clerk shall live, it will be necessary that he be made master in chancery and commissioner, and have

Mr. STEWART. Mr. President, in regard to the statement that this bill interferes with California and Oregon, I will only say that the delegations from both those States are desirous that the bill should be passed as it came from the House of Representatives; the Pacific delegation, I believe, is unanimous in this desire, so that the matter may be entirely disembarrassed from that consideration.

As to the fifth section, it is proposed to strike it out, because it is said that it is not necessary, inasmuch as it is now the duty of the district judges in the absence of the circuit judge to hold the respective circuit courts. Perhaps it would be unnecessary, so far as giving that power is concerned, to insert the fifth section; but there is an important matter in the section which in connection with that provision makes it very proper to retain the section, and reënact what the Senator says is now the law. The proviso to that section is as follows:

Provided, That they shall not possess jurisdiction to hear and determine any case or matter on appeal, or writ of error, or transferred from the district court, or any pro ceeding therein.

It may be said that that is the law as it now stands, that it is not contemplated by the law that a judge shall hear on appeal a case that has been tried before him; but in answer to that, we say we are informed that that very thing has occurred, that the judge who presided over the court and tried the cause has been found making orders in the same cause on appeal. I am confident that it is not the law; but it has been so construed, and it is well to make it entirely plain. There can be no objection to that; it certainly avoids a difficulty that exists now in the city of San Francisco. I am informed by the delegation from California that such is the fact. That is a full answer, it seems to me, to the proposition to strike out that section.

As to the sixth section, that simply fixes the into the amendment. Of course it may as well be here as in another form in the amendment reported by the committee.

The seventh section involves the question of the compensation of the marshal and district attorney. That is a question purely local in its character. It has been suggested that we want uniformity in our judicial acts. Of course we do. We want uniformity in the administration of all the departments of the Government; for instance, in the administration of the military department I presume; but yet I suppose it would not be contended that the supplies for the Government should be furnished at all points at the same price. I do not suppose that by legislation here we can make flour or pork sell for the same in Nevada as in Connecticut. In employing persons to discharge duties which are paid by fees, it is necessary to give such a compensation as will enable them to discharge the duties. We are the best judges of that. We know best what it costs to live in that country. The delegations from those different States understand that proposition perfectly well. There can be no law passed by Congress that will compel a storekeeper to furnish provisions at less than the market

rates.

The seventh and eighth sections but reënact and make applicable to Nevada a law which was passed last winter, allowing to the clerks, marshals, and district attorneys of the courts in California and Oregon double the fees allowed to the

The marshal is not situated as that officer is in the city of New York; he has no great sales to make; there is no shipping interest there from which he may derive fees. He has very little to do. It is doubtful whether even with this provision we can support a marshal. I do not see why gentlemen should object to litigants in the courts there being charged what we deem necessary to support the officers. Uniformity in that respect is not now observed; an exception has already been made with regard to California and Oregon; and I do not see that this is an innovation, or that anybody has a right to complain of it.

Again, the eighth section contains a provision that the district court clerk and the circuit court clerk shall be the same person. In this there is a great saving of expense. It will not be necessary to rent more than one clerk's office. The rent of a clerk's office is a matter of considerable importance there. It will cost $100 a month in gold to get a decent clerk's office. Consolidate the two offices, and one man can attend to both with perfect ease. Give the compensation we ask for here, and the office can be attended to properly, and in a manner satisfactory to all. No harm can be done by it; it is no innovation on what has already occurred. It is only doing what ought to be done in different sections of the country; because I say it is unjust and unfair to charge the same fees in the city of New York-where with a very small compensation in each case the office of marshal would be worth a large amount of money, figuring up among the thousands, forty or fifty thousand dollars, perhaps, a very lucrative office-as in a country where there is but little litigation, and where living is extremely expensive.

COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada will pause. It becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the special order, being the bill (H. R. No. 307) to regulate commerce among the several States. The pending question is on the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WILSON,] and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. TEN EYCK] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. FOSTER. I hope we may be allowed to proceed with the bill which has been discussed this morning, unless the Senator from New Jersey prefers to go on.

