixed so_ low as to 
 destroy the value of the property, and yet there can be no'rediess. 
 
 Indeed it is no more beyond the power of Congress to say that rail- 
 roads shall carry freight for nothing than it is beyond its power to 
 make this bill a law, because the courts have frec[uently said, as they 
 said in the case of the taxation of United States securities, if we grant 
 the power at all we must grant it to the fullest extent ; if we grant 
 the power to regulate these freights at all, then the power resides in 
 the Congress of the United States to regulate them absolutely, and 
 they may iix them as low as they please, and then make it compulsory 
 on the roads to carry freights at the price thus fixed. That is what 
 this bill does. The bill says if the rates are fixed it shall in effectbe 
 a crime for any road to charge more ; that if a railroad shall charge 
 any more than these rates, or shall refuse to carry freights at these 
 rates, such road shall he punished by exacting of it a heavy penalty. 
 You have established the power in Congress, if this bill is held to be 
 constitutional, not only to fix these rates arbitrarily at whatever it 
 may see fit, but you provide a penalty for failure to abide by such 
 schedule of rates. 
 
 The SPEAKEE. The gentleman's time has expired. 
 
 Mr. BUTLEE, of Massachusetts. I hope the gentleman will be 
 allowed to conclude his speech. 
 
 There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. Now, sir, I wish to call the attention 
 of the House to what Mr. Justice Strong says in the case of the State 
 freight-tax, as that decision has been relied on as authority for the 
 legislation here asked for. It was especially urged as a reason why 
 the tax in that case was not unconstitutional that to hold it to be so 
 would be to hold that a State could not tax the franchise of a corpo- 
 ration created by its legislation, nor even charge tolls upon any rail- 
 road or highway of which it might be the owner, as such tax or such 
 tolls would be either immediately or remotely a tax upon interstate 
 commerce. 
 
 Mr. Justice Strong held, however, distinctly that there was no 
 power in Congress to regulate freights under the guise of a regulation 
 of commerce. He says : 
 
 That this arsiTment rests upon a misconception of the statute is to our minds 
 very evident, we concede the right and power of the State to tax the franchises of 
 its corporations, and the rights of the owners of artificial highways, wliether such 
 owners be the Sfcate or grantees of franchises from the State, to'exact what thev 
 please for the use of their ways. 
 
 Now, that is a plain declaration; and, so far as that case goes and 
 
17 
 
 is autliority for anylhirg, it is a concession that the question of 
 freight charges is entirely beyond the control of Congress and can- 
 not be enacted here as a regulation of commerce. The court say 
 that the riglit to fix rates of freight is " an attribute of ownership," 
 as it very clearly is. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, so far as there are any authorities which touch 
 this point at all. so far as the courts have gi%^eu utterance to any 
 opinions as to fetate regulation and congressional regulation on the 
 subject of rates, we find theyhave invariably decided, as 5Ir. Justice 
 Miller decided in the Louisville and Portland Canal case, and as was 
 decided in the case to which I have just called the attention of the 
 House, that the right to fix the price of freight is an attribitte of 
 ownership and not an attribute of sovereignty, and certainly is not 
 included in the congressional power to regulate commerce. 
 
 Some one may say, how then can a State control freight charges ? 
 The State gets that right, not by reason of power to regulate com- 
 merce in the State at all, but it gets it by reason of its sovereignty 
 and control over the thing in all of its aspects. It created and char- 
 tered the corporation, and of coiu'se it can regulate the corporation. 
 It can put limits to it. It can appoint what it shall do and what it 
 shall not do. The fact <5f the power does not rest on the right of the 
 State to regulate commerce, but on its sovereign power over the arti- 
 ficial person existing only by virtue of its clreative act, and which 
 must therefore necessarily be subject to every regulation which it 
 may see fit to make. 
 
 Mr. HAWLEY, of Connecticut. If the charter has been granted 
 without reservation of right to alter or control it, how does tlie gen- 
 tleman get in the State Legislature the right to regulate rates which 
 may result, as he has argued, in practically killing the charter ? 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. That difficulty has occurred, I sup- 
 jiose, to every gentleman who has considered this matter. It is a dif- 
 ficulty, it will be observed, that may bo equally urged against con- 
 gressional legislation. 
 
