Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-02-07
MIR. MADISON AND THE TARIFF.
To the Editor Of Tie Herald.


SIK,-Mr. Madison being completely aware
that the inference inevitably ieducible from the
distinction, established by the colonies and re.
cognized by Great Britain, between the power 10
regulate trade, and the power 10 tax il FIR anu
purpose, would be adverse to his opinion, endea-
to destroy il by pr otesting that "the presen,
question is unconnected with the former relations
between Great Britain ard her Colonies" This
is certainly true; and it is therefore 10 be regret
ted, that MIR. Madison should have thought proper
10 mention that 'the object Of the Parliamentary
regulations of trade with the Colonies, was the en-
enlargement Of manufactures" lie wishes 10
consider 1t as ga simple question under the Con-
s,itution of the United States, whether the power
TO regulate trade with foreign nations, as d dis
tinct and substantive item in the enumerated
powers embraces ihe object Of encouraging by
duties, restrictions, aud prohibitions, the manu-
features and products of the country" And he
"infers the affirmative from the following con-
siderations'
81. The incoming Of the phrase 80 regulate
trade, must be sought in the general use OF it: in
other words, in the objects 10 which the power
was generally supposed TO be applicable"
IL will be perceived that MIR. Madison has fallen
into an in substituting the term 'irade" for
commerce. which is generally received in a
more enlarged and comprehensive sense.--The
original grant OF power Is in these words-"Con-
gress shall have power TO regulate commerce
with foreign nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian tribes" Now, il, as
MIR. Madison asserts, The power TO regulate COIN
merce NTH foreign nations, implies The power
90 protect the general industry OF the Union a.
gaiEst foreign nations, does il not necessarily fol-
low, that the power 10 regulate commerce GBI0Hg
the several States, implies the power to protect
the particular industry of one State against the
other sssie! The stration is irresistible; and yet
this Is xgetclSH absurdily to whic. 1sw ;yll
yenture.--That Interpretation, which would vim
dicate the exercise OF the power, must sane
ton the application Of the other; for having the
same cause OF being, simultaneous origin, and
co-e1ual existence, they have an equality OF Incl
dents and an uniformity Of operation
But, TO return to MIR Madison's propositions.
The phrase "to regulate commerce." was original
10 the Constitution, and therefore its general use
must have been subsequent to the adoption Of that
charter. Now, we can infer nothing Of the inlen-
lion Of the States in cedng this power, from the
subsequent opinions OF individuals. For this
would only be ia effect 10 contend tl;at Congress
had the power, because Congress believed they
had the power. There were indeed some statutes
Of the British Parliament which provided z neral
ly for regulating the trade Of The Colonies.-Put,
independently Of hir. Maiison's own declaration,
that examples growing out Of our colonial Tela-
fiOns, should not lie introduced in illustration OF
our present polity, u was not considered by The
Colonies That England possessed lie power 10 pro-
tecl her manufactures simply by the operation Of
the magical verbs "tO regulate trade =" but from
higher and antecedent authority, viz: the ripht
Of all parent countries 10 derive exclusive benef,
from their Colonies. And exceptions too, as I
have before stated, wero Insisted On by the Colo
MES whenever their interests we're ifjuriously a.
fscted-which. indeed, was seldom f. m the great
cheapoess Of English goods. The phr9se, tners'
'ure, go regiiats COT 'rr'-'c SsiT7 cinc 81 -