It has been argued that the Federal Government has the constitutional power to charter companies not only to do an interstate carrier business, but, as incidental thereto, to manufacture and produce the goods which they transport. Some support for the doctrine is claimed from the cases in which it has been held that the National Banks chartered primarily to serve a federal function, may also be authorized, as incidental thereto, to do a general banking business within the States. But it is by no means sure that these bank cases will be held to furnish this support. In the case of the National Banks it will be remembered that it was held that it was not practicable for them to exist as banks and to perform the federal functions which they were created to perform, unless, at the same time, they were permitted to do a general banking business. As to interstate carrier companies, however, it would seem that there is not the same necessity that they should be permitted to carry on a manufacturing business. Indeed, by the federal Hepburn Act of 1906, interstate railways are expressly forbidden to have a direct or indirect interest in the commodities which they transport.

It would seem, however, that federally incorporated interstate carrier companies may be authorized to carry on also an intrastate carrier business. Here the connection between the two would seem to be as close as that between the general banking busi--ness and the purely federal functions of the National Banks.

61 153 U. S. 525; 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 891: 38 L. ed. 808. 62 204 U. S. 24; 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 233; 51 L. ed. 351.

It was argued by Mr. Garfield, when Commissioner of Corporations, that Congress may grant charters to manufacturing companies whose only connection with interstate commerce would be that their products would become articles of interstate commerce, the reasoning being that though, as established by the Knight case, the production of goods intended for interstate commerce, has no direct connection with and does not imply interstate commerce, it does not follow that interstate commerce does not imply production. " On the contrary, it is submitted," declares Commissioner Garfield, " that it does imply production to such an extent that the power to produce is a necessary constitutional incident of the powers of such proposed interstate commerce corporations. Production is an indispensable prerequisite of commerce, whether interstate or otherwise. Production may exist without commerce, certainly without a specified form of commerce, such as interstate commerce. . . . On the other hand interstate commerce cannot exist without production. . . . All the powers for the transaction of commerce might be granted by federal franchise, and yet they •would be wholly null, valueless, and inoperative unless there were also means of bringing into existence the subjects upon which such powers shall act." This being taken as established, Mr. Garfield has no difficulty in declaring that the States would be without the constitutional power to prohibit or interfere with production by such companies.

Certainly the reasoning here is by no means convincing. Upon the same ground it might be argued that because paper and ink. pencils and pens, are necessary for the writing of letters, and letters are necessary if there is to be first-class mail matter, the Federal Government may control the manufacture of paper and ink, pencils and pens. And by a similar argument the authority of the Federal Government could be extended over the entire manufacturing and industrial interests of the country.

The case of the National Banks furnishes no support whatever for Mr. Garfield's position. The efficiency of interstate carrier companies, as transportation agencies, is wholly independent of the conditions; under which, or the persons or corporations by which, the goods which they carry are produced. Of course, if no goods are produced there will be no interstate transportation. But this will be so because there will be no need for such transportation. Goods are not produced in order that commerce may exist. Commerce, in short, is not an end in itself.

According to Mr. Garfield's argument which treats commerce as an end in itself it might be argued that the production of commodities should be increased not so that a need for them as articles of consumption could be satisfied, but simply and solely to supply larger train-loads for the interstate carrier companies. The absurdity of this is manifest.