 Mr. HAWLEY, of Connecticut. I know that. 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. And if, as against that objection, a 
 State cannot regulate this, so neither can Congress. I am not ready 
 to go the length to which some gentlemen go in holding that the 
 Dartmouth College decision was broad enough to take from the'State 
 the control of rates of freight when it had given a charter without 
 fixing particular rates. It appears to me that the sovereign power of 
 the State, except so far as rights may have vested under a grant and 
 which are technically called vested rights, cannot give away this 
 control so as to pnt it out of the power of a subsequent Legislature. 
 If the Legislature of Connecticut should grant a charter to a rail- 
 road — there having been no raUroad in that State before^-with a 
 provision in the charter that the Legislature of the State would not 
 at any subsequent time grant a chaxter to any other railroad in the 
 State, it would follow, by the logic and authority by which some reach 
 the conclusion based on the Dartmouth College case, that such a pro- 
 vision would bind all future Legislatures and prevent the State feom 
 granting a charter for another railroad ? But I apprehend that no 
 court would hold that auy Legislature could bind its successors to that 
 extent. And if a Legislature caimot do that, cannot bind its suc- 
 cessors by such a provision, it seems to me very doubtful if they can 
 bind them by simply neglecting to put in the grant a reservation of 
 control over the charter. But I simply suggest this, and I should not 
 feel bound after a further examination of the authorities to stand byit 
 •2 TV 
 
18 
 
 as a correct statement of the law. But tMs is true, I understand, of 
 all the more recently chartered railroads ; they have all, 6r nearly 
 all of theip, that reservation either in the charter itself, or the con- 
 stitution of the State makes provision for it. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Was not that question decided 
 definitely by the Supreme Court in the Charles Eiver and Warren 
 Bridge case ? 
 
 Mr. TKEMAESr. That you could pass a suhsoquent act. changing 
 the charter? 
 
 Mr. BUTLEE, of Massachusetts. That another bridge might be 
 placed alongside of the former one. 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. That case was for the momisnt out 
 of my mind, and I am obliged to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
 for calling my attention to it. It is a case where the Legislature con- 
 sidered that they had the power to authorize another bridge to be put 
 alongside the one previously chartered, and the law was held valid. 
 
 But I miist pass on from this ^aew of the case, and I apologize to 
 the House for occupying so much of its time ; although I find that 
 I have necessarily to pass over much that I had intended to say. I 
 wish to get at another view of the question, which seems to me the 
 more practical one. I understand most of the grievances of which 
 complaint is made here do not have • reference to through freight. 
 For instance, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Wilson] in the speech 
 he made on this question, and in which he arrayed statistics which 
 are really very valuable in its discussion, stated as one grievance that 
 the railroads of Iowa.would not carry freights from the interior of 
 that State to the Mississippi Kiver — a transportation wholly within 
 the State, the railroads of course being chartered by the State and 
 being under State control — at the saine rates per ton per mile as if 
 shipped from Omaha or Davenport to New York City. And the gen- 
 tleman insisted that we should regulate the rates here by congres- 
 sional legislation ; thatwe should provide that the railroads of the 
 State of Iowa — railroads which are wholly, within that State, subject 
 to State control — shall carry freight from the iuterior of that State 
 •to the Mississippi Eiver, there to be delivered to the steamers to be 
 taken down the river, at the same rates per ton per mile for which 
 they, would carry them to New York City. 
 
 Now, such aregulation would be held unreasonable in the judgiuent 
 of every gentleman present; butwhetherreasonableorunreasonabie,it 
 is a matter in the control of the State. I observe that the gentleman 
 from Massachusetts [Mr. Butler] shakes his head. I suppose he is 
 thinking of the decision which was brought into this discussion in 
 the Daniel Ball case, which was quoted by the gentleman from Michi- 
 gan, [Mr. Burrows,] whom I do not now see in his seat; where the 
 court held — though I doubt whether they would ever hold so again 
 if the case were fully presented and argued before them— that any 
 package started anywhere in the State and destined to a point out of 
 the State, or brought from outside the State into the State, was inter- 
 state commerce, and was to be regulated by congressional legislation, 
 and there could be no State control over it. Of coxirse it cannot be 
 regulated so far as putting any tax upon it by the State is concerned, 
 or any prohibition as to its being brought into the State, or anything 
 of that sort. But it occui-s to me as a great stretch of the doctrine 
 on the part of Mr. Justice Field in that case, when he said that a 
 steamer running whoUy within the State of Michigan, on the Grand 
 Eiver, and taking on board goods destined for a point outside the 
 State, must have a license under the United States law. He had 
 
19 
 
 in a former part of the opinion said that the vessel must have a 
 license, Ijccause the river was a navigable water of the United States, 
 This being so, the other point did not need to be decided, as the United 
 States statute, in terms, requires all vessels employed on navigable 
 waters to have a license; and the dictum of the judge may therefore 
 fairly be considered as out of the case. 
 
