OCR Text |
Show 9 calling of the Constitutional Convention.16 And when the Con- stitution was established, an express power was delegated to the Congress:17 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Navigation Control.-The importance of inland waterways for navigation use and the wisdom of their improvement had already been recognized:18 Later, the westward growth of the Nation and the corresponding need for water transportation inspired demands for improvement of waterways, among other internal improvements.19 But the Congress did not imme- diately employ the utility of its commerce power for this purpose. Instead, and strangely enough in retrospect, a political con- troversy arose over the Federal Government's authority under the spending power to make internal improvements. Although agreeing that it should assume responsibility for navigation improvements, some early statesmen believed that the Gov- ernment lacked constitutional power to undertake them, and suggested authorization by constitutional amendment.20 On the other hand, as we shall later see, contemporary treaties and statutes sought federal assurance of the status of navigable waters as "public highways." a Recognition of the adaptability of federal commerce power was not long delayed, however. With the steamboat came efforts toward monopoly of steamboat transportation. The legislature of New York enacted statutes for the purpose of 181 Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution, 106-119 (2d ed. 1836). 17 U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. M See, e. g., Marshall, Lira of Washington, p. 11 (1807). MBogart and Kemmerer, Economic Histoby of the American People, pp. 311-315 (1942); MacGill, History of Transportation in the United States Before 1860, pp. 131-136 (1917) ; 3 McMaster, A History of the People of the United States, 465-478 (1892). 20 For views of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, see 1 Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 409-410, 456, 497, 567-568, 584; 2 id. 8,17-18, 144-183, 216 (1896). See also United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725,738 (1950). a See infra, pp. 74-75. |