STATE RIGHTS AT THE BAR OF A CORRUPT CONGRESS.
None of the subjects of legislation have tended to destroy
constitutional safeguards and debase public morals so much as
congressional legislation, with its grants of land and bonds, and other
special benefits in favor of railroad corporations. This species of
legislation has well nigh destroyed republican institutions. While our
government is republican in name it is in fact controlled by an
oligarchy. The whole government has become a prey to the class of
corporations above named, and is administered in their interest. Their
influence controls the legislative department, the courts of the
country, and its finances. This is a sweeping assertion, but who will
deny it. Further, the very men who by their votes in congress have
created these monopolies, have themselves in many instances received
pecuniary consideration for their votes, either in corporate stock, or
direct payment. This last assertion is now (January 9, 1873) being
supported by results arrived at by committees appointed to investigate
charges of corruption made against members of both branches of congress.
Having assumed the right to grant charters and aid to these corporations
in violation of the constitution, it was but one step further in the
same direction for congress to enact other unconstitutional laws,
regulating and combining railroads receiving their charters from state
legislatures, laws which enable these roads to so combine their
operations as to control the entire interests of the country. These acts
are numerous in the published laws of congress. We will refer to some of
them, and direct the reader to the following, of a general nature: On
the 15th of June, 1866, congress passed the following unconstitutional
act in the interest and for the benefit of railroad corporations: See
Second Brightley's Digest, page 528, "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,
boats, bridges, and ferries, all passengers, troops, government
supplies, mails, freight, and property, on their way from one state to
another state, and to receive compensation therefor, and to connect with
roads of other states so as to form continuous lines for the
transportation of the same to the place of destination. Provided, that
this act shall not affect any stipulations between the government of the
United States, and any railroad company for transportation and fares
without compensation, nor impair or change the conditions imposed by the
terms of the acts granting lands to any such company to aid in the
construction of its road, nor shall it be construed to authorize any
railroad company to build any new road, or connection with any other
road without authority from the state in which said railroad, or
connection, may be proposed." Commenting upon this extraordinary
statute, the editor says: "In the preamble to this extraordinary
assumption of power, on the part of the federal congress, they prefer to
base their authority for it on the power to regulate commerce among the
several states, to establish post-roads, and to raise and support
armies. But it has been decided that the constitutional power to
establish post-roads is confined to such as are regularly laid out under
state authority; the government of the United States cannot construct a
post-road within a state of the Union without its consent. The
post-roads of the United States are the property of the states through
which they pass. The United States have the mere right of transit over
them for the purpose of carrying the mails; the government could not
have an injunction to prevent the destruction of a mail-road." Citing
the case of the Cleveland, Painesville, & Ashtabula railroad company
_vs_. The Franklin canal company, in the circuit court of the United
States, the editor adds: "Congress certainly can confer no rights on a
railroad company incorporated by a state government, which are withheld
from it by the charter of its creator."
The above quoted act assumes that congress has full power to regulate
the connection of railroads in the different states, as well as the
carrying trade upon the same. It strips the several state governments of
all power to interfere, and in case of any controversy takes from the
state courts the power to determine the rights of the respective
parties; the act of congress could be pleaded, and, as a necessary
consequence, the United States courts would have exclusive jurisdiction.
It cannot be claimed that this act can be supported under any express
delegation of power to the general government, nor can it be supported
as being incidental to any express grant. It is an usurpation not
warranted or sustained by any part of the constitution. This one section
quoted, destroys the right of any state of the Union, or of two or more
of them, to legislate upon the subject of uniting or connecting
railroads meeting on the lines dividing them, and also takes from the
states the right to regulate the carrying trade within their own
respective borders. Congress had no more authority under the
constitution to enact this law, than to provide by statute for the
construction of public highways when they meet upon the line dividing
states, or to provide for the passage of teams from one state to
another, and the transportation of freights over the common highways
within or across a state. The whole power under the constitution is
reserved to the states. Prior to the creation of these great railroad
monopolies by congress, an attempt at such legislation would have been
deemed unconstitutional, but as soon as the whole affairs of government
passed into the hands of the few, and when the protection of their
interests demanded it, the act was passed, and has remained upon the
statute book as one of the laws of the land. This act is about the only
one that openly and broadly covers the whole ground, and assumes to
regulate the internal affairs of the states, but there are numerous acts
passed in relation to land grants and the companies chartered by
congress, which have the same effect. In some cases the absolute control
of roads constructed under charters obtained from state legislatures, or
under state laws, has been taken from the states by acts of congress,
and placed under the jurisdiction of the general government. In most
instances where this has been done, members of congress, or their near
relatives, were large owners of stock in the companies to be benefited
by the act. To speak more plainly, the acts granting special privileges
to particular companies, and placing them under the jurisdiction of the
federal government, were passed for the benefit of congressmen and
others in high official position. Let us examine some of these acts.