 But the point I make is this : the railroads, as I have ah'eady said, are 
 the creatures of the Spates, and the State can fix the rates of freight if 
 any power can fix them on those railroads. It can fix them just as 
 much oh freights going out of the State or brought into the State as 
 on freights delivered from point to point in the State. It can, doubt- . 
 less, prohibit a railroad from bringing freight into the State or taking 
 freight out of the State. It certainly can say that whatever freight 
 is taken up at any point shall be carried for so much per ton per 
 mile over its road. In this respect it makes no difference that the 
 line has been leased to foreign coi-porations, because the foreign cor- 
 poratipns take no greater rights under such lease than are possessed 
 by the company making the lease. I have no doubt the State can 
 regulate rates on railroads in the State, provided such regulations do 
 not conflict with a fair interpretation of the law as expounded in 
 the Dartmouth College case. It can charter a corporation for a spe- 
 cific purpose, and it can limit that corporation in its work to that 
 specific purpose ; and having done so, the corporation has no right to 
 violate that law, and if it does so, it forfeits its charter. 
 
 But in calling attention to the suggestion made by the gentleman 
 from Iowa [Mr. Wilson] I had in my mind also a suggestion made 
 by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Huklbut.] 
 
 Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I think the gentleman misunderstood me. 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. As I understood the gentleman from 
 Iowa, he made the objection that the railroads of Iowa would not 
 carry freights from the interior to the Mississippi River at the same 
 rate per ton per mile as freights are carried from Omaha to New York 
 City. 
 
 Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That is not quite all. If the gentleman 
 will allow me, I will explain what I did say. 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. The gentlemaii wiU excijse me now. 
 If I have misapprehended his point, I certainly did not intend to do 
 him injustice. 
 
 Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. It will talie me but a moment. The point 
 I desired to make was that the discrimination in freight from the 
 interior of the State to the river was so very great that nothing could 
 stop at the river. 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Vei-mont. I meant to say that the gentleman 
 complained of the charges from the interior of the State to the river. 
 The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hurlbut] said that it cost as much 
 to take up freight at Belvidere, his own home, and carry it to Chicago, 
 seventy-five miles, as to take up similar freight at Omaha,*four hun- 
 dred miles away, and bring it through Belvidere and deliver it in 
 Chicago. I have no doubt that is so ; but it is a matter which the 
 State of Illinois can regulate andhas undertaken to regulate, although 
 I understand that the regulation does not work to the satisfaction of 
 any one but the railroad corporations. 
 
 Mr. FORT. They are not satisfied. 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. The people are certainly not satisfied 
 whether the raUroads are or are not. But the Chicago and Alton Rail- 
 road Company is maldng more money than ever before, and the peo- 
 ple at competing points are complaining because they are charged 
 
20 
 
 more for freight now than they were formerly for the same distance, 
 while there is no relief for those doing business at non-competing 
 points. 
 
 Let me suggest another difficulty. There are several railroads that 
 connect with railroads outside of the United States. The Vermont 
 Central Railroad connects with the Grand Trimli Railroad. The 
 Grand Trunk Railroad lies partly in Vermont and partly in New 
 Hampshire, and partly in Maine, hut it has the larger portion of its 
 line in Canada, and then it connects with the Michigan Central Rail- 
 road at the other end. The New York Central Railroad connects with 
 the Great "Western Railroad and with other roads in Canada. Now, 
 how are you going to regulate freights brought from Canada over 
 those roads ? How are you going to regulate freights carried from 
 Cliicago to Port Sarnia, and then over the Grand Trunk Railway to' 
 Rouse's Point, and then over the Vermont Central and other lines to 
 Boston ? Part of the line is entirely beyond your jurisdiction, and you 
 cannot regulate the rate of freights in anyway on that portion of the 
 line. You may say that the Vermont Central RaUroad shall not carry 
 through freight and charge more than a certain amount per ton per 
 mile ; but that road is forced to make connection with a foreign cor- 
 poration, over which you have no power, and concerning which you cam 
 say nothing. And yet it really derives a l^ge portion of its business 
 from that foreign railroad, or that which comes over the lakes by way 
 of Ogdensburgh to Rouse's Point. Now, here you have a difficulty 
 which is insurmountable. You cannot regulate the freights shipped 
 in that way. 
 
