Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-05-18

with others, plainly showing that noHnote,
no, distant conduciveness 10 the object, Is
in the miniof the court.
With as little remorse as the Procrustes
Of ancient fable stretched and Topped limbs
in order to Git travellers to his bed does
Amphyction extend and tracttNe mean
ing Of words in the constitution, and ip the
opinion of the court, in order to 1ccommo
date those papers to his structures. Thus,
he saws, il Congress should impose a tax
on Land, sit would be extremely conDsni-
emit, and very appropriate measure, and
very coaduciue to their purpose of collect
ing this tax speedily, and promptly, il the
state governments could be prohibited du-
ring the same year from laying and coilec-
ting land tax. Were they to pass such
law, and thereby directly encroach on one
of the most undoubted rights Of the states,
the present liberal and sweeping construc-
ton oil theclause by the supreme court
would justify the measure"
No, l deny that law prohibiting the
state legislatures from imposing land tax
would be an appropriate" means, or any
| means whatever, to be employed in collect
ing the tax of the United States. 1t is not
an instrument to be so employed. 1t is not
| means "painly adapted" or conducive
Ito" the end. The passage OF such an act
would be an attempt on the part OF Con-
eress under the preteNt ofexecuting its pow.
ers, to pass laws for the accomplishment
of objects not intrusted to the government.
So far is the construction given to this
clause by the supreme court from Icing so
s'liheral and sweeping" as to Justify The
measure" that the opinion expressly re-
Ijects it. Let its language be quoted
'Tbat the pow er of taxation is ONE OF vital
importance that it is retained by the states;
that if is to be concurrently exercised by
the two governments, are truths, says the
| opinion, which have never been Denied
The court afterwards quotes passage from
Il
the Federalist in which this construction is
urged yehemently. as an objection to the
constitution itself, and obviously approves
the argument against it,
Many laborious criticisms would be a
voided, if those who are disposed to con-
demn paper. would take the trouble to
read, with disposition to understand, it.
shall not notice the various Imaginary
and lose opinions which Amphyction has
collected. or suggested, because they are
not impu,a bic to the supreme court. con-
tent myself with exposing Some Of his err
rors in constituting the constitution, and IN
| ascribinp to the opinion he condemns, doc
,r;nes which !, does not contain,
cannot however avoid remarking that
| Ampbyction himself, as soon as hehas c!o-
sed his structure on the supreme cou't,
seems to desert his own construction AID
take up theirs. 81 thiIk it clear, ne says,
THAT the intention of the constitution was
to confer on Congress the power of resort
ing 10 such means as are incidental 10 the
10 such means as directly and necessarily
tend to produce the desired effect"
How much more, let me ask, has been
said by the supreme court? That court
! has said 81 Let the end be legitimate, let
| II be within the scope OF the constitution,
,nj al means which are APPROPRIATE, which
ara nI,inly adaps.d to that end. which are
No, prob;bited ""sre constitutional" The