Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-03-19

tuereiOTe, as you uiVc the COntfOi OF commerce,
you must construct them. If power to regu-
late commerce among the states will authorize /
you to do whatever will facilitate commerce,
your power is unlimited. You may lake upon !,
youtl0A interior police, and the administration
ofjusticc in the states; for, BY go doing, You may
facilitate commerce.. But commerce is tobe |
regulated" and among the states aud this
word 'sarnong," signifies 5etceen the states. 1t |
was so understood at the adoption of the Con-
sttution. Mr.. Madison writing on this subject
says, "Thc defect ofpowcrin ticexisting conicdc
racy, to regulate the corntncrce 6etcecn its Sc
ycral members, is in the number CT those which
have been clearly pointed out by experienced
The power given 10 Congress is the same in re-
latlon TO commerce between this nation and for
| cign nations. You may regulate commerce
with foreign nations; but this gives you pow
or to regulate the interior commerce of this ma
ton. You may regulate the commerce Of one
state with another state; but, this gives you no
power to regulate the internal commerce of eli
thor. You may establish ports, license vessels
impose tonnage and other duties, in the one case,
and so you may in the other.
The gentleman from Delaware (NTr. McIane)
says, ''The power given TO Congress is a power
which state did not possess" | agree with
dim, that the power is such as a state did not
possess. A state could not alone, regulate
commerce between ii and another. state. This
is the power grauted to Congress which state
did not possess. But state did possess power
TO regulate commerce in its OWL interior; and
. this power has not been granted to Congress-
The Speaker Mr.. Clay has argued that, unless
the power to regulate commerce among the
states implies authority to foster, promote, and
facilitate it, the clause is without Il meaning.
for, that Congress has no power to lay imports
and duties OH the trade among the several states.
The gentleman is mistaken; this government
may lay duties on articles imported from ano-
Their state. The principal object of granting
| this power to Congress, was 10 take from the
states authority oyer the subject, which had been
1 exercised to their mutual injury. The friends
oft bill understand ssrcgulatc commerce,n to
-fmean, s'facilitate the carriage of goods.n Is
4 this fair construction? Roads and canals are
means of carrying on commerce; but, are your
! to furnish the means of carrying on commerce.;
the ships, the carriages, the capital 1t is for
you to regulate commerce, to prescribe the
manner in which it shall be carried on, not to
provide themeans.
Power is given to Congress to regulate CON-
mercc among the states which otherwise must
have been regulated by compacts treaties be-
tween them but such power extends not to
regulate commerce between different places IN
the same state. CAN'T be believed that by this
clause power is intended to be given TO Congress
to execute system of internal improvement ?
!, If it had been intended TO grant such power,
would it not have been explicitly aud efectually
granted Such construction as is contended
fOf, never entered into the minds of the conyen-
ton; AMI it is contrary TO good faith 10 give 10
the language they haveused, a meaning entirely
different from that with which they used it. But
\ suppose that by'' regulate commerce. you I'M
dcrstand Sc to make internal improvements" you
Will be restricted to such are Eefceea the states
and what will this authorize you TODD? WHY,
to make a bridge across the Potomac, the Della
ware, or the Ohio, betpeen the states. The
lpowergrantedto Congress torcgulatc commerce
/ among the states is an exclusive power; it is
clearly an exclusive power to regulate COM
merce with foreign nations, and with the Indian
tribes and it cannot be contended that the
same word, in the same sentence, has several
meanings. w hatever power may be exercised
under thisgrant, you may exercise exclusively.
| 1t, by this power, you may interfere with the in
ternal commerce OF state, you have exclusive
jurisdiction over the whole commerce Of the
country, not only between the states, but be-
tween county and county, village and village,
man and man. And what is this commerce. of
which you have exclusive jurisdiction? Why.
every sale of property that's made in the country
may be considered as commerce, and under Your
regulation. What authority will be left TO the
states Will not this be consolidation
tits contcndcd that yor nay make roads and
canals by Yo;ir power 10 make war. Does au-
thorIy to direct the force OF conlclerated states
carry with it the interior police Of the confcde
rated states Does the Emperor Of Germany,
| by his power to direct the force of the empire,
make acknowledgements in Saxony and Wir-
| tcinbcrg / have never understood so. Did
| Napoleon, as head of the Confederation of the
| Rhine, claim sucha power No ;heexprcssly dis
claimed the good thatthe German Princes should
effectin their respective states. The old Con-
gress had power 70 make war, but never claim
ed, as incidents power to make roads and canals,
| Our experience in two wars has proved that this
| power is not necessary to the general govern
ment. Ii is not a means of defence. 1t suited
lconquering Rome to have military roads leading
to all her frontiers but is advantage to an in
yaded nation. The same roads on which Bona
partc marched his armies to invade Germany
led the Russians and Germans to Paris. can
not agree with the honorable Speaker Mr.. Clay)
that the general government possesses no pow
or in war that it does not possess in peace. Many
things may be lawfully done in the prosecution
of war, that would be altogether unlawful in ting
OF peace. In war, every thing is lawful that is
indispensable for the safety of the nation. " The
safety OF The people is the supreme law.n Dur
ing the war of the Revelation, Norfolk was
burned by our own force. Would that have
been lawful in time Of peace2 Did not General
Washington propose TO burn New York, that it
might not afford winter quarters to the enemy
Yes and he would have burned it had not Con
gress decided otherwise. We have seen the En-
peror Of Russia burn his capital, that it might not
afford winter quarters TO an enemy. But can
not agree, that, in time of peace, The general go
yeTnment may do every thing that it may do in
prosecuting war. have no doubt that, in pro-
scouting war, the President migttorder the pub
lie force to make road or a canal wherever he