i36
THE GREEN BAG
Italian Government. It was not difficult for us to understand that the responsibility was individual, or was that of the city of New Orleans or of the State of Louisiana. No domestic responsibility rested upon the general Government. And yet no appeal could be made by the King of Italy to the State of Louisiana. It was the President with whom alone he could communicate. And it may be assumed that there was no right in the President, nor in the general Government, to coerce the State of Louisi ana or to compel the State to force repara tion either from the city of New Orleans or from individuals. A system which leads to such results may easily be criticized. It is difficult of comprehension even by foreign statesmen of high intelligence. None the less, it is the legacy which was left to us by our fathers; their children have fought to maintain it; and it has resulted in so nice an adjustment between the functions which belong to the States and those which may be exercised by the general Government, that in working order only occasional dif ficulties arise, and those up to a recent period have been capable of adjustment by decisions of the Supreme Court without seri ous consequences of a general character. The proposition which is presented by Mr. Garfield's report is whether in a most essential respect all this shall be changed. It can scarcely be contended that any such outworking of the commerce clause of the Constitution could have been within the contemplation of those who framed it. It is within the recollection of every student of history that there was indisposition by the States to give up any of the sovereign rights which they claimed to belong to them. There was indisposition to subject their affairs to the power of a creation of their own, the control of which might be hostile to particular States. Such proved to be the case with the slave States, and the sequel was a struggle which made the most important event since the formation nf the Government.
It was necessary, in framing the Consti tution, to recognize that there would result transactions between the States, and as neither could regulate such transactions against the other, it followed that Congress must have the power to regulate interstate commerce. It may be difficult to reconcile the decisions of the Supreme Court upon the interpretation which is to be put upon the commerce provision of the Constitution. But it may be affirmed without contradic tion, whatever signification may be attached to the language, that it could not have been within the intention of the framers of the Constitution that it should confer upon Congress the authority which is required to carry out Mr. Garfield's recommendations. The question of power can be considered in the light of the Supreme Court's decisions. Innumerable points of difference which may come before that Court are suggested by the report. It may be that as to some the right of Congress to act may be sustained; that as to others, such may not be the case. Passing the question of power, there is pre sented the consideration of expediency. And the slightest reflection shows that the adoption of Mr. Garfield's recommendations or the adoption of the fundamental principle upon which those recommendations go, would be to bring about a business change, the serious consequences of which it would be difficult to overestimate. Mutual interest up to this time has led to the necessary comity between the States, the laws of each making provision for carry ing on business within its borders and for the ownership of property by corporations created under the laws of other States. To bring about this situation has required time, and it has had the benefit of much practical experience. It is in working order. The new system will start afresh. It is stated in the public press that the officers of the Government have already encountered dif ficulties in dealing with that one of Mr. Garfield's recommendations which makes compulsory federal incorporations of inter