Mr. TEN EYCK. I should prefer to go on if it is agreeable to the Senate.

friend from New Jer

marks. It is entitled "An act to regulate commerce among the several States:"

That every railroad company in the United States whose road is operated by steam, its successors and assigns, be, and is hereby, authorized to carry upon and over its road, connections, boats, bridges, and ferries, all freight, property, mails, passengers, troops, and Government supplies on their way from any State to another State, and to receive compensation therefor.

Sir, it authorizes every railroad company in the United States whose road is operated by steam to carry over and upon its road, connections, boats, bridges, and ferries, from one State to another, and to receive therefor compensation-first, all mails; second, troops and Government supplies; third, property, freight, and passengers. Now, sir, the question is whether the bill shall receive the sanction of Congress for the purposes declared in its body. I shall consider shortly, very shortly, the two first objects named, and the third object more at length.

Is this bill necessary to authorize the earrying of the mails over all the railroads in the United States operated by steam? It is not necessary for me to discuss the constitutional question involved in this. The Senator frem Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER,] if I understood him aright,stated that he deemed the passage of this bill necessary for this purpose. I do not se regard it. He states that there is no doubt about the power, and he refers to acts of Congress in which the power has been declared and the authority conferred. Without stopping to argue the constitutional question involved in this point of the case, I say there is no necessity for the passage of this bill for this purpose. I beg leave to refer very shortly indeed to the statute passed on this subject, simply to refer to it in order that it may be incorporated in my remarks. By an act passed on the 3d of March, 1853, in addition to a former act passed on the subject-it is to be found in the Statutes at Large, volume ten, page 255-it is provided that

"All railroads and parts of railroads which are now or hereafter may be in operation, be, and the same are hereby, declared to be post roads; and the Postmaster General may contract for carrying the mails thereon according to existing laws."

If the power were undisputed, and I do not stop to question it either one way or the other, it is unnecessary to pass this bill, because we have a statute full and complete on that subject now upon the statute-book, and the Government is using these roads for the purpose of the transportation of the mails throughout the length and breadth of the Union.. It is not necessary to spread any such statute as this among our laws for the purpose of doing or authorizing that to be done which now is authorized by law and is not disputed at the present time.

How is it with respect to carrying troops and Government supplies? Is the passage of this bill necessary for this purpose? By an act of Congress

sey will allow me to state that after he has ad-passed on the 30th of January, 1862, to be found dressed the Senate I shall endeavor to get up the naval appropriation bill for the purpose of having action on it to-day.

in the Statutes at Large, volume twelve, page 334, it has been declared by Congress "that the President of the United States, when in his judgment the public safety may require it, be, and he is hereby, authorized to take possession of any or all the railroad lines of the United States, so that they shall be considered post roads and part of the military establishment of the United States." It is unnecessary to pass this bill for the purpose of authorizing the Government to transport troops and munitions of war over these railroads, because we have an act now passed authorizing that to be done. Under the provisions of that act, troops and munitions of war are being transported over railroads throughout the length and breadth of the land, even over the railroads of New Jersey, whether they are entitled to exclusive priv

Mr. TEN EYCK. Mr. President, the bill now before the Senate is very unassuming in its dimensions, consisting of only about eight or nine lines, but it involves questions of the utmost magnitude and importance. It is true they are presented in a shape somewhat novel; yet they are in fact as old as the Government itself. They agitated the Convention which framed the Constitution, and they may be traced down all along the pathway of our history to the present time. They are questions of power as between the national and State Governments worthy of our calmest and gravest consideration. They are contested, controverted, and delicate. They are not questions of mere expediency, of policy, of pol-ileges or not, each and all of them, leading from itics, nor are they confined to a mere locality; but they are questions of law, constitutional, organic law, broad and extensive as the country itself. They are not questions merely for to-day and for ourselves, but for all time and for our posterity. No interest should control them, no passion should affect them; they will continue to exist after the causes now disturbing them shall have passed away, when passion shall have found new forms in which to flash its heat, and interest new food on which to feed itself.

