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

IN whlcb the several states exercised. or seemed
disposed 10 exercise, the power of laying duties
on imports. From motives which were deemed
sufficient b. The statesmen of that day, the general
po+eI OF taxation ihdispens ably necessary as 1t
was, and jealous the states were Of any en-
croachment on IT. was so lar abridged to forbid
them to touch irn orts exports, with the single
exception which has been noticed Why are they
restrained from imposing these duties? Plainly,
because, In The general opinion, the Interest # all
would be best promo e.. by placing that whole SUBJ
Jeci under he control of Congress. Whether the
Prohibition to lay nposts, or duties on imports
or EXPORTS" proceeded from an apprehension that
the power nigh be 80 exercised to disturb that
equality among the states which was gerersil, adj
vantageou-, that harmony between them which
II Na- desirable to preserve, or 10 maintain unim
paired our commercial connexions with foreign
nations, or 10 confer this source of revenue on
the government of the Onion, or whatever other
motive might have n6ne ed the prohibition il is
PLAN, that the object would be as completely de-
iealed by power 10 tax the article in the hands
OF the importer the instant IT was landed, as By
power TO tax while entering the port There is
no dnlerence, In effect, between power to PRO.
hon the sale OF an article, and power 10 prohi.
bit lis introduction into tie country. The one
would be necessary consequence of he other.
NO goods would he imported if none could be
sold. no object OF any description can be ac-
complished by laying duty on importation, which
may not be accomplished with equal certsnty by
laying duty on the thing imported in the hands
! OF 'he importer Ii IL obvious, that the same
power which imposes light duty can impose a
very heavy one, one which amounts TO prohbi-
Hon Questions OF power do no, depend on the
the degree TO which it may be exercised Ii il
may be exercised at all, it be exercised at the
VIII OF hose H. whose hands it is placed. Ii the
tax may be levied in his form by state, it may
be levied to an extent which will defeat the re-
-.
tations into the particular state. We are told that
such Wild and irrational abuse of power is nor TO
be apprehended, and Is not 10 be taken into view
when discussing its existence. All power may
be abused; and If the fear OF it's sbnse is TO con.
s'itue an argument against las existence it might
be urged against the existeEce of that which is in-
dispensable to the general safety The states will
never be so mad TO destroy their own COM
merce, or even to lessen il.
We do not dissent from these general proposi
tiOns We do not suppose any state would act
so unwisely. But we do not place the question on
that ground.
These arguments apply with precisely the same
force against the whole prohibition. II might
with the same reason, be said. tina; state would
be 30 blind 10 its own interests to lay duties on
importation which would either prohibit or dimin-
Ish lis trade Yet the trainers OF our constitution
have thought this power which no state ought TO
exercise. Conceding, to the full extent which is
required, that every state would. in its legislation
on this subject, provide udiciously for its own in
teTests, 1t cannot be conceded, that each would
respect The interest OF others. a duty on i'm
ports is tax on the article which is paid by the
consumer. The great importing states would thus
evy tax on the non. importing states, which
would not ess be tax because their interest would
ahoTd ample security against its ever being so
! heavy as to eXpel commerce lroin III cir ports
This would necessarily produce counteryailing
measures on the part Of those states whose siiua-
ton was less favourable 10 Importation For this
among other reasons, the whole power Of LAYING
/ duties on imports was, with single and slight
exception, taken from the states when we are
inGuring whether particular act is within this
prohibition, the question is not, whether the state
may so lesislae o hurt itself, but Wheeler the
act is within the words and mischief of the pro-
hlbitory clause. Ii has already been shown, that a
tax on the articles IN the hands of the importer is
within It's words; and think il too clear for
controversy, that the same tax is within It's mis-.
chief We think II unqussiionabIe, that such a
| tax has precisely the same tendency to enhance
the price OF the article, Ii imposed upon il
while entering the port
The counsel lot the state Of Maryland insists.
with great reason, that if the words of the prohi-
bi'ion be taken in their utmost latitude, they will
sbridge the power Of taxation, which all admit 10
be essential TO the states, 10 an extent which has
never yet been suspected, and will deprive them
oresources which are necessary to supply rev eDue
aud which they have heretofore been admitted 10
possess. These words must, therefore, be con-
slrued with some limitation; and, if this be adj
med. they insist, that entering the country is the
) point Of time when the prohibition ceases and the
power of the state 10 tax commences
IL may be conceded, that tie words Of tie pro
hibition ought T. be pressed to their utmost extent
that in our complex system, the object of ,b,
powers conferred the government Of the I'm
lon aad he usnTe Of the often conflicting p ,yver,
eblch remain IN the states, must always be iaEeu
into view, and may aid in exp unJing the " ord,
OF any particular clause. But while we sdnt
that sound principles Of construction ought 10 re.
tain all courts from carrying the words Of The pro-
hbiilon Beyond the object the constitution u in.
tended TO secure; that there must be q point o
time ben the prohibition ceases, and the power
u OF The state 10 tax commences; cannot admit
ihat this point Of time the instant that the artire,
ente' the unuy. II is, think obvious tina
this construction would defeat the prohibition.
] The constitutional prohibition on the states 10
I lay duiy on imports, a prohibition which vast
majority Of them must feel an interest h. preserving
may ceftiiulY come 10 conflict with their acsuov.
lodged power TO tax persons and property within
then territory. The power, and the restriction ON
u, though quHe dstinguishable when they DO Dot
approach each o her, may yet, Ike the intervening
colours between white aud black approach 10
nearly a. To perple1 the understanding, ~ colours
! pVlpieE the vision IN marking the distinction lie
tween them. Yet the distinction exists, and mus
be marked as the cases arise. Fill tbey do arisp
u might be premature TO state any rule as bsine
universal in It's application. il u sufficient for
the present 10 say, generally, that when he no
porter has scted upon the thing imported tia, II
has become incorporated and mixed ny with tb,
mass oil property IN tbs country it has, perhaps,
& or nuth aa