ments, and proceedings relating to any such cases shall be transferred to such circuit, district, and State courts, respectively, and the same shall be proceeded with therein in due course of law; but no writ, action, indictment, cause, or proceeding now pending, or that prior to the admission of any of the States mentioned in this act shall be pending in any Territorial court in any of the Territories mentioned in this act, shall abate by the admission of any such State into the Union, but the same shall be transferred and proceeded with in the proper United States circuit, district, or State court, as the case may be; Provided, however, That in all civil actions, causes, and proceedings, in which the United States is not a party, transfers shall not be made to the circuit and district courts of the United States except upon written request of one of the parties to such action or proceeding filed in the proper court; and in the absence of such request, such cases shall be proceeded with in the proper State courts.

In

"SEC. 24. That the Constitutional Conventions may, by ordinance, provide for the election of officers for full State governments, including members of the Legislatures and Representatives in the Fifty-first Congress; but said State governments shall remain in abeyance until the States shall be admitted into the Union, respectively, as provided in this act. case the Constitution of any of said proposed States shall be ratified by the people, but not otherwise, the Legislature thereof may assemble, organize, and elect two Senators of the United States; and the Governor and Secretary of State of such proposed State shall certify the election of the Senators and Representatives in the manner required by law; and when such State is admitted into the Union the Senators and Representatives shall be entitled to be admitted to seats in Congress and to all the rights and privileges of Senators and Representatives of other States in the Congress of the United States; and the officers of the State governments formed in pursuance of said Constitutions, as provided by the Constitutional Conventions, shall proceed to exercise all the functions of such State officers; and all laws in force made by said Territories at the time of their admission into the Union shall be in force in said States, except as modified or changed by this act or by the Constitutions of the States, respectively.

"SEC. 25. That all acts or parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act, whether passed by the Legislatures of said Territories or by Congress, are bereby repealed."

And that the House agree to the same. That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House to the title of said bill and agrees to the same so amended as to read as follows: "An act to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington, to form Constitutions and State governments, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States."

And that the House agree to the same. That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House striking out the preamble of said bill, and agree to the same.

On Feb. 22 the President approved the bill. Refunding the Direct Tax.-The bill to credit and pay to the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia all moneys collected under the direct tax levied by an act of Congress approved Aug. 5, 1861, was amended and passed the House Dec. 12, 1888. The principal amendment was in regard to refunding to the owners of certain lands in South Carolina, sold in the collection of the direct tax, a portion of the value of their lands. The Senate non-concurred in the House amendments, and a confer

ence committee was appointed, which came to an agreement, after recasting the above-named amendment, and reported Feb. 16, 1889, to the Senate, and Feb. 19, to the House. The Senate accepted the conference report at once, but an attempt was made to reconsider the aceptance, which was defeated on Feb. 19, after some discussion. The House accepted the conference report Feb. 20, but not without a renewal of the earnest discussion that marked the original consideration of the measure. On March 2 the President disapproved of the measure, and sent in the following veto message:

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 139, entitled "An act to credit and pay to the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia all moneys collected under the direct tax levied by the act of Congress approved Aug. 5, 1861."

The object of this bill is quite clearly indicated in its title. Its provisions have been much discussed in both branches of Congress and have received emphat-ic legislative sanction. I fully appreciate the interest which it has excited, and have by no means failed to recognize the persuasive presentation made in its favor. I know, too, that the interposition of Executive disapproval in this case is likely to arouse irritation and cause complaint and earnest criticism. Since, however, my judginent will not permit me to assent to the legislation proposed, I can find no way of turning aside from what appears to be the plain course of official duty.

On the 5th day of August, 1861, a Federal statute was passed entitled "An act to provide increased revenue from imports to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes."

This law was passed at a time when immense sums of money were needed by the Government for the prosecution of a war for the Union, and the purpose of the law was to increase in almost every possible The first seven secway the Federal revenues. tions of the statute were devoted to advancing very largely the rates of duties on imports; and to supplement this the eighth section provided that a direct tax of $20,000,000 should be annually laid, and that certain amounts therein specified should be apportioned to the respective States. The remainder of the law, consisting of fifty sections, contained the most particular and detailed provisions for the collection of the tax through Federal machinery.