This bill is in the following words: it is short, and I prefer to read it as preliminary to my re

the city of New York toward the capital of the Union. It would be a work of supererogation to pass this bill for either of the two purposes to which I have referred.

Then, sir, how is it with regard to the third object, the authority sought to be conferred on every railroad in the United States operated by steam, to carry passengers, property, and freight in the way proposed? This is the grand and absorbing question, the real and only object of this bill. The other purposes, if the Senator from Massachusetts will allow me to borrow a word frequently used by him on the day before yester

day, are mere" pretenses" for the exercise of the power of Congress as invoked in this bill. Sir, before authorizing this to be done I, at least, consider it proper to inquire first what rights and interests are involved in is; and second, what rights and interests will be invaded by it. I deem them to be as sacred and important as the Government itself, or at least as important as the existence of the state governments themselves. Pass this bill, and it will confer on railroad companies chartered by the States authority to do that which by the laws of the States creating them they have no right to do, which laws, in fact, constitute a part of their contracts with the States, and were accepted by them as such when they took their charters from the States.

State railroad charters I understand to be contracts entered into by the companies with the States creating them, and by which not only the companies themselves but the States creating them are bound-contracts as solemn and as obligatory on the parties thus contracting as any other contracts between any other and different parties. Sir, the object of this bill is to discharge State railroad corporations from the obligations they are under to the States creating them, and to which they owe their very being. This, I submit most res spectfully and emphatically, Congress, in all the plenitude of its power, has no right or authority to do under either of the three powers referred to by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, and especially under the power to regulate commerce between the several States, to which he has specially adverted.

States. That is not the question now before the Senate. It is a bill to authorize the seizure of chartersgranted by the States, and their conversion to other purposes different from those for which they were granted, and to arm the managers of State corporations with a power antagonistic to and in contravention of the very law of their existence. This cannot be done; it is against both law and reason. It has been uniformly held that Congress cannot build a road within the limits of a State without the consent of that State. What has been the history of our Government on that subject? I beg leave to call the attention of the Senate for a few minutes to the history and action of Congress on the subject of constructing public improvements within the limits of the several States of the Union.

Shortly after the commencement of the present century this movement was set on foot, and it was agitated more or less by Congress and the General Government down to a period as late as 1830. About the year 1806 the great question which agitated Congress was not whether Congress could make internal improvements contrary to the wishes of the several States through which it was proposed they should be made or constructed, but whether the Government of the United States had the power to make internal improvements at all; whether it was within the power of Congress; whether it was constitutional. A reference to the State Papers will show the opinions of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison on that point. There was great doubt entertained; that was the battle; that was the controversy. About that year ConI do not propose to enter into an elaborate dis- gress stood somewhat committed to the doctrine cussion of the constitutional question involved in of internal improvements in the case of the Cumthis bill. I think the argument submitted by the berland road, but that road was established by honorable Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] and with the consent of the State of Maryland, some two or three weeks ago was complete and through which it was constructed. The controsufficient upon that subject; and if the Senator versy was not whether it could be constructed with from Massachusetts will allow me to use the ex- or without the consent of the State, but whether pression, notwithstanding the air of triumph with it was within the power of the General Governwhich he seemed to consider that he had over- ment to construct this work of internal improvethrown the argument of the Senator from Mary- ment at all. However, it was determined to do land, I do not think that he touched it in any so, the consent of the State being obtained for that material point. I think he failed utterly in attempt- purpose. In 1822 this road got out of repair and ing to refute the positions assumed and taken by Congress passed a law to erect toll-gates on it for the Senator from Maryland. I have too much the purpose of collecting toll in order that it might respect for the opinions and for the patience of this be repaired. This brought up the question of inbody to undertake to repeat and reiterate the dis-ternal police, whether the Government of the Unicussion in full upon that subject. But, sir, I may ted States had the right and power to police the be permitted perhaps to call the attention of the road. A controversy grew out of that, and event

use of the State, the Government of the United States having relinquished all control over it as a public road and surrendered its right to levy toll for the purpose of keeping it in repair.

