Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-03-31

was not TO guard the several states against any
and every UNJUST imposition OF duties, inposts anil
excuses: The proposition that now contend Jor,
Is sustained and fortified by the 9Th clause, OH
section, list article OF the Constitution Of the u
ni'ed States " No taS, or duty, shall be laid on
PARTICLES exported from any State. No pretefeuc,
SHAH be given by any regulation Of commerce, or
revenue, to the ports OF one State over those or
| another nor shall vessels bound to, or from ona
state be Obliged to enter, clear. pay duties in
anoher@ power TO regulate commerce., IL
wide and comprehensive it implies the power
to regulate imports and exports But no one who
has ever read the q. Of The u. s., will ielI me-
mat Congress has any other than qualified gighs
TO regulate commerce. And why is il Gualiifeds
IL is Tor this most Obvious the object of the
Federal Government was to secure domestic fran ,
guilty; and the trainers Of the government, fore
seeing that this subject Of commerce mig ht nroye
the prolific source OF much contention; foreseeinua
'hat the power 10 regulate commerce might DC
welded by The many for the oppression Of the
lew, placed the restrictions w hich have been re
ferred TO. Mr. Speaker. il is a mistake TO sup
pose, that the people parted with one scinGlla OF
their sovereignty, when they formed the Federai,
Government. Will any man suppose for mo-
Inent, that, because l have a general agent at
nome TO manage my general eencerns, and an
| agent III Richmond TO manage certain particular
subjects, that ! have lost any of INV mastery or
power over my sconcerDs: AssuredIy not. The
people have merely withdrawn, from their aeberat
agents-the officers of the State Government
certain subjects, which they have placed under
the special direction OF their special aCents-bs
officers of the Federal Government. am aware
that confusion of IDEAS have occurred in -
minds OF some, who has not thought seriously
on the matter The General Governments RI
al fermIni, IS supposed to he .he general agent
when the revere of The proposition is ung,,cs-
/, ;onabiy true.
| Mr.. Speaker, the caution Of those, who Fame,
the Constitution OF the Cnjtcd States goes s,iit
farther: When the Constitution OF the u States
iad been iormed the people, lately freed from the
iron grasp OF implied power, conscious that the
nj tuif;
and knowing well that the plastic touch of con
siruction might by possibility ascribe 10 the Fed,
erai Government, powers, which were never nten-
uonaliy gwen, undertake by amendments, which
now form part of the instrument itself 10 fix the
rule oil consruction-And the essense OF tina, rule
is this, chat 10 implication shall be drawn in ia
YOUR OF the government against the retained soys
reign,y of the states" Whenever a serious doubt
shall arise, 40 10 the extent Of the powers ro,1.
ferrei by the Constitution Of the T. s., the soyt
reign people, should, by the simple process of
nendment, declare their sovereign explanation
OF the Doubt and how far the disputed now,
shall he exercised by the Federal Governments
fu, mere yon perceive, sir, at arises the
&" IN. PoasIdetis' The Federal GoveTnmens
mas tie physical force, and thinks it has the right
thus situated. The {" iocwhs .enens'' becomes All
Important: for the government will say 10 the peo
ple," If you deny that have the right 10 exer
else this questioned power, proee I'd with your con,
sUtutIonaf matorlty,h by means 81 amendments talc
away this power" While, on the other hand liz,
people say TO the government, fou shall NOT U.s.,
ny implication, powers not expressly granted an,
II II Is mete and proper ioT YOU 10 exercise IA.
power let the power he expressly conferred by ar
amendment OF the Cons:i:,.;,oTi,'' DO YOU nos
readily perceive, Mr.. Speaker, how this doctrine.
IS TO operate or the people, ard how dangerous ~
Tree and latitudinous construction of The o'ons;f
tuition Of the Emitted States, may prove 10 tbe IN
tegrity OF the states and the liberties of the pto
pie! beg that gentlemen will think seriously
on This subject before they act; and that when
they do act, they will express the opinions of the;r
constituents and not suffer themselves 10 be lei
astray by the eiosuepce Of those who cont,n nd fs
the enlargement Of the powers of che Eederai
Government.
The resolutions nav under consideration Son,ain
these propositions
i. That there is no common arbter betves1,'tfr
Federal Government and the states 10 de,ennine
the extent of the powers of the former
z. That the tariff laws, far as they are OF,
acted Tor the protection of manufactures are mn
constitutional. inpoHtic and oppressive, and ougS,
10 be repealed.
We have been told by rny worthy friend ove
the way (Mr. Fitzhugh,) that the Supreme Court
oil the United States, is the common arbiter of an
contests which may arise between the Gener,ss
Government and the States, on the constructions
OF the Constitution Of the United States For
my own part, Mr.. Speaker am in clined to ii,1es
ton u there I've any contest. Of any ciiasscter
which can, By possibility, arise between a .tate
and the Federal Government. in which tbe Su-
preDe Court OF the United States, can consti,i,-
tioDay act; but ,as il may notbe necessary for nv
present purpose 10 admi, 10 cOnrovert this pro'
position, will proceed 10 sbew that; az 10 The
sonstiluuonaty Of the present tariff there is no
practicable means, under Heaven. by which the
Supreme Court of the United States can act on
this subject. This may be regarded az bold as.
seTtion; but, sir, invite gentlemen, who maintain
the opposite Doctrine TO point out the ''guo nnodo'
Mr. Speaker, very SIMPLE illustration will nut
this matter 10 rest. Here is the tariff law of 1928.
III continues duty on ready made clothing OF 90.
per cent. Let us, for the illustration, suppose
That The laws made, for the protection of maui
features, are Unconstitutional and that the Su-
preme Court OF the y s. is bound SO to de clare then,
"A ship arrives at the port Of Richmond geieb,
uses to pay the duty-the goods are seized. au..-
The case comes up TOP adjudication. The impop-
Ter contends, that all laws, made ior tie proicr
fIon oil manufactures, are unconstitutional. fnf-
Judge comedies the proposition. The importer s
'eFts that the law, now under consideration sw9s
made Tor The protection OF manufactures, for the
encouragement OF tslors. The court looks 10 the
law, tssee II It was enacted for t!e pHrpo-e Of req
onue, or Tor the protection OF manufactures Tiie-
title OF the act is act in alteration Of lie act
imposing duties" Ehe preamble does not shcw
cor does the body Of the act point 10 the object Of
the law the amount Of duty furnishes 10 clue
for IL may he that the state of the finances rcunir o
the imposition Of tbs duty for he purpose Of rev
enue. How, ihcn, ask you, sir, is this question
TO be souled? III tell you The law must lie
enforced, be II constitutional or othersise.-and
this is he common arbiter TO decide between ihe
FederaI Government and the States | apsinrs.
peat, there is no practical mode by which tho SUI
preine Court OF the United States can decide ON
the consttutionality Of the Tafia Laws Then.
there is no common arhitet; and there being none
zach STATE las the right TO consi,Ue the compsc,
Tor iiscE
will now examine the truth Of the proposition.