It was declared, among other things, that the tax should be assessed and laid on all lands and lots of ground with their improvements and dwelling-houses; that the annual amount of said taxes should be a lien upon all lands and real estate of the individuals assessed for the same, and that in default of payment the said taxes might be collected by distraint and sale of the goods, chattels, and effects of the delinquent persons.

This tax was laid in execution of the power conferred upon the General Government for that purpose by the Constitution. It was an exercise of the right

of the Government to tax its citizens. It dealt with individuals, and the strong arm of Federal power was stretched out to exact from those who owed it support and allegiance their just share of the sum it had decreed should be raised by direct taxation for the general good. The lien created by this tax was upon the land and real estate of the "individuals" assessed for the same, and for its collection the distraint and sale of personal property of the "persons delinquent" were permitted."

But while the direct relationship and responsibility between the individuals taxed and the Federal Government were thus created by the exercise of the highest attribute of sovereignty, it was provided in the statute that any State or Territory and the District of Columbia might lawfully "assume, assess, collect, and pay

into the Treasury of the United States" its quota of said tax in its own way and manner, and by and through its own officers, assessors, and collectors; and it was further provided that such States or Territories as should give notice of their intention to thus assume and pay, or to assess, collect, and pay into the Treasury of the United States such direct tax, should be entitled in lieu of the compensation, pay per diem, and percentage in said act prescribed and allowed to assessors, assistant assessors, and collectors of the United States, a deduction of 15 per cent. of the quota of direct tax apportioned to such States or Territories and levied and collected through their officers.

It was also provided by this law and another passed the next year that certain claims of the States and Territories against the United States might be applied in payment of such quotas. Whatever may be said as to the effect of these provisions of the law, it can hardly be claimed that by virtue thereof or under any proceedings under them the apportioned quotas of this tax became debts against the several States and Territories, or that they were liable to the General Government therefor in every event and as principal debtors bound by an enforceable obligation.

In the forty-sixth section of the law it is provided that in case any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, after notice given of its intention to assume and pay, or to levy, collect, and pay said direct tax apportioned to it, should fail to pay the amount of said direct tax, or any part thereof, it should be lawful for the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint United States officers as in the act provided, whose duty it should be to proceed forthwith to collect all or any part of said direct tax, "the same as though said State, Territory, or District had not given notice nor assumed to levy, collect, and pay said taxes, or any part thereof."

A majority of the States undertook the collection of their quotas, and accounted for the amount thereof to the General Government by the payment of money or by setting off claims in their favor against the tax. Fifteen per cent. of the amount of their respective quotas was retained as the allowance for collection and payment. In the Northern, or such as were then called the loyal, States nearly the entire quotas were collected and paid through State agencies. The money necessary for this purpose was generally collected from the citizens of the States with their other taxes, and in whatever manner their quotas may have been canceled, whether by the payment of money or setting off claims against the Government, it is safe to say, as a general proposition, that the people of these States have individually been obliged to pay the assessments made upon them on account of this direct tax, and have intrusted it to their several States to be transmitted to the Federal Treasury.

In the Southern States, then in insurrection, whatever was actually realized in money upon this tax was collected directly by Federal officers without the interposition of State machinery; and a part of its quota has been credited to each of these States.

The entire amount applied upon this tax, including the 15 per cent. for collection, was credited to the several States and Territories upon the books of the Treasury, whether collected through their instrumentalities or by Federal officers.

The sum credited to all the States was $17,359,685.51, which includes more than $2,000,000 on account of the 15 per cent. allowed for collecting. Of the amount credited only about $2,300,000 is credited to the insurrectionary States. The amount uncollected of the twenty millions directed to be raised by this tax was $2,646,314.49, and nearly this entire sum remained due upon the quotas apportioned to these States.