Senate to some of the phases involved in this ques-ually the road was abandoned; it returned to the tion. I have no feeling about it; I can have no personal feeling on this subject, although much has been said about my State, and although the question involves the interests of the people of my State. I know that the people of my State are divided, from Sussex to Cape May, upon this subject. I know there is a great, wide, and radical difference of opinion between them in relation to this measure, so far as my own State is concerned, and I think it but frank, manly, and fair in me to give the opinions which I entertain and which will influence me in giving the vote I expect to give, let the consequences be to me as they may, or to any conflicting interest that may be running wild in the State from which I come, and which I honor and reverence.

Mr. President, I hold that Congress cannot absolve a State corporation from the conditions, limitations, and restrictions imposed upon it by the State creating it, and involved in its very charter, in a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the State, as I clain it to be in. the case of the State more particularly interested in the question now before the Senate. I admit that Congress may pass laws establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy, under the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution of the United States, and thus discharge pecuniary obligations; but where is the power enabling it to authorize a corporation created by a State, with conditions, limitations, and restrictions on its franchise, to accept and use the charter not only without regard to those restrictions, limitations, and conditions, but in utter violation of them? Congress cannot abridge or enlarge the franchises of a State charter; it is not within the powers conferred upon it. If so, I should like to see where the authority is to be found; I should like to have it referred to by some of the advocates of the bill now before the Senate. This is not a bill to authorize the construction of a new road by the Government of the United

Proceeding in the short and concise history I am giving, in 1825 Congress subscribed money for building the Chesapeake and Ohio canal, and so far as that went stood committed to the aid of internal improvements within the States. But this was not in opposition to the wishes of the States through which this public work ran. Subsequently to that, General Jackson vetoed the famous Maysville road bill, which seemed to settle the policy of the Government in relation to this matter, and from that time there has been no great work of public improvement in this country carried on under the fostering care and protection of the Government of the United States; and about that time, from 1830 to 1833, that system of internal improvements which has brought out and developed the resources of this country in the shape of railroads and canals sprang into existence, under the fostering care and aid of the States and the people of the several States. It was at that time that the policy of public improvements was surrendered, so to speak, by the General Government, and taken up by the several States; and we have seen the glorious results everywhere arising from wise, judicious, public-spirited, and patriotic action on the part of the individual citizens of the several States, who could better understand and better regulate and manage the affairs of public improvements within their own borders and within their own limits.

And, Mr. President, the Pacific railroad bill goes upon this same principle, and recognizes this right of the States to construct works of public improvement by themselves within their own limits, because by the very charter we have passed incorporating the Pacific Railroad Company we have taken especial care and pains to confine its

beginning, its termination, and its passage, to the Territories of the United States, and not to invade the limits of either of the States of this Union, privilege being of course afforded and some assistance also held out to the several States in the construction of branch roads to run in like so many smaller streams to supply the great current which is to unlock for the purposes of trade and commerce the recesses of the great center to the eastern and to the western coasts of this country.

But, sir, the bill before us is vastly different from this. It is, as I said, to seize the charter of a State and alter its provisions, and to absolve the corporation from its contract with the State creating it and the contract entered into.by it with the State when it was created. Now, sir, I ask you what effect this will have upon a State charter. Pass this bill and what effect will it have upon State charters? Will it be an amendment to State railroad charters? Will it be a repeal of State railroad charters, or will it be a new charter for these companies, or partly both? What kind of corporation will it be, State or national? It will be a kind of hybrid, with a foundation resting upon State authority, and its superstructure authorized and erected by Federal authority.

