Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-06-19

ported, ceased the instant ihey were Drought into
the country, so the prohibition TO tax articles ex
ported &c ised when they were carried out of the
country?
We think, then, that the act under which the
plaintiffs in error indicted, is repus nsnt to
that article Of the constitution which declares thar
no state sha Law, any impost duties ON i'm.
ports or exports.
Is 1t also repugnant TO that clause in the
constitution which empowers " Congress to repu
late commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes?
The oppressed and degraded state of commerce
previous TO the adoption of the constitution can
scarcely be forgotten. 1t sreeula,ed by Ioreisn
nations with single view to their own interest;
and our dsunted efforts TO counteract their res.
triciions were rendered impoten, 10y want of COM
binstion. Congress, indeed, possessed the power
OF making treaties; but the inability of the federal
government TO enforce them had become so ap-
parent as TO render that power in q great degree
useless.
Those who felt the injury arising from this state
OF things, and those who capable of estjma.
ting the iDiluence OF commerce the prosperity
of nations. perceived the necessity of giving the
control over this important subject TO a sinale 90.
vernment. II may he doubted whether any of the
evils proceeding from the feebleness of the federal
government, contributed more to that great revo
luton which introduced the present system. than
the deep and general conviction, that Commerce
ought to be regulated 10y Congress 1t IL mot
therefore, matter OF surprise, that the grant should
be a. extensive as the mischief and should com
prehend all ioiegn commerce, and all commerce
among the states. To consIue the mower 20 AZ
tn impair it's efficacy, would tend to defeat IN oh
Jeci, In the attainment OF which the American pub
nc took, and justly took, that strong interest which
arose from full conviction Of its necessity.
What, then, is the Just extent of a power TO re-.
g'uate eommece with foreign nations, and among
the several s,aie'!
This question considered in the case of CHI
bons v. Ogden, g lrhedt. Rep. / in which
u was declared 10 I've complete in itself and tn
acknowledge no limitations other than arc ptesrti
bed by the constitution. The power is co -exten
siVe with the subject which il acts, and canno,
I've stopped al the external boundary of state
but must enter its interior.
We deem IL ~ ce1sary now to reason in su,
port OF these propositions. Their truth i. proved
by facts continually before our eyes and az ~.
think, demonstrated, II they could require demon
uatIon, IN the case already mentioned
Ii this power reaches the interior of a state
anu may be thte exercised, it must be capable OF
authorizing the sale OF those articles which il in
PRODUCES. Commerce is intercourse; one of it,
most ordinary ingredient traffic Ii is inconceiv
ahe, that the power to authorize this traffic: when
gwen IN 'be most comprehensive terms, with the
Intent that ito efficacy should be comple.e should
cease at the point WHEN its continuance is indisnen
SABLE TO ITS value. To what purpose should the
power To allow importation he given, ubaccompa-
hleu with the power to authorize a sale of the thing
imported? Sale is the object of importation, and j.
an essential ingredient of that intercourse nf
which importation constitutes part IL il a. ca
Eentiai an iD6reilen indispensable to the exi--
tence OF the entire thing, then, az import alton il
self. Ii must be considered = a component pau
of the power To regulate commerce. ConpIe..
has right, not only to authorize importation Inn
To authorize the importer to- sell
If tins be admitted, and we think il cannot he
denied, that can he the meaning of an act oil
Congress which uulhOTIzes importation, and offers
the privilege Tor sale at fixed price to every Der
who chooses to become a purchaser? How !,
II to be construed, II intent to deal honestly and
fairly, intent wise II Is moral Is tn entsr
into the construction? What eau be the use of the
contract, what does the improper purcha-e, II lie
does not purchase The privilege 10 sells
What would be the language of foreign gov.
eminent, which shoulh he informed that It's ner-
chants, after importing according 20 law were
forbidden TO sell the merchandISe impor,td?
What answer wou' the United States give 10
the complaints and Just reprosches To which such
on extraordinary circumstance ould EXPOSE them?
No apology could ne received or even offered
Such stale OF things would break up commerce
~ VIII not meet this argument 90 say, that this
state OF things will never be produced; that the
good sense OF The states l. sufficient security a
Eai0st u. Tue constitution has not contiIed this
faoject TO that good sense II il placed elsewhere
Abe question 10, where does the power reside?
400 how iar'will II be probably abused! The
power claimed 10y the state is in lis nature:
IN cortiIct with that given TO Congress; and
the greater or less extent III which II may be ex-
ercised does not enter into the inquiry CONCERN
Ing It's existence.
We think, then, that ii the power to authorize
. sale exists Ia Congress- the conclusion that the
right to sell ID connected with the law permitting
importation, az an Insepai able incident is Ineyita-
de.
IL the principles we have taled he correct, the
result to which they conduct US cannot be Inista-
ken. Any penalty inflicted on the importer for
selling the article in his character OF importer,
.uud be IN opposition TO the act of Congress
which authorizes importation, Any charge on
the Introduction and incorporation of the articles
into and with the mass OF property, ia the coun
try, must be hostile TO the power given 10 Con-
gress 10 regulate to commerce, since an essential
part of that regulation, and principal object of il.
is to prescribe the regular means for accomplish
'ng that introduction and incorporation.
The distinction between a tax on the thinp i'm
ported, and on the person of the importer can
have no influence on this part OF the subject Ii
- too obvious Tor controversy, that they interfere
equally with the power to regulate commerce.
Il has been contsnded, that this construction If
the power TO regulate commerce, % was contend
90 IN constituting the prohibition to lay duties on
Imports, would abfIdge the scknoyled. ed mower
Of state to tax its cui4sns o. ileir property
within its territory.
We admit this power to be sacred: but cannot
admit that IL may be used so as to Opstrnct the
free course OF power given to Congress We
cannot admit that may be used so As 10 Obsfuci
ofo tha optyar ff.f les.