In this condition of affairs the bill under consideration directs the Secretary of the Treasury "to credit to each State and Territory of the United States and the District of Columbia a sum equal to all collections, by set-off or otherwise, made from said States and Territories and the District of Columbia, or from any

of the citizens or inhabitants thereof or other persons, under the act of Congress approved August 5, 1861, and the amendatory acts thereto." An appropriation is also made of such a sum as may be necessary to reimburse each State, Territory, and the District of Columbia for all money found due to it under the provisions of the bill, and it is provided that all money still due to the United States on said direct tax shall be remitted and relinquished.

The conceded effect of this bill is to take from the money now in the Treasury the sum of more than $17,000,000, or, if the percentage allowed is not included, more than $15,000,000, and pay back to the respective States and Territories the sums they or their citizens paid more than twenty-five years ago upon a direct tax levied by the Government of the United States for its defense and safety.

It is my belief that this appropriation of the public funds is not within the constitutional power of the Congress. Under the limited and delegated authority conferred by the Constitution upon the General Government the statement of the purpose for which money may be lawfully raised by taxation in any form declares also the limit of objects for which it may be expended.

All must agree that the direct tax was lawfully and constitutionally laid, and that it was rightfully and correctly collected. It can not be claimed, therefore, nor is it pretended, that any debt arose against the Government and in favor of any State or individual by the exaction of this tax. Surely, then, the appropriation directed by this bill can not be justified as a payment of a debt of the United States.

The disbursement of this money clearly has no relation to the common defense. On the contrary, it is the repayment of morey raised and long ago expended by the Government to provide for the common defense.

The expenditure can not properly be advocated on the ground that the general welfare of the United States is thereby provided for or promoted. This "general welfare of the United States," as used in the Constitution, can only justify appropriations for national objects and for purposes which have to do with the prosperity, the growth, the honor, or the peace and dignity of the nation.

A sheer, bald gratuity, bestowed either upon States or individuals, based upon no better reason than supports the gift proposed in this bill, has never been claimed to be a provision for the general welfare. More than fifty years ago a surplus of public money in the Treasury was distributed among the States; but the unconstitutionality of such distribution, considered as a gift of money, appears to have been conceded, for it was put into the State treasuries under the guise of a deposit or loan, subject to the demand of the Government.

If it was proposed to raise by assessment upon the people the sum necessary to refund the money colfected upon this direct tax I am sure many who are now silent would insist upon the limitations of the Constitution in opposition to such a scheme. A large surplus in the Treasury is the parent of many ills, and among them is found a tendency to an extremely liberal if not loose construction of the Constitution. It also attracts the gaze of States and individuals with a kind of fascination, and gives rise to plans and pretensions that an uncongested Treasury never could excite.

But if the constitutional question involved in the consideration of this bill should be determined in its favor, there are other objections remaining which prevent my assent to its provisions.

There should be a certainty and stability about the enforcement of taxation which should teach the citizen that the Government will only use the power to tax in cases where its necessity and justice are not doubtful, and which should also discourage the disturbing idea that the exercise of this power may be revoked by reimbursement of taxes once collected. Any other theory cheapens and in a measure discredits a process

which more than any other is a manifestation of sovereign authority.

A government is not only kind, but performs its highest duty when it restores to the citizen taxes unlawfully collected, or which have been erroneously or oppressively extorted by its agents or officers; but, aside from these incidents, the people should not be familiarized with the spectacle of their Government repenting the collection of taxes and restoring them.

The direct tax levied in 1861 is not even suspected of invalidity; there never was a tax levied which was more needed, and its justice can not be questioned. Why, then, should it be returned?

The fact that the entire tax was not paid furnishes no reason that would not apply to every case where taxes are laid. There are always delinquents, and while the more thorough and complete collection of taxes is a troublesome problem of government, the failure to solve the problem has never been held to call for the return of taxes actually collected.