Again, of all who are carried away by the splendid pageant of Federal supremacy, I would ask, what effect will it have on the amenability of such corporations to the States creating them? They have duties to perform and liabilities to meet. Will the passage of this bill make them creatures independent of their creator, and authorize them to cast themselves loose from all the bonds they voluntarily assumed when they entered into their contract, which they id on the acceptance of their charter? How as to taxes which they are required to pay by the terms of their charter upon their acceptance? How as to the repeal of this charter, most of them having terms in their acts of incorporation authorizing the Legislature of the State to withdraw the chartered rights and privileges conferred on them by the charter? How are they to be answerable for abuse of their franchise? Is the great remedy of quo warranto to be withdrawn? May they not be called upon in any way to respond for misfeasance, malfeasance, non-user, or abuse? According to the theory of gentlemen who are the advocates of this extreme Federal power, it would seem so. Sir, grant that the argument of the Senator from Massachusetts is to be carried to the extent that it plainly implies, these creatures of State authority may flaunt the very power which gave them a body if it did not confer upon them a soul. Under this bill, I ask, what may these State corporations not do? The Pennsylvania Central, the New York and Erie, the Raritan and Delaware Bay, with limitations, and with termini fixed in their charters, to convey passengers and freight between certain points, Pittsburg and Philadelphia in the one instance, Lake Erie and New York in the other, or from a little place on the Raritan bay called Port Monmouth down to Cape May, may start a line of steamers in connection with their roads, send them across the ocean, or around the world. These companies are authorized to build a road in one locality; by the pretension set up they may build it in another. They are authorized to carry passengers and freight between two points; they may, according to this pretension, carry them between other and different points. They are restricted by their charters to charge certain prices for transportation; by this pretension they may charge any other price for transportation or passage that they may see fit, unless restricted by this bill, and there is no restriction upon the face of it with respect to charge. They are limited and required by their charters to do a particular kind of business prescribed; if Congress has power to authorize what is now asked, they may be authorized to do another kind of business than that prescribed, and in any other way. Sir, to what will this lead, and where will it end? It will lead to the destruction of the internal improvements of every State in this Union or several of the States of this Union, or may do it, and it will tend to the ruin and bankruptcy of tens of thousands of true and loyal citizens, men, women, widows, children, whose estates have been invested in incorporated companies of this kind, under the plighted faith of the several States within the limits of which they are citizens.

Now, sir, how will it operate more particularly

in practice? The States of this Union have each a railroad system of their own. I will refer to my own State by way of illustration. I do not know that a reference to that State and to the injury and evil which may be inflicted upon her will have any influence upon the mind of the Senator from Massachusetts. During the discussion of this question of constitutional aúthority, that Senator indulged in strong, if not violent, terms of denunciation against my State. I infer that he has but little love for her. He likens her to the State of South Carolina; "like," he says, "begets like;" and this "pretense,' as he calls it, on the part of my State he characterizes as a species of nullification like nullification in the State of South Carolina. Sir, he undertakes to say that of a State whose children have shed their blood upon almost every battle-field of this rebellion. He has pronounced her conduct as a usurpation and a pretense!

It was my intention to dwell somewhat at length on that branch of the subject, but the Senator from Massachusetts will excuse me when I say that knowing that my State is alike indifferent to his censure and his praise, I shall not enter into any unseemly contest of that kind on this occasion. This bill is meant to bear upon my State and to trample her rights under foot. It has so been declared by the Senator from Massachusetts, not in so many words, but he claims that it was a usurpation and a pretense on her part to do what she has done. Permit me to examine this question a little. I am compelled to ask the indulgence of the Senate while I investigate it, and, as shortly as I possibly can, lay before the Senate the true history of this contest in my State for the purpose of calling upon the judgment of the Senate for their opinion as to the propriety as well as the legality of the measure now asked to be enforced against that State.

Committees on Commerce who had charge of these measures. The General Government asked for the passage of no such bill. In a report made by the Postmaster General, a year or two ago, it was stated that no additional postal facilities were required between the city of Washington and the city of New York. The House of Representatives regarded this as a measure striking at the State of New Jersey, and the State of New Jersey alone. The chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, in a discussion before the House on that subject, stated:

"I shall be willing to vote for the amendment of the genfleman from Iowa, [Mr. WILSON,] because that commends itself to many gentlemen here on account of the general character of the legislation it proposes. But if that substitute should fail, I will go with equal cheerfulness for the original bill, with a view to the correction of the particular evil at which that is aimed.

