corporation created by it. New Jersey gave this right for transportation between New York and Philadelphia to the Camden & Amboy Railroad, and denied it to other companies. This was the occasion for the Federal statute of June 15, 1866, which gave connecting carriers the right to transport from State to State, but did not assume to impose an obligation. The debates in Congress when this bill was under discussion, show very clearly what then were the powers of the United States and of the States.

It is said that the holding of stock by the Northern Securities Company amounted to a virtual consolidation of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific, and for this reason was illegal. Can Congress authorize consolidation of railroad companies, organized under State laws? Congress has never done so nor has such a theory been advanced. To hold now that Congress can either authorize or forbid consolidation of State corporations, would be a complete reversal of the constitutional doctrines of a hundred years, and would require a new reading of Gibbons v. Ogden and of Cooley v. Port Wardens.

Result of the authorities. In particular cases the lines separating State and Federal powers are often difficult to trace, but the general purposes which distinguish the two governments are so well marked, that if these purposes be consistently followed, particular decisions, even when doubtful, are not likely in the end to establish serious departure from constitutional principles.

P

"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the Federal government," Madison said, "are few and defined; those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which last the powers of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." 1

It is not likely that a union of the States could, at any period of American history, have been formed upon another principle. We know, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said, that the people of no one State would "trust those of another with a power to control the most insignificant operations of their State government.” 2 Congress should, indeed, have powers adequate for the "maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States," but this involved no control over State administration.

3

Among the matters thus left to the States was the entire subject of corporations. It was long doubtful whether Congress could, for any purpose, establish a corporation under its national powers. State jurisdiction over the subject was never questioned. Substantially all business may be transacted in corporate form. The transfer of corporations to Federal control would, therefore, be of itself the establishment of almost complete centralization.

"It is undoubtedly true," the Supreme Court re

1 Federalist, No. 45. 8 Federalist, No. 42.

2 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 431.

cently said, "that that which is implied is as much a part of the Constitution as that which is expressed," and that "among those matters which are implied though not expressed, is that the nation may not, in the exercise of its powers, prevent a State from discharging the ordinary functions of government." "Not only, therefore,

can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may not be unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution, as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the national government.'

A review of the decisions of the Supreme Court upon the Sherman Act shows that the Court, in construing the statute which is based upon the power of Congress to maintain intercourse among the States, has gone to the verge of Federal jurisdiction. An extension of present doctrines could be made only by sacrifice of State authority essential for efficient local government, and — a matter of still greater importance - by overturning long established principles of constitutional law.

1 South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437.

"Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725.

CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSIONS

THE two most important possessions of the American people are, first, the Constitution, using the word in its broader meaning to include the actual system adopted for Federal administration, together with the general plan of local State government; and second, the habit of respect for law, which distinguishes an orderly democracy from personal rule.

There are some who believe, possibly with good reason, that the Constitution should be altered. Commercial and social conditions have greatly changed during the century last past, while the Constitution is largely what it was. Population has become dependent upon remote sources of supply. Each State is no longer sufficient for itself. It may be that the powers of the common government are inadequate to protect the common interests, and if so the central power should, so far as necessary, be increased.

Importance of State governments. On the other hand, maintenance of democratic government so that its administration shall be free from partial influences and directed for the good of all, demands that government be kept close to the whole people and that all participate.

It is difficult to secure capable and honest administration of public affairs, but the struggle for good government in cities, counties, and States, compelling the attention of every citizen, is the only security of the nation. Every measure which impairs the power or dignity of local governments, deteriorates the central authority. That populations have become dependent upon remote sources of supply, is true not only of American States, but of all civilized nations. No country is now sufficient for itself. At the same time, however, that international dependence has increased, the need for local self-government has immensely increased. No one who knows the differences in character and occupations which mark the populations of our various States, who understands the importance and difficulty of the many questions with which State governments are dealing each in its own way, and their growing complexity with growing population, can wish to transfer these burdens to committees of Congress already fully occupied with national affairs.

It is fortunate that the regulation of corporations, which now takes public attention, can be accomplished by State legislation (ante, pp. 156-175). The subject concerns so closely the common affairs of daily life, and should be determined with reference to conditions and occupations which vary so widely in different States, that its transfer to Federal control would seriously limit local autonomy.

It is clear then that if change in the Constitution be necessary, it should be so made as least to restrict the States.