The deficiency in the collection of this tax is found almost entirely in the insurrectionary States, while the quotas apportioned to the other States were, as a general rule, fully paid, and three fourths or four fifths of the money which it is proposed in this bill to return would be paid into the treasuries of the loyal States. But no valid reason for such payment is found in the fact that the Government at first could not, and afterward, for reasons probably perfectly valid, did not enforce collection in the other States.

There were many Federal taxes which were not paid by the people in the rebellious States; and if the non-payment by them of this direct tax entitles the other States to a donation of the share of said taxes paid by their citizens, why should not the income tax and many other internal taxes paid entirely by the citizens of loyal States be also paid into the treasuries of these States? Considerations which recognize sectional divisions or the loyalty of the different States at the time this tax was laid should not enter into the

discussion of the merits of this measure.

The loyal States should not be paid the large sums of money promised them by this bill because they were loyal and other States were not, nor should the States which rebelled against the Government be paid the smaller sum promised them because they were in rebellion and thus prevented the collection of their entire quotas, nor because this concession to them is necessary to justify the proposed larger gifts to the other States.

The people of the loyal States paid this direct tax as they bore other burdens in support of the Government, and I believe the tax-payers themselves are content. In the light of these considerations, I am opposed to the payment of money from the Federal Treasury to enrich the treasuries of the States. Their funds should be furnished by their own citizens, and thus should be fostered the tax-payers' watchfulness of State expenditures and the tax-payers' jealous insistence upon the strict accountability of State officials. These elements of purity and strength in a State are not safely exchanged for the threatened demoralization and carelessness attending the custody and management of large gifts from the Federal Treasury.

The baneful effect of a surplus in the Treasury of the General Government is daily seen and felt. I do not think, however, that this surplus should be reduced or its contagion spread throughout the States by methods such as are provided in this bill.

There is still another objection to the bill, arising from what seems to me its unfairness and unjust discrimination.

In the case of proposed legislation of at least doubtful constitutionality, and based upon no legal right, the equities which recommend it should always be definite and clear.

The money appropriated by this bill is to be paid to the governors of the respective States and Territories in which it was collected, whether the same was derived through said States and Territories or directly" from any of the citizens or inhabitants there

of or other persons"; and it is further provided that such sums as were collected in payment of this Federal tax through the instrumentality of the State or Territorial officials, and accounted for to the General Government by such States and Territories, are to be paid unconditionally to their governors, while the same collected in payment of said tax by the United States, or, in other words, by the Federal machinery created for that purpose, are to be held in trust by said States or Territories for the benefit of those paying the same.

I am unable to understand how this discrimination in favor of those who have made payment of this tax directly to the officers of the Federal Government, and against those who made such payments through State or Territorial agencies, can be defended upon fair and equitable principles. It was the General Government in every case which exacted this tax from its citizens and people in the different States and Territories, and to provide for reimbursement to a part of its citizens by the creation of a trust for their benefit, while money exacted in payment of this tax from a far greater number is paid unconditionally into the State and Territorial treasuries, is an unjust and unfair proceeding in which the Government should not be implicated.

It will hardly do to say that the States and Territories who are the recipients of these large gifts may be trusted to do justice to its citizens who originally paid the money. This can not be relied upon, nor should the Government lose sight of the equality of which it boasts, and having entered upon the plan of reimbursement abandon to other agencies the duty of just distribution, and thus incur the risk of becoming accessory to actual inequality and injustice.

It in defense of the plan proposed it is claimed that exact equality can not be reached in the premises this may be readily conceded. The money raised by this direct tax was collected and expended twenty-seven years ago. Nearly a generation has passed away since that time. Even if distribution should be attempted by the States and Territories, as well as by the Government, the tax-payers in many cases are neither alive nor represented, and in many other cases, if alive, they can not be found. Fraudulent claims would often outrun honest applications, and innumerable and bitter contests would arise between claimants.

Another difficulty in the way of doing perfect justice in the operation of this plan of reimbursement is found in the fact that the money to be appropriated therefor was contributed to the Federal Treasury for entirely different purposes by a generation many of whom were not born when the direct tax was levied and paid, who have no relation to said tax, and can not share in its distribution. While they stand by and see the money they have been obliged to pay into the public Treasury, professedly to meet present necessities, expended to reimburse taxation long ago fairly, legally, and justly collected from others, they can not fail to see the unfairness of the transaction.

