Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1828-07-26
Front the Charleston Courier.

Tn ConstiIntioua!i,y OF the Tatit ac', Az
mi,s of as positive demonstration as any pro-
position in Euclid. If there be any truth III
logic, the Constitution in IFS literal form, Tor.
nishes The proof OF this. 1, may be preserlofd
in syllogistic simplicity. Thus, Congress nag
the power to regulate commerce; hut the lmPort
and export Of manufactures, constitutes a part
Of commerce., therefore, Congress- has a r,gh'
to regula'e the import and export OF mahuiao-
lures. Or thus,
Congress has the power To regulate com
m.rce. hut the in,roduc lion or exclusion OF man
ufac lures, appertains to commerce.; therefore,
Congress has the power to admit or exclude
manufactures
Again-Every major contains III itself, It's
minor proposition, 5u, Congress has a right 10
exclude manufao ures-therefore Congress has
a right 10 impose the terms other admission
And to whom is Congress responsible icr
the choice Of those terms? The form, the mea
surement, he fnenrss, the cost, The ship, are
all absolutely at the will Of Congress-; and why
no, the compensation to be paid for their ad
mission? Why should Congress he RESPONSE
ole to any one for the principle upon watch IT
imposes, or modulates that compensation or
impos,, anv more than for any other condition
Of admissions? =
am aware that we are here met by one oil
those miserable sophisms. to which both par
ties are too much DISPOSED 10 resort IN this CON
hict between State Rights and United States
Rights. 1t is said that the power 10 impose
duties, and that 10 regulate commerce, are CIV
en- in the Constitution as substantive, ana inoe-
pendent powers-and therefore, neither can I'M
ply a gran, Of the other"
Tie soundness Of this argument is tested IN
a very simple mode.
Ix...uo ,.,h,. e ,b.,o GRANITE from the Com
s~li,utlon, aud what follows? If the power TO
impose duties be retained, will not a duty on
imports be q regulation on commerce.! And
if the power 20 regulate commerce be re-
tanned, will not the imposition Of a duty, be a
commercial regulation-a modification OF the
rights 10 trade? But there the Convention
foresaw that m might be regulated ny
mary other means, beside, the imposition Ut a
duty on imDorta:ions; and a duty on impor'a-
lions might be imposed merely for revenue, x
without any view 10 commercial policy: lhrfe-
fore both grants were necessary, or at least pru-
dent. Say that il proceeded from abundant
caution, and this very cavil will shew the ne
cessi,y for such ~csu,ion.
Tn. re is no difficulty in explaining the sub
iect to those who are in search oh ruth. ! he
object of the LIST Art. of The Costitution is to
compose a Legislature, and define the power
delegated to il, severally aud conjointly.
The section in question, the 9Th, defines and
limits their join, powers, and the object OF the
frs: clause Of it, is 10 define that power, with
ou: which all other powers OF Government are
useless, the power Of raising money. LIS words
are, "The Congress shall have power tolay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.'
Now suppose that this clause had been con-
ined 10 taxes aud excuses, would it not have
bpep commanded thai 1uijas and innDStS were
| by iufert nee excluded from he means {. ra's-
ing ~revenue? AS il is, both the power to re-
gulate commerce, and that to lay and collect
duties and imports, being given, whea Congress
regulates BY the imposition OF du>
ties and imposts, i. ex~c rcises one express pow
err BY me ans Of another express power.
But, answer our s~ophist>, the power 10 lay *
collect duties was given solely Tor purposes OF
revenue, and il is perverting il TO apply it to
the regulating Of commerce, and more SO OF
manufactures, as an object of commerce.
The letter, the spirit, the journals and con-
,empnraneous exposition Of the Constitution,
all concur to Throw derision upon this argu-
mebt.
According 10 the letter, the grant OF power
TO impose duties is unlimited; and here | Will
turn an argumen OF their own, most poiniedly
agains, them. II This grant Of power was in
tended 10 be confined 10 %rfvenue, why was II
not so expressed? and. If not intended 10 extend
10 other. purposes than commerce, Why give Ii
in a distinct and subs sutive shape?
But he evidence is positive thai there was
something beyond revenue contemplated in the
first clause-for on the 25th Aug. \page 29l, }
motion was mad, to add 10 it these words,
'For he pavmen: If said debts, and for the dr>
e. aying Of the ex enses that shall be incurred
for the common defence and general welfare"
which was negatived. Yet, we find i'll The Con-
s~titu,ion as adopted, that there was no obJec-
ton to giving Congress power $50 provide foy
the paymen, of debts, OF the common defence
and general welfare" whence it follows that
The objection 10 the rejected clause was to lin
i,ing them 10 those objects in the exercise Of
their power TO lay AID collect taxes, duties, i'm
posts, and excuses. Other purposes then must
have been in contemplation. The mere rails
ing of money, was not the only object.
am aware that attempts have been made 10
give reading 10 The Constitution, a literal crl-
ticism resting On juX.a position, which would