-Article I, Section 8 which provides congress with the power to“regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States, andwith Indian tribes.” In his decision, Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall heldthat the New York monopoly was unconstitutional in that it interfered withthe power of Congress over interstate commerce.Webster’s argument against the validity of the steamboat monopolymay be his best ever before the Supreme Court and Marshall’s decision mayhave been his only truly popular one. Marshall delivered the opinion of thecourt, saying that the laws giving exclusive privilege are repugnant because,“1st. To that clause in the constitution which authorizes Congress toregulate commerce.2d. To that which authorizes Congress to promote the progress of scienceand useful arts...” (Cushman, 188) Marshall’s decision helped to start theU.S. on the road to the free flow of business. There is though, as always, another side to this case. The commercewhich Congress may regulate can be taken as the transportation and sale ofcommodities. In this case, Gibbon’s coasting license could not protect himsince he was carrying passangers, not goods. The monopoly only requiresthat boats, once in New York waters need to be operated by means otherthan a steam if not licensed. This law then is only a regulation of internalstate trade, not of commercial inter-state trade, therefore Congress cannothave regulate since it is not affecting inter-state trade.I think it was made obvious that this law was affecting inter-state trade. New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, Georgia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Vermont all passed laws as a result from theLivingston-Fulton monopoly. Congress had the constitutional right to end themonopoly, “so accustomed are we to the free flow of commerce among thestates that it is hard to conceive how the nations might have developed ifthe...
