The bill was never called up after the printing of this amendment. INTER-STATE INTERCOURSE BY RAILWAY. REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO FACILITATE COMMERCIAL, POSTAL, AND MILITARY COMMUNICATION IN THE SEVERAL STATES, MAY 29, 1866. A measure relating to inter-State intercourse, especially by railway, which had been considered by a former Congress, reappeared in the present Congress. The bill of Mr. Sumner, “to facilitate commercial, postal, and military communication among the several States,”[33] was introduced into the House of Representatives and adopted, with a proviso touching stipulations between the United States and any railway company. In the Senate it was considered from time to time. * * * * * May 29th, the following additional proviso, moved by Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, was adopted,--Yeas 24, Nays 15:-- “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.” On the third reading of the bill, Mr. Sumner said:-- I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. COWAN], that the measure before us is important: whether so transcendently important as he depicts I do not venture to say. But, Sir, I believe it a beneficent measure, and important from its very beneficence. The bill as originally presented was complete and simple. I think it met the idea so ably set forth by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN]. Were the bill adopted in that form, it would be truly beneficent. It would prevent any State from becoming a turnpike-gate to the internal commerce of the country. No State, I insist, has a right to take toll on the internal commerce of this great republic, and it belongs to the United States, under the National Constitution, to regulate that internal commerce. It was in the exercise of that power, under the National Constitution, and also of other powers, as the power to regulate the post-office, and also the military power, that this bill was conceived. I say, Sir, in every respect it is beneficent. It has been to-day ably and conclusively vindicated by the Senator from Ohio. On other occasions I have considered it. I feel now that there is little occasion for any further elaborate discussion. I regret, Sir, with the Senator from Ohio, that the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire has been fastened upon it. I wish it were in our power now to give the bill its original force and virtue. But, even with that amendment, it is better than nothing. It does something. It goes forth and does battle with a monopoly in at least one State of the Union which was in view when the bill was first presented. It is also a precedent for the future action of Congress, and it will open the way to what the Senator from Ohio so earnestly desires.