Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-02-07
FOR IRE EsNQt IRER.
.HR. 6fADISON'S LETTERS

ousiy seen throughout these letters; and tht
rious mental sub,es employed to sanction the
new doctrines Of that creed, the more wonderful
Il appears tho novel, political phenomenon. Nor i
the view presented by Mr.. NJ in relation 10 the
anaiogies he apprehendcd nigh, be drawn be
tween the principles of the American &c volulion
arising from the then political relations between
Great Britain and TIE Colonies, and those now
existing between the federal and state govern.
| nents-the least OF these political wonders. MIR
III. seems 10 be perfectly sensible that the great
principle OF the American revolution must be
brought INTO direct collision with his present doc
rihes, ana Is therefore, determined to ward oil tie
blow, by anticipating these political analogies aud
denying their applicability to the case in question
between the federal and state governments; but,
IN making this bold effort the writer thinks he has
| introduced the best eXpe,ents 10 shew not only
The analogy, but making out a much stronger case
against ms new doctrines in their application TO
the federal and state governments, Than to c. Bril-
TIN and her Colonies. Let the exhibition con-
taincd i'll this view Of the subject be presented in
Mr.. MS own words:
'Nor can il be inferred, that power TO re gulate
Trade does not involve power TO tax it, f. ON the
! distinction made in the original controversy with
Gredt Britain, between a pow err TO regulate trade
| with the Colonies, and power 10 tax them A
power to regulate trade between different parts OF
the Umpire, was conesSedly necessary; and was
admitted lie, as far that was the case, in the
! British Parliament the taxing part being at the
same time denied to the Parliament and asserted
to be necessarily inherent in the Colonial Legisa-
lures, sufficient and the ONLY safe depo.;iorics
| oil the taxing power"
| Here, then, is seen in strong relief the nm
! qualified admission, that the power to regulate
trade is perfectly distinct power from that 10 tax
u, or to lay taxes al ali-so much so, that whilst
Mr.. NJ. admits TO the British Parliament the DOW.
er 'o regulate trade, ne claims orthc Colonies the
Who'e over 10 'ay tax ems Ives. TIM applica-
t'"o hese tit * separate powers, is made e.
consolidated governm. ut, whilst il is declared in
applicable to federal government. Now, it seems
! al ms tlN..n ,..Ni,. "a, N
Colonies, To- ming part OF one consolidate empire
| exclusively possessed the right Of self-axation
10 be wonderful, that Mr. NJ. should blend these
distinct powers, inferrng the one from the other-
X h I'D i've OH To the fedora department of oil
complicated government That Mr.. NJ shoulb
deny 10 the states The power 10 AK themselves
| agans, The powers OF the fedora governments and
yet claim the power for the Colonies, against the
consolidated onnipotcucy OF the British Pariia
ineht WIZ not this wonder be increased by look-
Ing steadIaStly at the difference in the doctrines
upon which are founded the rights TO tax the Colo
nics, and the practical taxation imposed upon diff.
ierent sections OF the several states by the federal
department OF the government? The Parliament
claimed the power 20 tax ;nrepresented sections of
| the consolidated British Empire, but the various
sections were taxed equally The practical taxa
ton by the federal department OF our government.
is imposed By representatives. of different sections
from those paying the impo-iiions. This matter
OF dct-ths practical result, is so vitality interest
ing, that IL ough, not to be overlooked in examin
ig this portcntous subject.-Is not the practical
poweI here exercised in direct oppo,ion IN the
universal principle OF TAXATION recognized i'm the
American governments? l. il in violation of The
great principle of revolution Is il no, incom-
parabiy worse than the practical taxation of the
Colone by the British Parliament, against their
WIFI l. il possible for ingenuity to devise worse
practical system of taxation than that actually |
adopted by the Tariff T.? First the tax is imoo;.
ed by thosr who do not bear it-but by differ eut
1 sections Second, the sections Imposing the tax |
4 Inc. It,.t st.
are stimulated by an uncea.ing interest, impeiIed
| by an iisatidbe avarice-with an absolute IRE |
| sponSibty to the payers. Such are the taxes
sanctioned by MIR. NJ, whilst he family denies !
the right OF Pari lmeni 10 Tax the Colonies Hear
III. own equivokes. upon this great fundanle n!al
point:
$50 difficult was il, nevertheless 10 main, ain th
distinction iii practice, that the ingredient OF rev.
nue. was occasionally overlooked or dsregarded in
the British regulations, as in the duty on sugar
and roasses imported into the Colonies And /, |
was fortunate that the attempt at an internal and
direct tax, IN the case OF the Stamp Act produced
radical examination OF the subject before reg
ulatIon OF Trade with view 20 revenue had grown ,
into an established authority. Ore thing a least
is certain, that the main and admit OBJECT of the
Parliamentary regulations of trade with the Colo.
Mes was The encouragement of manufactures in
Great Britain"
Here, Mr. NJ. admitting the distinction betwson
the power TO regulate trade and the pow CT TO tax
yet asserts, that there difficulty in maintain
ing The distinction in practce-Puttiug the great
principle OF seIf-axaiion upon AT leasj Que -tonabIe
grounds, and he deems il iortun tt' that an AT |
eulr, at an internal aud direct tax in The case of
tue Stamp Act, produced radical examination of
the subject, before regulation OF trade, ivi u a |
view to Tecenue, had grown into an established |
authority. III Is. however, family admitted by
MIR NJ, that 1t found upon the examination of |
the subject, that the Il. Par had the power 90 regu
late trade, & the Colonies the right TO lay taxes on
lves-& OF course the right olay taxes could
not be incident o the power 10 regdl lie trade Yet
Ar. h's main position, in a,ion TO the federal ard
state governments, in his new version, has hereto
lore been, tn It the light TO tax is an Incident 10 !
the right to regulate trade. Bat this extraordinary
quotation makes another admission, which seems
here'dDre 70 be in open hostility with other set
tied deductions made by Mr.. NJ 1t j. here fully
admitted, that there IL a most essential distinction
between the power 10 regulate external and low
ing an inernal direct tax, a. in case Of the Staulu
Act Yet, heretofore, Mr.. NJ. has inferred one in
discrimira power TO lay all kinds Of taxes. in
ternai as wei as external, from the power 10 re-
guldtc trade. Is Oh re one reader whose mind l.
blind and superficial, a. not 10 see, in the ~.
before him, The advantage of Mr. Ms substituted
word trade, as having iniDt'rnal application 10
the constitutional word ''comuiefce"- not n com,
merce, but commerce with foreign nations, exclu.
sively external commerce? Then comes one most
sdgacious conclu 'ion apparently ,bsfrscieJ 6roo, !
all the rest-to wi; conc thing at least is certain
that the main and admitted obirc of th. pa,i |,
mentary regulations Of trade with the Colonics
was the encouragement Of fnanufi lures Ia Gr.st
Britain" What then! Where J., the moral ~ III
admission " hat IFS application l. it intended 10
make this analogy, that the Parliamentary reg,,,a
Ton OF Taoe Uith me Colonies. was The encour-
az 'n"n' OF p'd1WdciUrcs m Gre0f Britain. d..
o., uGquah 9, usGrPr. power in a. ,po,c.. +, -.
Suld'c ua4e' was the encourage uient of manuCtc-
lures IN particular sections to Tie i,nnoyeri.b