"I look at this matter as the committee looked at it, from an outside point of view. I look at it as a citizen of Ohio or of any other State than New Jersey, and for that reason I will be drawn into no argument here in relation to the rights of natural or artificial persons as they exist under and by virtue of the laws of New Jersey. I care nothing about what questions may have been raised in the Legislature of New Jersey. I care not what may have been the different opinions of the courts of New Jersey, It is not for me, if the people of New Jersey ate willing to submit to the dictation and rule of a selfish corporation, to interfere for the protection of that people. They must take care of themselves. They must be left to their own Legislature and their own courts."

It would seem that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] cares as little about the decision of the courts of my State or the action of its Legislature as the honorable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs of the House of Representatives. That was the object; that was the design. It was to interfere with what they are pleased to call an odious monopoly and a usurpation of my State as against the rights and privileges of the other States of this Union.

Sir, I make no apology, I make no excuse for my State. I stand here as her humble representative on this floor and simply ask that I may be permitted to present the facts as they are. If she stands in the light of an enlightened public judgment, she will stand; if she falls in the view of an

feeble arm can neither hold her up, nor perhaps aid in casting her down.

The bill now before the Senate is a House bill, House bill No. 307; it is identically the same as Senate bill No. 102, introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts. It is the same in effect as is the original House bill No. 307, and the present bill was proposed in the other House by Mr.enlightened public judgment, she must fall. My WILSON, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of that House, as a substitute for that bill, making it in its general terms applicable to all the States, instead of confining it to the State of New Jersey. For the purpose of making my remarks more understandable, and as the original bill is not long, I desire to refer to it. This is the way in which the measure was first introduced, this is the key that unlocks the object and purpose of the bill now before the Senate. It is entitled "A bill to declare certain roads military and post roads, and to regulate commerce," and it goes on to say:

Be it enacted, &c., That the railroad of the Camden and Atlantic Rail Company, and the branches thereof, built and to be built, and the railroad of the Raritan and Delaware Bay Rail Company, and the branches thereof, built and to be built, are hereby declared to be lawful structures and public highways of the United States.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said railroads and branches, with a ferry or ferries from Camden, in the State of New Jersey, to Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and steamboats and other vessels from Port Monmouth, in the State of New Jersey, to the city of New York, running in connection with said roads, are hereby established as a post route, military road, and public highway of the United States for the purpose of transmission of the mails, troops, and munitions of war of the United States, and for the transportation of goods, wares, and merchandise of foreign growth across the State of New Jersey, under permits granted by the collectors of ports of the United States authorized to grant the same, and for commerce among and between the several States of the United States.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the Camden and Atlantic Railroad Company, and the Raritan and Delaware Bay Railroad Company, chartered by the State of New Jersey, or either of thein, or their assigns, are hereby authorized and empowered to complete, maintain, and operate the said railroads and branches, and to establish, maintain, and run the said ferries, steamboats, and other vessels, as a line of transportation for goods, wares, and merchandise of all descriptions, and passengers between the cities of New York and Philadelphia, and between the intermediate places and said cities, respectively, and for commerce between and among the several States of the United States, anything in any law or laws of the above-named States to the contrary notwithstanding.

That shows the object, clear, distinct, and well defined, which was in view at the time of the introduction of that original bill. I may be allowed to say that that bill was introduced at the instance of the Raritan and Delaware Bay Railroad Company. It was introduced upon the presentation of their petition, which was referred to the several

Mr. President, suffer me to say, to run back through a period of some thirty or forty years, that New Jersey was among the first, if not the very first State in this Union to establish a railroad of chief magnitude and importance in this country. Railroading was then in its infancy It was undetermined whether it was to be a success or not. The project was a new one. It was regarded by the majority of the people of my State, and I know not but by the majority of the people of the United States, as chimerical. Although young then, I have a lively recollection of hearing it said, that the men who invested their capital in the stock of this company were silly and were casting away the patrimony that their fathers had bestowed upon them. About the year 1830 the Camden and Amboy Railroad Company was incorporated; and among other things it was invested with all the rights, powers, and privileges necessary to perfect an expeditious and complete line of communication from Philadelphia to New York; and for that purpose to lay out and construct a railroad or roads from the Delaware river, between Cooper's and Newton's creek, which is on the New Jersey side of the Delaware river, to Raritan bay, a distance of some twenty or twentyfive miles from the city of New York, and to provide suitable steam or other vessels at either extremity for the transportation of passengers and produce from city to city.