The existence of a surplus in the Treasury is no answer to these objections. It is still the people's

money, and better use can be found for it than the distribution of it upon the plea of the reimbursement of ancient taxation. A more desirable pian to reduce and prevent the recurrence of a large surplus can easily be adopted-one that, instead of creating injustice and inequality, promotes justice and equality by leaving in the hands of the people and for their use the money not needed by the Government "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

The difficulties in the way of making a just reimbursement of this direct tax, instead of excusing the imperfections of the bill under consideration, furnish reasons why the scheme it proposes should not be entered upon."

I am constrained, upon the considerations herein presented, to withhold my assent from the bill herewith returned, because I believe it to be without constitutional warrant; because I am of the opinion that

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1889.

The Senate, after a brief debate, passed the measure over the veto, by the following vote:

YEAS-Allison, Blackburn, Blodgett, Butler, Cameron, Chace, Chandler, Cockrell, Cullom, Daniel, Dawes, Farwell, Faulkner, Frye, George, Gorman, Gray, Hale, Hampton, Harris, Hawley, Hearst, Hiscock, Hoar, Ingalls, Jones of Nevada, Kenna, Morgan, Morrill, Palmer, Payne, Platt, Plumb, Quay, Ransom, Riddleberger, Sabin, Sawyer, Sherman, Spooner, Stewart, Stockbridge, Telfer, Walthall, Wilson of

Iowa-45.

NAYS-Blair, Call, Coke, Edmunds, Jones of Arkansas, Pasco, Reagan, Saulsbury, Vest--9.

ABSENT- Aldrich, Bate, Beck, Berry, Bowen, Brown, Colquitt, Davis, Dolph, Eustis, Evarts, Gibson, McPherson, Manderson, Mitchell, Paddock, Pugh, Stanford, Turpie, Vance, Voorhees, Wilson of Maryland-22.

In the House a motion to reconsider was objected to.

Interoceanic Canals. -On Feb. 27, 1888, the Senate passed a bill incorporating the Nicaragua Canal Company, which was reported and discussed in the House at the first session and taken up as unfinished business, Dec. 7, 1888.

The Senate bill was as follows:

Whereas, to facilitate commercial intercourse by water between the Atlantic and the Pacific States as well as with foreign nations, it is deemed desirable for the public interests of the United States that a ship-canal be constructed between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, on what is known as the Nicaragua route: Therefore,

Be it enacted, etc., That Frederick Billings, Charles P. Daly, Daniel Ammen, Francis A. Stout, Horace L. Hotchkiss, Edward F. Beale, Hiram Hitchcock, C. Ridgely Goodwin, A.C. Cheney, J. F.O'Shaughnessy, H. C. Taylor, J. W. Miller, A. S. Crowninshield, A. G. Menocal, Charles H. Stebbins, T. Harrison Garrett, Jules Aldige, R. A. Lancaster, Alfred E. Mills, Gustav E. Kissell, Horace Fairbanks, George H. Robinson, Alfred B. Darling, Joseph E. McDonald, James Roosevelt, Christian Devries, Frederick F. Thompson, Henry A. Parr, and such other persons as may be associated with them and their successors are hereby constituted and created a body corporate and politic in deed and in law, by the name, style, and title of "The Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua," for the construction, equipment, management, and operation of a ship-canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, either entirely through the territory of the republic of Nicaragua or through Nicaragua and in part through the territory of the republic of Costa Rica, with such colateral, connecting, or cross canals as may be necessary to connect therewith, and to exercise such other powers as have been conferred by the Government of Nicaragua by the concession of that republic to the Nicaragua Canal Association, through Mr. A. G. Menocal, its representative, and dated the 23d day of March, A. D. 1887, and finally approved by the legislative and executive authority of the republic on the 20th, 23d, and 24th days of April, A. D. 1887, and such powers as the republic of Costa Rica may confer of the same kind as those named in said concession; and the said Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua, by that name shall have perpetual succession; may sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, defend and be defended, in all the courts of law and equity within the United States; may make and have a common seal; and shall have and possess the rights, powers, and privileges usually possessed by similar companies. It may receive, pur

