Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-01-11

irty the powers not delegated and ante
identity possessed by IL When, there
he, the states clo,hed with every perfect
Eht aud attribute OF sovereign nations,
felegate 10 Congress exclusive power OF
Gxaiion over Exports aud Imports. they
n etain for themselves the right 10 legisla,e
2 iover all other subjects of taxation, Just as
effcc tuall, as positive language could have
retained il. And the very necessity that
was felt To prohibit the states from taxing
exports anu imports, clearly shews, that
without this positive prohibition. their
right ts legislaie over these subjects of
taxation, would have been manifest and
undisputed. There was no necessity 10
specify the state rights reserved in esia'
blishingthe federal compact, because these
rights existed IN The slaics aniecedeni to
the compact, aud wero .never coded
Being original rights, never ceded, but
reserved, they still belong TO the states
III their highes, sovereign character, as
perfect national rights. The right TO tax
IS OF this perfect national kind older than
the federal compact, aud coeva! with the
national sovereignty OF The states con-
siantly exercised BY the states, aud sepa
rabe from the states only by for. ed and
arbitrary implication, with which the in
ternal sovereignty of the states cannot
co-eXist.
Ii is true, that the power of taxation re
sides as well IN the general. as i'll the state
governments, and may be concurrently
exercised upon the same subjects by the
different governments al the same time.
Under This concurrent power al taxation,
they may each pass a law, both of which
may be clearly constitutional, and yet
these laws may initiate and Impede each
other. Congress have The power 10 i'm
pose a tax upon whiskry stills. 1t cannot
be denieJ that the states have concur
rent power TO do the same. Suppose the
states should impose The tax so heavily az
10 destroy the occupation OF the dis,ilers
OF the article, and by consequence, one
OF The legitimate sources of revenue Tor
the general government. This would of
fectually defeat any taxing power Com
gress exercised upon The same subject !;
and would generate conflict between
two powers undoubtedly residing in the
respective govern neniS. And vet, il has
never been imagined by the waImest adj
Inirers or the most aifecii6nate patrons OF
the federal government, that there was any
authority III Congress or The Supreme Ju-
dietary TO abrogate this constitutional
state law, defeating the constitutional law
OF the federal legislature. Neither the
coHsiluiinnaliiy of the congressional law.
nor The absolute defeat of It's operation
by the state Law, is any reason in the eye
o! The constitution Tor charging, diminish
ing or controlling III any nalner whaiso.
ever, the laNiDgpOwer OF the siaics. The
TigIi of passing constitutional laws which
conflict with the constitutional laws Of
Congress is not prohibited 10 the states !;
nor, Is the right Uf passing constitutional
laws which, may conflict with the cOnsii
tu'innal laws vt the states, prohibited TO
Congress The two legislative bodies
Tevolvc within specified orbits circumscri
bed by the charter Of the Union and nei-
ther can push the other from lis sphere
In the wauderings of it's course. II Tins
occasional conflict OF authority in the diff
terenl governments of tic Union may be
justly regarded as a dangerous conse-
9aence OF our federative system, the wise
trainers of the consultation have prescrib-
cal no antld0te against It's possible and
toreSeen occurrence. IL is highly prOba
biz they greatly preferred il 10 That fear
ful and absolute supremacy which could
alone invest Que government with power
10 abrogate the Tighiul laws of another /;
ana the exercise OF which by the General
Government would directly affect the
existence of The state governments, the
balance Of the constitution aud the IN
trgrity of the Union.
Congress i'll virtue OF this coucurr ut
rIght can impose no tax. 10 which the
same right IN The states does not extend
that OF he Federalisi, so usually resoried
20, directly applies. ;" | affirm" says Nj,
Hamilton, " That with the sole exception
OF dnlies on imports and EXPORTS the
individual states retain an independent nd
uncomfortable authority to raise iiIrir own
revenue, IN the mos, absolute & unqualified
sense. and hat an attempt on Tie part Of The
national government 40 atrldge tnem IN :he
exercise oilt,w uld bc a violent assumption,
OF power, unworydmtei By aug article or
clause IA the constitution Suppose t (, at the
federal legislature, by some forced con
SIructi0n O It's auihority,dpon The pretcnce
OF an ference with its revenues should
undertake 10 abrOgaic a land tax, Impos.
ed by the authority of state. would il
Eot be evident that II was an iru0Sicn 81
that concurrent jurisdiction IN respect it
this species ct tax, which the constitution
plainly sIpp0ses 10 exist in the state go
veInmens? ! Though a law, therefore
laying tax for The use Of The u Stale.
would be supreme i'll lis nature, and coult
not legally be opposed or confronted, We
"a law a5rogating or preventing The colec
ton OF tax laid by the authority Of ;
state (unless upon imports or exports
scould not be the supreme iaw ofthe land bm
On uSnpation of poWer not granted by tn
constitution"
And now, the important question O
Jurisdiction directly arises ;-wheIher III,
state authorities within their respeciiv
spheres are cOniroulable by the authori
ties of The general government
The LIST section of the Sd article Of tn
Constitution declares, HAT tie jaoiicio
p9wer Of the United States shall be veste
In one Snnrelae cnlLrt aud In snch inferin