Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1829-02-10
P0LTTTCAL.
Letters on the Power Of Congress By
JAMES MADISON.
LETTER II.
MONTPELIER, OCTOBER 50, 1913.

DEAR Sir in my letter of September
18th, stated, briefly, the grounds on winch
rest my opinion, that power to impose
duties and restrictions on imports with view
to encourage domestick productions, was
constitutionally lodged in Congress; IN the
observations then made was involved si,e
opinion, also that the power was properly
there lodged. As this last opinion necessa-
rily implies that there are cases ~ Wnich Inc
power may be usefully exercised by Congess,
the only body within our political system
capable of exercising it with effect, you may
think it incumbent on me topoint out cases
| OF that description.
IWill premise that conc ~ IN tho frinton,
that as general rule, individuals ought to
be deemed the best judges of the appllca-
ton of their industry 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 Of individuals, than the United
States.
Finally, l shall not deny, that, in all doubtful
cases, it becomes every government to lean
rather to confidence in the Judgment OF
individuals, than to interpretations controls
ing the free exercise of it.
With all these concessions, think 1t can
be satisfactorily shown, that there are ex-
ceptions to the general rule, now express
ed by the phrase " Let us alone" forming
bases which call for interpretations OF the
competent authority, and which are not
inconsistent with the generality OF the
rule.
l. The Theory of Let us alone," sup
,ooo 81, 90 ,o&;a,, oano,,r ~, porfocf frno-
dom of commercial 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
to the former as to the latter. But this gold
en- age of free trade has not yet arrived;
nor is there a single nation that has set the
example. No nation can, indeed, safely do
so, until reciprocity, at least, be ensured
to it. Take, for proof, the familiar case
of the navigation employed in a foreign
commerce. If nation, adhering to the
rule of never interposing countervailing
protection of its vessels, admits foreign
vessels into its ports free of duty whilst its
own vessels are subject to duty in foreign
ports, the ruinous effect is so obvious, that
the warmest advocate for the theory in
question must shrink from universal ap-
plication of it.
A nation, leaving its foreign trade, in all
cases, to regulate itself, might soon find it
egulated, by other nations, into subservi-
ency to foreign interest In the interval
between the peace of 1883 and the estab-
lishment of the present Constitution of the
! United States, the want of general au-
thority to regulate trade is known to have
had this consequence. And have not the
pretensions and policy latterly exhibited by
Great Britain given warnings of like re-
suit from remuneration of all countervail-
ing regulations on the part of the United
States? Were she permitted by comforting
on certain portions of her domain the name
of colonies, to open from these trade for
herself, to foreign countries, and to exclude,
at the same time, reciprocal trade to such
Colonies, by foreign countries, the use to
be made of the monopoly need, not be trac-
ed. Its character will be placed in just
relief, by supposing 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 receive the name and be re-
garded in the light of a Colony, with the
peculiar privileges claimed for Colonies. Is
it not manifest, that, in this case, the favour
ed island might be made the sole medium of
the commercial intercourse with foreign ma
tons, and the parent country thence enjoy
essential advantage, as to the terms of it,
which would flow from an unreciprocal
trade from her other ports, with other ma
tions
u Eontnpoto1x fho p.;t;eh Ia,
speciously coloured or adroitly managed,
were repealed at the commencement of our
commercial career as an Independent Peo-
pie, and at successive epochs under the ex-
isting Constitution, both in Legislative dis
cussions and in diplomatick negotiations
The claims were repealed on the solid ground
that the Colonial trade, as rightfiI monop-
oily, was limited to the intercourse between
the parent country and its colonies, and be.
tween one colony and another the whole
being, strictly, in the nature of coasting
trade from one to another port of the same
nation trade with which no other nation
1 has right to interfere. It follows, of ne
4 cessity, shat the parent country, whenever
it opens colonial port for direct trade t.
a foreign country, departs, itself, from the
principle of colonial monopoly, and entitle:
the foreign country to the same reciprocity
in every respect, as in its intercourse with
any other ports of the nation.
This is common sense and common right
1t is still more, if more could be required
1t is in conformity with the established us
age of all nations, other than Great Britain
which have colonies. Some of those ma
tons are known to adhere to the monopoly
of their colonial trade, with all the rigou
and constancy which circumstances permit
4 But it is also known, that whenever, an,
from whatever cause, it has been found ne
cessary or expedient to open their colonia
ports to a foreign trade, the rule of recipro
city in favour of the foreign party was no
refused, nor, as is believed, a right to refus
it pretended.
1t cannot be said that the reciprocity ws
: dictated by deficiency of the commercis
!, marine. France, at least, could not be,
d every instance, governed by that considers
: tion-and Holland still less to say aothia