 But what more? This bill in terms is applicable to through lines. 
 I confess I do not quite understand the phraseology of the bill, or how 
 far this matter of through lines is expected to reach. There are over 
 four hundred railways in the United States, according to the latest 
 statistics, and if you regulate through freights you have to regulate 
 them upon every road. There may be a small road in Massachusetts, 
 perhaps only five miles long, and yet it may take up freight to be de- 
 livered in San Francisco. A short piece of road in Vermont may 
 take up freight to be delivered in New Orleans. How are you going 
 to fix the rates of freight on that ? By what measure will you esti- 
 mate it ? How can you fix the rates upon that little road wHch does 
 not carry freight enough to pay running expenses, and which is built 
 mainly for the purpose of developing the resources of some particular 
 locality, the marble or slate interest of my State, or some manufac- 
 turing interest in some other State — ^how are you going to regulate 
 its charges when it takes up a car of freight to be delivered a thou- 
 sand miles away, jpart of which charge may be going to another 
 road which may have a higher or a lower rate ? It may have to be 
 shipped over a dozen dififerent roads before it gets to its destination, 
 and the rates of freight to be fixed by this commission over those roads 
 may not be alike on any two of them. Then how are you going to 
 regulate rates on this little road, supposing you have the power? 
 This only shows one of the difficulties which it seems to me must 
 lead one to believe that the power does not exist. 
 
 Mr. G. r. HOAR. These rates are now fixed by the roads them- 
 selves. The bill provides, in the first place, that where the schedules 
 aje satisfactory from one point to another these commissioners need 
 not interfere. They are not bound to establish schedules for every 
 small or every large line in the country. In point of fact the rates of 
 freight are now fixed by conventions of raOroad superintendents and 
 made known to the public in all cases, j^s the gentleman knows 
 
21 
 
 Why is it, then, more difficult for these uLne commissioners, on an 
 appeal, to give their schedule, than it is for the railroad officials to 
 give theirs ? 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. I do not understand that to he so, as 
 a matter of fact. I do not understand that a little road in toy State, 
 which may only operate ten miles, is ohliged to conform its rates to 
 the schedule adopted hy the New York Central EaUroad. 
 
 Mr. G. F. HOAJJ. If the little railroad ten miles long takes freight 
 at one end of its road and leaves it at another, and has no husiness 
 arrangement with the long road, it does not come within this bill at 
 all. 
 
 Mr. WILLAEI), of Vermont. I do not know whether it comes in 
 terms within this bill. 
 
 Mr. G. F. HOAR. Allow me to finish the sentence, if you please. 
 If it is doing business as part of a line from State to State, if it is in 
 partnershiiJ with other roads which with it makeup th.it line, then 
 the line establishes and makes known to the public the rate of freight. 
 This bill provides that any person interested may appeal to these 
 commissioners; that the commissioners may revise the schedule, and 
 then, not that the revised schedule is binding upon the road, but if 
 anybody claims in court that the railroad is charging an unreasonable 
 price, the fact that the price charged exceeds that of the schedule re- 
 vised by the commissioners is prima fade evidence of unreasonable- 
 ness, and the road must show that the schedule is wrong. 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. I und.erstand that is the object of 
 the bill; but I do not understand that the bill is limited to fixing 
 rates of freight on what may be called through lines. 
 
 Mr. G. F. HOAR. It is very careful in that particular. 
 
 Mr. WILLAED, of Vermont. In point of fact if it does not reach 
 through freights, whether taken up by short and independent Hues 
 or by those having through arrangements, it fails to reach the chiei 
 source of difficulty. If it does not affect local freights which are to 
 be taken up to be delivered perhaps at the end of the line, then to be 
 shipped to some other State, it does not remedy the evil complained 
 of. For instance, in my State there is a short line of railroad con- 
 nected with the marble and slate quarries. The complaint is that that 
 short piece of road charges more than it ought to, and that if there 
 was a comi)eting line freight could be shipped cheaper than it can be 
 now. That road does not connect with the New York Central road 
 by a pro rata arrangement, nor with the Vermont Central, nor with 
 the water-line ; but it takes up freight at a stipulated price and carries 
 it to the end of its line, and it is of its rates that complaint is made. 
 
