Delaware journal. [volume] (Wilmington [Del.]) 1827-1832, 1829-01-16
POLITICAL.
LETTERS OF MR.. MADISON.
LETTER II.

Monipelier, October 80, 1928.
Dear Sir In my letter of September 18th
stated, briefly, the grounds which rested my
opinion, that power to impose duties and Iestric-
tions on imports, with view to encourage domes-
tic productions, constitutionally lodged In Con-
gress. In the observations then made was involved
the opinion also, that the power properly there
lodged As this last opinion necessarily implies that
there cases in which he power may be usefully
exercised by Congress- the only body within our po-
ltical system capable of exercising with effect,
you may think it incumbent on me to point out cases
of that description.
| will premise that I concur in the opinion, that,
as general rule, individuals ought to be deemed
the best Judges of the best application of their In.
dustry and resources.
am ready to admit, also, that there is no country
in which the application may, with more safety,
be left to the intelligence and enterprise ofndivid-
uals, than the United States.
Finally, SKILL not deny that, In all doubtful Ca
SEES, it becomes every Government to lean rather to
"A confidence in the judgement OF individuals imam
to interpretations controlling the free exercise OF It.
With all these concessions, think it can be sat
sfactoriy shown, that there are exceptions to the
general rule, now expressed by the phrase " Let US
alone,' forming cases which call for interpretations
of the competent authority and which are not lncon-
sistent with the generality Of the rule
/. The Theory Of Sc Let us alone" supposcs that
all nations concur in perfect freedom Of CONNER
cial intercourse. Were this the case. they would
in commercial view, be but one nation, as much
as the several districts composing particular ma
ton and the theory would be as applicable 10 the
former to the latter But this golden age offree
trade has not yet arrived nor is there single ma
ton that has set the example. No nation can, IN
deed, safely do so, until, reciprocity, at least, be
ensured to it. Take, for proof, the familiar case
| # finn veI in ~
If nation, adherng to the rule of never interpos-
ing counervaiing protection Of its vessels, admits
foreign vessels into its ports free Of duty, whilst Its
own vessels subject to duty IN foreign ports
the runiOus effect rs so obvious that the Warmest adj
vocate for the theory in question must shrink IRON
universal application Of it.
l. nation leaving its foreign trade, in all cases. to
regulate ITSELF might find it regulated. by other
nations, into subserviency to a foreign interest
In the interval between the peace of 1888 and the
establishment of the present Constitution OF the u
States the want of general authority to regulate
| trade is known to have had this consequence. And
have not the pretensons and policy latterly exhbi.
ted by Great Britain given warning OF like result
from remuneration Of all countervailing regulations
on the part of the United States Were she per-
mitted, by comforting on certain portions OF her do
nam the name Of Colonies, to open from these
trade for herself to foreign countries, aud to exclude
by foreign countries, the use to be made OF the mon
opoly need not he traced. Its character will be
placed in Just relief, by surprising that one OF the
Colonial Islands, instead of its present distance,
happened to be in the vicinity of Great Britain or
that one Of the Islands in that vicinity should re-
ceive the name and be regarded in the light OF a
Colony, with the peculiar privileges claimed Tor
Colonies. Is it not manifest that IN this case, the
favored Island might be made the sole medium OF
the commercial intercourse with foreign nations and
the parent country thence enjoy every essential adj
vantage as to the terms oil it, which would how
from an arecproca trade from her other ports, with
other nations
Fortunately, the British claims, however pecious.
+ ly colored or adroitly managed, were repealed al
the commencement of our commercial career as an
independent People, and at successive epochs un
der the existing Constitution. both in legislative dis
cussons and in diplomatic negotiations. The claims
were repealed on the solid ground that the Coon'a
trade, as rightfM monopoly, was limited TO The IN
tcrcourse between the parent country ana us coio
les and between one colony and another; the who'e
being strictly in the nature Of coastlng trade IRON
+ one to another port Of the same nation trade
= with which no other nation has right to interfere
1t follows, Of necessity, that the parent country
whenever it opens colonial port Tor direct trade
to foreign country, departs, ITSELF from the prln
ciple of colonial monopoly, and entities the foreign
country the same rccprocity. IN every respect az
in its intercourse with any other ports of the nation
IL This is common sense and common right. 1t il
r still more, ifmore could be required. 1t is in con
formity with the established usage of all nations
other than Great Britain, which have colonies
Some of those nations known to adhere to tht
monopoly of their colonial trade, with all the r'go
: and constancy which circumstances permit But y
is also known, that whenever, and from whatever
cause, it has been found necessary or expedent T.
open their colonial ports foreign trade, the rui
Of reciprocity in favor Of The foreign party was no
refused nor, is believed, right to refuse pre-
IT tended a;ot.,s