chase, hold, and convey such real and personal estate, property and rights of property, or concessionary rights as may be necessary to carry into effect the purposes of this act; may issue stock to the amount of the value thereof in payment therefor, and the stock so issued shall be declared and taken to be full-paid stock, and not liable to any further calls or assessments; may do all lawful things to secure the full enjoyment of the powers, privileges, rights, benefits, and grants contained in any canal concession so made by the republic of Nicaragua or to be made by the republic of Costa Rica, as aforesaid; and to aid in the construction of said canal and to carry out the purposes of this act, the said Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua is hereby authorized to issue its bonds, and to secure the same by mortgage on its property and rights of property of all kinds and descriptions, real, personal, and mixed, including its franchise to be a corporation. The principal office of said corporation shall be in the city of New York, and all legal process may be served upon the person who may at the time be in charge of said office or upon the attorney of said company, whose name and address shall be certified by the president of the company; and such certificate shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the United States.

SEC. 2. That the capital stock of said company shall consist of not less than one million shares of $100 each, with the right to increase the capital stock to two million shares of $100 each, upon the vote of two thirds of the stock of said company at any time outstanding, which shares shall in all respects be deemed personal property and shall be transferable in such manner as the by-laws of said corporation may provide. Five incorporators, who shall be chosen by a majority of the number from those named in this act, shall have power to open books of subscription to the capital stock of said company in the city of New York, and at such other places in the United States, Nicaragua, or elsewhere as they may designate, who shall receive all subscriptions for stock; and no stock shall be transferable except upon the books of the company provided for that purpose. The said incorporators shall give thirty days' notice of the time and place of the opening of said books, by publication in one daily newspaper in New York City, and one newspaper in Managua, Nicaragua, and one in San José, Costa Rica, if the said canal should be in part in the territory of that republic. Sixty days' previous notice shall be given of the payment required, of the time and place of payment by publication in one daily newspaper in the city of New York, and in one newspaper in Managua, Nicaragua, and one in San José, Costa Rica, if the said canal should be in part in the territory of that republic; and in case any stockholder shall neglect or refuse to pay, in pursuance to such notice, the stock held by him may be sold to the highest bidder for cash, according to the regulations to be made therefor in the by-laws of said company. The directors hereinafter provided for may adopt regulations and by-laws not inconsistent with the provisions of this act.

SEC. 3. That the affairs of the said company shall be managed by a board of directors, fifteen in number, who shall hold their office for three years and until their successors are duly chosen and qualified, and a majority of whom shall be citizens and residents of the United States. At the first election five shall be chosen by the stockholders for one year, five for two years, and five for three years, and at each annual election thereafter five shall be chosen by the stockholders for three years. The said board shall elect from its number a president who shall be a citizen and resident of the United States, and one or more vice-presidents of the company, who shall hold office for such terms as the by-laws of said board may provide and until their successors are duly elected and shall have qualified.

SEC. 4. That for the management and disposition of the stock, property, estate, and effects of the said company the board of directors may make such by-laws,

rules, and regulations as may conform to the authority granted in such canal concession or concessions, and not be inconsistent with this act or the laws of the United States or the existing treaty stipulations of the United States with the Government of Nicaragua or of Costa Rica, if the said canal should be in part in the territory of that republic; and may fix the time for election of directors, and in case of vacancy in said board, caused by death, resignation, or otherwise, may fill the same. No person shall be a director who is not a stockholder, and any one ceasing to be a

stockholder shall cease to be a director. All meetings

of stockholders shall be held at the office of the company in the city of New York, and at least one such meeting shall be held in each year; but failure to elect directors on the day appointed by said by-laws shall not be deemed to dissolve said company, but such election may be holden on any day appointed thereafter by the directors first giving thirty days' notice thereof, in manner aforesaid. The directors, of whom eight, including the president, shall be a quorum, shall have full power touching the election or appointment of all officers of the company, and said officers shall hold office at the will and pleasure of

said board.