That was the extent of the charter, and that declared the termini of the road. In 1831, this same road and the Delaware and Raritan canal, which had been incorporated about the same time, were united and formed into a joint-stock company, it having been discovered that the stock of the two, separately, could not receive the favorable consideration of the money market. The Senator from Massachusetts spoke of "confederated railroads." I know of no confederated railroads in New Jersey. I do know of the consolidation of this Railroad and Canal Company by an act which is familiarly known in the State of New Jersey as the marriage act. After that union of the two corporations, both were proceeded in and

resulted in a successful completion. In 1832, the

"That it shall not be lawful, at any time during the said railroad charter, (to wit, the Camden and Amboy,j de com struct any other railroads in this State without the consent of the said company, which shall be intended or used for the transportation of passengers or merchandise between the cities of New York and Philadelphia, or to compete in business with the railroad authorized by the act to which this supplement is relative."

I state the act in its length and in its breadth in the way the Senator from Massachusetts stated it, in order that the friends of this bill may have the full benefit of it in this discussion, and also when they come to vote upon the question.

Now, Mr. President, the question at this time is not whether that grant of the exclusive privilege to the Camden and Amboy Company was wise or unwise, whether it was politic or impolitic. It makes, I may be permitted to remark, a great difference when you judge from different standpoints, or different periods of time. Standing here at this day I have not the slightest idea that the Legislature of New Jersey in 1865 would have granted an exclusive privilege of that kind to any company to construct a railroad across that State; but, sir, if we go back to 1830, in the infancy of this measure, when it was an experiment, when the men who embarked in it, and who had the bold and hazardous enterprise to risk their fortunes in it were denounced as hair-brained and madmen, we may find some little reason for it growing out of the desire of the Legislature of that State to procure the establishment of internal improvements there, at the nick of time when the General Government, under the veto by General Jackson of the Maysville road bill, had declared they did not intend to embark in any such enterprise any more. It was desirable for the purposes of commerce and trade and the transportation of passengers at that early day that there should be such lines of communication even across the insignificant State of New Jersey, as the Senator from Massachusetts would have it.

I may be permitted to remark here that this exclusive privilege granted to the Camden and Amboy Company will expire in 1869. It is now the year of grace 1865; and if this exclusive privilege has had a long life it is approaching its last sands. The limit will expire in 1869, and then I doubt not it will end, and end forever.

The road was built and put in operation more or less successfully, and so matters stood until 1852, a period of twenty years, without impeachment, without rivalry, without question, without particular complaint, so far as I know, from anybody. In 1852 the Camden and Atlanticnot the Camden and Amboy-Railroad Company was chartered by the Legislature of New Jersey. This was twenty years subsequent to the grant of this exclusive privilege to the Camden and Amboy Company. By their charter this company was authorized to construct a railroad from Camden, opposite the city of Philadelphia, in a southeasterly direction to a place called Absecom, on the sea-coast, on the Atlantic ocean, running at right angles with the route of the Camden and Amboy railroad between Philadelphia and New York. This company was authorized, in addition to the construction of a direct line of railroad between these points, to build two little lateral branches, one to a place called Batsto, which is about half way down the line of the road, about six miles northerly, and another to a place called May's Landing, about six miles south of the road, toward Cape May, southerly. That road was built, and its corporate powers were limited to the right to carry passengers and trade between those two points and upon these lateral branches. Now you will observe that this charter was granted in 1852 to this Camden and Atlantic Company, and accepted by them with full knowledge of, and subject to, the exclusive privilege which had been granted twenty years before to the Camden and Amboy Company; and it was not designed, from its route, and the privilege conferred upon it, to interfere in any way with the privileges conferred upon that company.

On the 3d of March, 1854, the Raritan and Delaware Bay Railroad Company was incorporated.