Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-03-07
RESOLUTIONS.

Congfess unconstitutional. The amendment to the
preamble being still under consideration, Mr.. &
johnson moved so 10 amend it, as to declare that
in the dscrimnations which might be made in the
duties, just regard should be had to equality
IN the distributions of public burdens. This
amendment was agreed to. The question recurring
on the adoption of the amendment as amended,
Mr.. Ddde opposed it, as the same proposition
that had been rejected on the day before. 1t was,
he contended, in direct opposition to the resolu-
ton, because II gave discretionary power In max
ing determinations, that too great, This dis
erection too was TO be exercised for " the general
aDefdre." These words he never heard without the
most unpleasant, feelings; feelings not unlike those
produced by the sound of the rattle of rattle
snake.
Mr.. .4llen also opposed the amendment. He bad
always been taught TO believe that the words
'' the general toelfne' related 10 the general
welfare as connected with our foreign concerns
This Interpretation had been given TO the same
words in the old articles OF confederation. He
moved 10 strike out these words, and insert which
are necessary to the national defence" From the
course of the arguments of the friends and oppo-
nents ofthe amendment, his amendment seemed to
accord with the views of both.
MIR. c. Johnson opposed this amendment The
government, he said, had other objects assigned to
vt besides the defence of the country agains, TO-
reign aggression. In the eight several positive
grants of power in the constitution, this was one
thew
could discriminate In its exercise and in none other
The object OF his amendment was TO give a plain
and psipaole Interpretation which could be defended
any where and on any occasion; il to reiterate
the Interpretation of '9S and apply it to the acts of
the federal government alluded TO-
Mr. .dle1t'S amendment rejected without
division.
adoption OF the amendment offered by Mr. Johnson
the preamble.
MIR. G Johnson, in reply to Mr.. Dade, said
he did not understand that The amendment was
disposed of although discussed on the day before
The House had only decided not to strike out the
lst resolution; but they had not decided that they
would not explain in the preamble, 1.-The ground on
which it based. 1t the amendment was in
consistent with the resolution, then lit had been
disposed oil; 1t 1t was not, ii was still proper to
act on 1t. He maintained that there was nothing
IN the resolution which might not be affirmed re-
gardins the preamble explanation. Taken
together they declare the tariff act unconstitutional
not because Congress had not the right 10 impose
duties, to make determinations in doing So
but because they had no right in the exercise of
the power, TO tax ore portion of the country for
the promotion OF another Ifa discrimination he
made beyond the rule you lay down, then the
measure is unconstitutional. Those who doub,
the power oil Congress to make any determinations
whatever, would OF course vote against the amend
ment but those who thought this power existed
would vote Tor It, We in the habit of
going back 10 the report of 90 and drawing our
principles from it, That paper was written vi,b
care and ability that had never been surpassed
1t contained every guard that could be thrown
around il. If disposed 10 follow ,ba
bright example then set Us, lie; act with the same
caution, and leave no weak point eynosed a,
ouF position be taken strongly and securely; ADM,
every thinS that 1t was proper TO admit, and deny
only what we intended to deny Let Us take this
course if we would have our example referred "a
in after time.
Mr.. Clopton contended that there was discre-
pancy IN the course proposed and what had
happened On the day before. The amendment was
not the thing in effect with the resolution ese
whyh Mr. Johnson voted against the resolution
and supported the amendment to the preamble !,
The Ho Sc had said they were not the same thing
for they had rejected the one and voted for The
other. 20 admit that they were the same tbirg
now, was non sequifur. BY voting against the
amendment, they had said that the resolution did
not flow IRON 1t as consequence He insisted
that the resolution was moi susceptible OF an in
depreciation that would deny to the governmen,
any Just power; that it presented no weak point,
and could be fully maintained; nor had it denied
10 congress tie powers which Mr.. Johnson said
properly belonged 10 them.
Mr.. Allen said ie should vote for the ar,era
ment to the preamble, and in doing so, thought bi
vote would not be in conflict with the frs, reso
luton. lie had voted against striking il Out lest
II stricken out, he might not be able afterwards
10 get the same expression OF Opinion. The a.
mendment was but an assertion of the reason for
the first resolution. With or without the amend
inen, the preamble met his hearty appreciation.
Mr.. Johnson submitted it TO the Senate 10 say f
there was not something i'll the amendment yv rb,,
OF preservation In the preamble as sent from, the
House of Delegates, nothing was said of the in
justice and oppression Of the tariff, which the a.
mendment so strongly complained Of. For his own
part, he believed the policy OF the government was
compound one; II was connected with the urea,
scheme OF internal improvement. The north 1vvos
to be benehtedby the tariff, and the money ,h,,s
exacted from the south TO be expended in In
ternai Improvement for the benefit Of the west /,
was this scheme of imposition that he wished 10
demonstrate against
MIR. Ddde remarked that the amendment did
no, speak language strong enough, but the resp
luton did The latter declared the imposition of
du'ies Tor The purpose oil encouraging domestic ma
nh'cIures, unconstitutional, highly oppressive and
partial. All the strength of expression IN the a
mendmeni was contained in the resolution itself
He went into a comparison TO siew the disagree
ment between The amendment and the resoIntie,
The original preamble adopted the principlea and
reasons Of the report of 80, and why adop, an,
other reasoning! II no reasoning on this subiec,
had been adopted, there might be some inducen,ent
to adopt MIR. Johnsons. But ne thought thar the
adoption of the amendment would reject the prs
sent preamble
MIR. johnson thought it of some value to show
IN what particular manner complain of the tariff
and had therefore offered the amendment II
was not Inconsistent with the resolution. &c
Mr.. CdbeH remarked that the resolution had
reference not merely 20 the act of Congress impos
n he