 Mr. 6. F. HOAR. To be delivered in Vermont? 
 
 Mr. WILLARD, of Vermont. I do not know whether it delivers 
 its freight in Vermont or in some other State at the end of the line 
 over which it has control. 
 
 I call attention now to another difficulty in bringing the prices for 
 transportation of freights to any arbitrary standard. 
 
 I have here the fifth annual report of the railroad commissioners 
 of Massachusetts, and I call the attention of members to the differences 
 in the earnings and expenses of those roads. Mr. Adams reports that 
 there are nineteen roads in Massachusetts, the average receipts of 
 whicli are |14,000 per mile ; the amount varying from $2,000 on the 
 Duxbury and Cohasset road, to $36,000 on the Boston and Albany 
 road; that the cost of operation amounts to |10,000 a mile on the 
 averaup, the cost on some roads being much greater than on others ; 
 and tiie rates of freight varied from 1.01 cents per ton for long dis- 
 
22 
 
 taaoes to one dollar per ton for short distanoee. Is it not apparent to 
 any one -who knows anything about railroads, where so many ele- 
 ments are to he taken into account and such widely different rates 
 must be established, that you cannot fix these rates by any regula- 
 tions that may be in the least uniform, tou must take eveij one ot, 
 the four hundred and sixteen roads in the United States and hx th,e 
 freight on each one of them, and they will vary from on* cent per 
 ton to one doUar per ton per mile, as is seeu in this statement of the 
 Massachusetts roads ; and he who supposes that any good to any one 
 can come out of any such attempted regulation must have a much 
 greater faith in the power of legislation than I have. 
 
 Most of these roads have been built for the purpose of developing 
 the country ; in many cases — as in my own State — by taxation on 
 towns. A road has recently been put in operation in Vermont to 
 which the town in which I reside gave $200,000, and we are now 
 charged more than 1 per cent, as a tax each year to pay the interest on 
 the bonds we issued to raise that money. The road does not now, and 
 will not for years, pay any dividends on the stock for which we sub- 
 scribed ; and if it pays the interest on its mortgage-bonds, it will do 
 better than I dare hope. 
 
 We shoiild be glad of any legislation that will enable it to earn a 
 fair interest on its cost ; but I do not understand that the framers of 
 this bill propose to make unprofitable roads profitable. Instead of 
 tliat, they propose to make them less profitable than now, and put far- 
 ther away the day when such roads as this, helped by my town, can 
 make any returns to the stockholders whose hard-earned money has 
 made it possible to build that public highway. , 
 
 But that road has increased the value of proj^erty all along the line. 
 The subscriptions made to it by many towns are supposed to be no 
 more in amount than the benefit to those particular towns ; and I sup- 
 pose such has been the case. It has been running, and will run for 
 years, not making a cent of dividend on the stock. It wiU. probably 
 never do so. The dividends, if it makes any at all, will be only pay- 
 ments of interest on the bonds; and it is not at all unlikely that in a 
 few years it will fall into the hands of the bondholders. The case is 
 the same, I venture to say, with the great majority of railroads in the 
 country. No money put into investments within the last twenty years 
 in this country has turned out so unprofitably for the investors as the 
 money put into railroads; and no money invested anywhere has been 
 so profitable to the country as the money invested in railroads. It 
 has made the western country rich. It has filled it with population. 
 Illinois is to-day where but for railroads it would not have been per- 
 haps for twenty years to come. Eailroads have brought every f aim 
 in that State within reach of ^ market. Thus the western country 
 has been developed until it is now not only the granary of this coun- 
 try, but almost the granary of the world. 
 