Among the stockholders and directors of the Union Pacific and its
branches, there are found at least eight persons who were members of
congress at the date of the act of congress creating the corporation,
and also at the date of the material amendments to the charter. Some of
these congressmen are still stockholders and directors, and were
directors when congress released these companies from payment of
interest on the bonds they had received from the government. Another
land grant company having congressmen among its stockholders and
directors, is the Leavenworth, Lawrence, & Galveston; also, the Iowa
Falls & Sioux City; also, the Cedar Rapids & Missouri River; also, the
Burlington & Missouri River; also, the Atlantic & Pacific; also, the New
Orleans, Mobile, & Texas; also, the Northern Pacific; also, Sioux City &
Pacific; also, the Fremont, Elkhorn, & Missouri Valley. The number might
be extended, but enough is given to sustain our charge. Most of the
above named companies were organized under state laws, or received their
charters from state or territorial legislatures. For the purpose of
consummating certain speculative ends, congress has treated with
contempt state laws and state authority. Where charters have been
granted under state authority, and the companies were rightfully under
the control of the states within which their roads were located, acts
like the following have been passed by congress: "That the Leavenworth,
Pawnee, & Western railroad company, of Kansas, are hereby authorized to
construct a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri river, at the
mouth of the Kansas river, on the south side thereof so as to connect
with the Pacific railroad of Missouri;" and then follow the details for
constructing and operating the road, and placing it under the control of
the general government. In the case of the Central Pacific company,
chartered by the state of California, congress passed the following
act:--
"The Central Pacific railroad company of California, a corporation
existing under the laws of the state of California, are hereby
authorized to construct a railroad and telegraph line from the Pacific
coast, at or near San Francisco, or the navigable waters of the
Sacramento river, to the eastern boundary of California."
Substantially the same provision is found for most of the corporations
above named, and in all those cases, the authority to construct the road
is followed by a provision for aid by the general government.
It might be pertinent to inquire why it became necessary for congress to
assume the control of railroads already chartered under state authority.
It cannot be claimed that the states acted without authority in granting
the charter; nor can the authority of the general government to take
from the states the control of railroads within their border, be
supported by any grant of power contained in the constitution. On the
contrary, the power is reserved to the states, and its exercise is
denied to the general government. It cannot be urged that the interests
of the people are subserved by this assumption of power; on the
contrary, these acts of congress take from the public its rights
reserved by the constitution. But one answer can be given, _these acts
were passed for the promotion of selfish and corrupt ends_. In support
of this, we need only state the fact, that in almost every instance
where congress has attempted to re-charter companies organized under
state authority, and granted them aid, members of congress who were
members at the date of the passage of the acts, were stockholders, and
not unfrequently directors. Some congressmen who have been members for
the last ten or twelve years, are stockholders in several of the
companies, and at least one member of congress of twelve years standing
is now a director in at least three companies that received grants of
land, one of them getting large amounts of subsidy bonds, for all of
which he voted, and for which, as often as occasion served, he has used
his vote and influence in procuring additional privileges. We do not
claim that every member of congress is interested in railroads; but we
do assert that there are many senators and representatives who are
personally interested, and that the proportion is so great that whenever
it is desirable to have legislation it can be obtained without
difficulty. To prove that the chartering and endowing of railroad
companies is one of the principal occupations of the national
legislature, we have only to look through the acts of congress the last
two or three sessions. At the first session of the forty-second congress
fourteen railroad bills were passed, some of them conferring grants to
companies yet in embryo, having no being save upon paper, but presenting
"great expectations" to our congressmen, who combine the business of
granting charters and building railroads, and who find no indelicacy in
becoming stockholders and directors in the corporations to which they,
as congressmen, have voted lands and money. Some of these roads, under
the acts of congress, present great inducements for investments, and in
due time will receive proper attention. The effect of this species of
legislation has been most baneful. The national congress, once the most
pure and patriotic body in the world, has become the headquarters of all
the unscrupulous men of the nation. It is under the control of dishonest
and reckless men. Elections to seats in that body have become of such
value, that to secure them men do not hesitate to pay more than the
salary for the entire term. Nor do candidates always pay their own
money. It is often furnished by rings and interests which require
special legislation. It is now well understood that senators and
representatives are in the market like other commodities. The purchase
is made either in large donations of $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, or more
from single corporations, or by shares, stock or bonds in companies
chartered by congress, and afterwards fostered and protected by
congressmen. So common has this practice become that it is not now
considered disreputable. What in former years would have been deemed
bribery and corruption are now nothing but fair business transactions.
We recall a case which illustrates the purity of former legislation
compared with what we see in our own day. Some thirty years ago, certain
parties desired a charter for a denominational college. A Rev. Mr.
Strong was appointed to visit the capital and interest the legislature
in behalf of the charter. He was introduced to a Mr. Cushing, to whom he
presented his case, and whom he sought to interest in favor of the
grant. The grant of the charter was likely to meet with opposition, and
to remove certain objections, Mr. Strong was anxious to have Mr. Cushing
examine into the matter fully, and as an inducement for making such an
examination he was told that the friends of the measure would compensate
him liberally for the time he might spend in such examination. This Mr.
Cushing interpreted as an offer to bribe a member of a legislative body,
and he felt bound to resist it. Accordingly he laid the matter before
the house. That body by unanimous vote, ordered the sergeant-at-arms to
arrest Mr. Strong, and bring him to the bar of the house. After an
investigation into the truth of the charge, Mr. S. was found guilty and
publicly reprimanded by the speaker. This happened before legislators
had learned to speculate upon their official position. It was in simple
times, when those elected to office supposed their first duty was to
serve their country, and when it was an irrecoverable disgrace to
receive a bribe. It was at a time when our law-makers had too much
self-respect to purchase their election with tens of thousands of
dollars, and then reimburse themselves by taking stock in, and dividends
from, giant corporations chartered and created by themselves. How is it
now? Let the facts answer. Class or personal legislation, for special
combinations, or in certain interests, is the rule, and legislation for
the benefit of the whole people is the exception to that rule.
Congressmen, to secure an election, expend large sums of money, and when
elected their first care is to _get even_. To accomplish their purpose,
they resort to unconstitutional legislation, such as granting exclusive
privileges or jobs to individuals, for which indirect pecuniary
consideration is received. But this alone would not suffice to reimburse
them for their great outlay. The greatest source of profit to
congressmen has been, and unless it is checked, will continue to be,
found in railroad legislation.