SEC. 5. Nothing in this act contained shall be deemed or construed to in any wise restrict or impair any right of the United States under any treaty in force with the Republic of Nicaragua. And nothing in this act shall be held or construed to in any manner involve the United States in any pecuniary obligation's whatever other than in respect of the payinent of tolls, as provided for in this act.

SEO. 6. That Congress shall at all times have the power to alter, amend, or repeal this act, when in its judgment the public good may so require.

In general discussion of the measure, Mr. Cox, of New York, said: It has two branches: 1, its constitutionality; and, 2, its feasibility.

"1. Can Congress create such a corporation? Under Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, Congress has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause frequently. Chief-Justice Marshal decided the leading case of Gibbons vs. Ogden (9 Wheat., first volume). He upheld the power of Congress to provide for commercial intercourse between nations and parts of nations in all its branches.' Navigation was embraced, according to that decision, within the words of the Constitution. There was no limitation on the species of commercial intercourse. It could be exercised to the utmost extent.' When the sovereignty of Congress is recognized, though limited to specific objects, it is plenary as to these objects. There has been a close adherence to this leading case both in the Federal and State courts. These cases include commerce carried on by corporations as well as by individuals. Mr. Justice Field recognized this (8 Wallace, 182, 183) in the case of Paul vs. Virginia. He recognized the utility of corporations in the commercial world. They were contemporaneous with the formation of the Constitution, the grant of power having made no reference to the instrumentality by which this commerce should be carried on. It is general, and includes alike commerce by individuals, partnerships, associations, and corporations.'

Afterward, in the case of the United States vs. Marigold (9 Howard, 567) Mr. Justice Daniel said that the Constitution warranted legislative discretion on all and every subject of commerce. "In other cases, which might be quoted, it was

'It is, therefore, unnecessary to inquire whether this bill is constitutional under the general defense' clause of the Constitution. This brings me to the

"Second proposition: That this proposed charter affects the commerce of the whole world, and

including especially our own. The obstacle, if any, would be the lack of acquiescence in the foreign country through which the proposed facility of commerce, or the proposed canal, is to pass. There is no obstacle in this case, as Nicaragua has given her stipulation in that regard.

"How will this matter affect our maritime traffic?

"First, it does what Maury intended should be done by his scientific induction and experiment in making a map of the ocean, showing its varied currents. That is, it leads commerce away from the old routes upon the ocean; it discovers and constructs new and shorter routes. That this is so has already been explained by the committee which has proposed the measure.

"Without considering any other route, or the relations of any other country to this or any other route, I may be allowed to say that if this enterprise be successful, it will enable our country to compete successfully with the other hemisphere, not only with the Pacific coast of our own country, but with the coast of North and South America generally. The vessels of Europe now have ten days of an advantage over us in time and 2,000 miles in distance in reaching the western coast of North and South America. In sailing around Cape Horn we are at a great disadvantage compared with the vessels of the world. This canal will place the city I represent 2,500 miles nearer to San Francisco than Liverpool is. It is of especial advantage to our Southern cities. I need not dilate upon the advantages by which we would be enabled to trade for the eastern coast and nations of Asia through this shorter water route.

"It does not matter, in this connection, whether we shall be exclusive users of the canal or not. The advantages to the company are apparent, and the advantages to our country are paramount. They will not be lessened by making the canal neutral.

"This company asks no money and no monetary credit of the Government. The bill as now pending absolutely forbids any moneyed responsibility. It stands, therefore, very unlike other transit routes, which have been becoming running sores, by reason of the munificence of Congress in granting them lands and credit, and the flagrant breaches of the trusts created by statute."

Mr. Holman, of Indiana, in offering an amendment to the bill, said: "During our past history Congress, legislating on subjects within our own