 Of course, this is no excuse or justification for extortionate charges 
 by the railroads. It is no excuse or justification for the fraud and cor- 
 ruption that have existed in the management of railroads. But it is 
 a reason why men who have honestly put their money into railroads 
 should at least have the same rights in legislation as men who have 
 put their money into any other enterpi'ise. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, whi^e apologizing to the House for detaining it 
 so long, I desire to call attention to one other point with which I will 
 close. It has been said once or twice in the course of this debate that 
 since the war w'e ought not to hear anything in support of the " heresy 
 of State rights; " that the war has ia some way transformed this Gov- 
 
23 
 
 ernment into a different government from what it was before. Sir, I 
 am glad to know tlmt the country is somewhat different from what it 
 was before the war. I am glad to know that through reconstruction 
 some substantial benefits have been produced. I am glad to know 
 that the Federal Govemraentj through that reconstruction, has more 
 power to-day to protect the rights of citizens, to secure equal rights 
 throughout the United States, than it had before the war. Yet I 
 cannot understand how the power to regulate commerce has been in 
 any way affected by this change. I am at a loss to understand how 
 any provision of the Constitution that has not been modified by the 
 thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments, has been changed 
 in the least, has had anything taken out of it or anything put into it, 
 by reason of the war. 
 
 But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the war has done and what 
 those amendments have done. They have put more liberty into the 
 Constitution of the United States and more freedom into this Gov- 
 ernment. What is liberty and what is freedom? Slavery was the 
 power in a man or in a government to say what my work or your 
 work should be wortji, or whether we should have 'anything for it 
 besides our food and clothing. Slavery was the power in a man or a 
 government to make muscle its servant, at whatever price that gov- 
 ernment or that man might say it should work. Freedom means 
 your right and my right and the right of every man to the free exer- 
 cise of every power and faculty that has been bestowed upon us by 
 nature; it means the right for me to work for any. price which I 
 choose to ask, whenever any one will pay me that price for my work. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, if the war has done anything, it has made the right of 
 self-government dearer to the American people than it was before. 
 It has made the right of the individual and of the local community 
 moye secure, established by surer guarantees, and hedged about by 
 stronger muniments of title, than in the time when masters or govern- 
 ments could hold men as servants, and communities and races as 
 unrepresented subjects, with no political, and with few, if any, per- 
 sonal rights. 
 
 Why, sir, look at the spectacle we have had within the last few 
 weeks in Virginia. The democratic Legislature of that State were of 
 the opinion that the city of Petersbnrgh was not properly governed by 
 the people of that city ; that the Legislature should regulate its gov- 
 ernment and should declare, not in terms, but by a cunning provision 
 of law, that the colored men of that city should not exercise the 
 right of suffrage in the local government. Governor Kemper, hold- 
 ing fast — and I honor him for so doing — to the traditions of his party 
 in respect to local self-government 
 
 Mr. COX. That is good democratic doctrine. 
 
 Mr. WILLAED , of Vermont. That party does not always hold fast to 
 the principle ; but in this case Governor Kemper did so, and he vetoed 
 the bill. He said thatthe city of Petersbnrgh shouldhave localself-gov- 
 ernmeiit, and that the Colored people of that city should have a voice 
 iu the administration of its affairs, although his way in the attempt 
 to secure it for them might be lighted with his burning effigies ; and in 
 that brave declaration tne rights of the colored people of the South have 
 a surer protection than any exercise of Federal power can give them. 
 
 Now, sir, if we have been taught any lesson in these times it is the 
 lesson that local self-government is the best government for any peo- 
 ple. We do not want any more measures of legislation brought here 
 than are absolutely required to administer the Government as the 
 Constitution has defined it, and thus to preserve the rights of the whole 
 
24 
 
 people as mucli by what -we refrain from doing as by wliat we do. If 
 the liberties and the equal rights of this country are to be preserved 
 in the future, theyare to be preserved by State and local sefl-govern- 
 ment. What does Massachusetts Jmow about the government that 
 ought to exist in California ? What does California kaow about how 
 the school system of Massachusetts should be administered ? Neither 
 of them ought to intermeddle with the rights and duties of the other. 
 Each of them should be at liberty to determine what its own method 
 of government should be ; how its own people should be ruled in their 
 domestic affairs ; how its own sovereignty should be carried on. The 
 gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Hawlby] in front of me said, when 
 some discussion was had in the last C ongress on the educational bill, that 
 it was wiser to have thirty-seven States to settle these questions than 
 to have one body like this to settle them, and, although he always 
 speaks wisely, he never said a wiser thing than that. If you are 
 going to bring the local affairs of aU parts of the country, in all the 
 thirty-seven States which we now have with the vast territory they 
 cover, to be settled here mainly by men who know little of and care 
 less for the effect of legislation upon remote localities, what chance 
 is there that iii nine cases out of ten injustice and wrong will not be 
 done ? What possible expectation can there be that the people of 
 California can be aided in controlling the railroads of that State by 
 the Congress of the United States ? They have the power to do it 
 themselveg, and they have just shown that they know how to use that 
 power : and there is no State in the Union less bold, leSS resolute, less 
 able to' solve this railroad problem for itself than CJalifomia and Illi- 
 nois and Iowa have shown themselves to be. In every aspect of the 
 proposition, I believe that the control of these railroads should be left 
 where it has always been, with the States. . 
 
 But, sir, I cannot forbear saying, in passing, that I do not suppose 
 the great railroads — ^those operated by Vanderbilt, or Jay Gould, or 
 Tom Scott — will object to congressional control; certainly these rail- 
 road kings have given no sign Of hostility to this measure, and they 
 are not usually quiet when they consider themselves in danger. Con- 
 trolling, as they do to-day, lines of railroads reaching into every State 
 in the Union, they would be glad to be rid of State control and have 
 but one legislative body to look after. But can any one who has seen 
 what the power of money and the greed of money has accomplished 
 in national legislation look without the most serious concern upon 
 a proposition which makes it for the interest of the managers of the 
 seventy thousand miles of railroad in this country to control the na- 
 tional administration ? The railroads of the United States represent 
 a capital of nearly |4,000,000,000,and by the use of money wield a 
 tremendous power.' Who wants to tiirn that power upon the Con- 
 gress of the United States, and make it for the direct interest of the 
 railroads to nominate Presidents, and name Cabinet officers and 
 judges, and select members of Congress, and accomplish poUticaUy 
 whatever the power of money wiU. buy, or the fear of hostility will 
 compel? Let him who would invite such a future for our national 
 liolitios vote for this bill, and he wiU have taken a long step toward 
 that result, a result more debauching and demoralizing to our poli- 
 tics than any invited or accomplished by any previous legislation in 
 our history. 
 
 One word more, and I have done. • If we inaugurate this species of 
 legislation other measures become inevitable. We are attemptino- 
 to fix prices. We are attempting to make contracts between parties 
 abundantly able to make contracts for themselves. We arc attempt- 
 
26 
 
 ing to say what A shall receive from B for his services, and what B 
 shall pay. Is it not plain to what this mnst lead ? The railroad 
 whose freight charges are fixed by law may rightfully demand that 
 the price of what it has to buy shall be fixed by law. It will 
 want cheaper iron. It will demand cheaper engines and cheaper cars. 
 It will ask to be protected against strikes of engineers and employes, 
 and for the aid of United States authorities to compel its workmen 
 to receive and work for such wages as a congressional commission 
 may fix. And if you fix the price of the laborer, then you must fix 
 the price of the coat, of the boots, of the shirt which the laborer 
 wears, and of the food with which he supports life. Will this stop 
 anywhere short of the practices of governments which modern poUt- 
 ioal writers of all schools have treated as evidence of a semi-civilized 
 people, incapable of self-government and scarcely fit to be anything 
 better than slaves — the governments which have everywhere given 
 place to those giving freer jilay to all human faculties, and which 
 have looked for man's highest development in the culture, in the 
 greatest possible freedom of all human powers '' A centiuy or more 
 ago this governmeat conti'ol was :i tj'pe of despotism, of absolute 
 power, which could trust nothing to the people and did not believe 
 in human progress. Now it is a type of a subtler and more danger- 
 ous political economy, which ends, if pursued, in communism, or the 
 use by the Government of the property of the jteople for the benefit 
 of what a majority may by vote decide to be for the general welfare. 
 Every measure like this looks in that direction ; and m the tendency 
 of such legislation I think I see one of the greatest perils now threat- 
 ening the futiu'e of the Government. Our safety lies in less faith in 
 the machinery of government, and in greater self-reliance on the part 
 of,, the people. 
 
 ^o man, said Disraeli, ever weakened government as Eobert Peel; 
 for he changed so much, people lost confidence in rulers, and were 
 phliged to think for themselves. And hereafter the people of this 
 country will, I trust, so far find their confidence in government ma- 
 chinery weakened by the constant exhibitions of its impotent eiforts 
 to save people from the consequeuces of their own mistakes and mis- 
 conduct, that they wiU be willing to leave the Federal power to the ex- 
 ercise of its proper functions, and not attempt through it to hinder 
 the working of economic laws as much beyond its control as are the 
 laws of nature or the movements of the planetary system.