Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-02-03

infer the existence Of this express power. from a
| distinct clause.
That have not misrepresented the character
OF Mr. Madison's argument, the reader will per-
cci;e frorn the following extracts from his FIRST
| letter: " The constitution vests in Congress cx-
prcsS1y the power to lay and collect taxes du-
ties, impos,s and excises' and the power TO regu-
late trade That the former power il not par,icu-
! lartT expressed would have been included in the
latter as ono of the objects or general power 10
regulate trade is not necessarily impuened by lis
bcinS 90 expressed" Again-"Certainiy the gen.
esal power TO regulate trade might include pow
cr TO impose duties on it," The following extract
should be regarded with deeper attention. Nor
can il be inferred that power 20 regulate trade
does not involve power TO tax il. from the dis
ihction made in the original controversy with C
| Britain, between apower 10 regulate trade with
the colonies and power to tax them.'' No rea.
son Is stated by MIR. Madison, why it was no.
lawful for the parliament of Great Britain 10 ex-
ercise this taxing power " as one Of the objects
OF the general power 10 regulate trade" and vet,
he broadly asserts that II cannot be inferred from
; this example that a &c power 10 regulate trade .
does not include power 10 impose duties on it,"
| Why 1t cannot be inferred. we left wholly TO
. conjecture; and our doubts can only be resolved
oy the superstition, that il is because OF the pe.
, cuiiar. complicated and in several respects unde-
fined character Of the " relations between Grea.
britain aud her colonies" BE this as il NAV we
perceive from Mr.. Madison's own exposition that
the power to regulate trade as distinctly conced
ed by the colonies 10 be vested in the imperial
Parliament, and that the power TO tax it was dis
tnctIy denied, and he himself considers il e" for
tunate" that regulation Of trade with view to
| revenue was prevented from growing into cs-
| tablished authority
Here il is seen, that the people of North Amc-
RIGA, under the colonial establishment, believed,
differently from MIR. Madison, that this latter pow
| CT was not necessarily included under the first
And the most distinguished Statesmen of England
among whom We reckon, Burke, Chatham and
Fox, concurred with them in this opinion.
But the reasons Of the distinction then generally
admitted IN theory, and for long time established
10 practice, were widely diferent from those ex-
| pressed by Mr.. NJ. No ailusion was made 10 the
peculiarly of the relations between the colonies
| and parent country; because, if the power 10 tax
trade, was included under the power 10 regulate
~, tne peculiarly OF our relations might well
have been objected to the exercise of the last as
OF the first power. And indeed, it would be en-
ncnuy preposteroUs that the colonies should adj
vsedly conecsc power, whose exercise never
,heess they should strenuousiy oppose, under pre-
tcnce OF the existence OF complicated relations
when these relations had never undergone a
change No, sir, the right TO impose taxes was
denied TO Great Britain, because it was not EN-
braced by the power to regulate trade, which
was admitted to reside in ParIiament-and he
cause being distinct and substantive power. il |
could not, without the consent Of the Colonies be
exercised by the British Parliament in which the
Colonies were not represented. Upon this ques- |
ton of representation the whole argument turned
and the fact Of the States' being represented in
Congress, does not alter the case in respect TO us;
for the members Of Congress only represent as
Nth regard to the poaoers actually vested.
Now, let US compare the relations subsis,ine
between Great Britain and her Colonies, and the |
Federal Government and the several States For
tho Mr.. Madison deprec atcs such comparison be |
cause of The dissjmilarity of their relative stua.
tons, aPprelend that the difference will only in
huce an in!erenced Jorfiorf, against the right of |
the General Government 10 exercise the tsyiug
power as Included by the power to regulate trade |
he Colonies being tributary, dependent and SUBJ |
ject to the dominion of paramount authority,
lHe.uec 20 ms authority power to regulate their
trade The States OF America, being sovereign /
and independent nations, owing obedience to no
earthly authority, confederate together for pur-
poses OF common advantage. and delegate also to
a power, composed OF the aggregation of frac-
tonal portions, severally ceded, the right to re.
guiate their commerce. The Colonies protested
that the taxing power was not embraced by the I
power to regulate trade; and the opinion was at |
aHf',nes ocguiesced IN 6y The mother countyy..-
de States so'etnny reiterate the proposition and
the General Government steadily repel it, Thus |
those privileges which are yielded TO the creature
BY the creator in the FIRST insance in the second
are denied 10 the creator by the creature.
But MIR. Madison aware of the obvious discre. !
pancy, betwe his declaration that the general
power to regulate trade includes n power to i'm
pose duties on it,, and his assertion that i, was
fortunate that regulation OF trade with view to
revenue had never grown into established author |
ity, seemingly abandons this ground as far as il
has relation 10 the colonial establishment and |
says, Zone thing at least is CERTAIN that the main
and admitted object OF the Parliamentary regula-
tons OF trade with the Colonies, was the encou |
ragement OF manufactures in Great Britain"
shall not enquire how far such an exclusion of the
manufactures Of foreign nations from the colonial
ports, might have excited dssension and dissIec-
ton in the Colonies, had it operated in;urousy to
their interests. shall not enquire on what foun.
dahon oil justice the colonies OF England al this !
day, prefer their complaints against this self same
vigorous system OF restriction and exclusion 4 |
shall not enquire into the relative merits of the ar
guments employed in our own country by the |
aPoogiss and opposers of the British Colonial Sys-
TEN. in support OF their respective opinions. I !
shall advert only to the simple fact that this oues-
ton Is now the subject Of enquiry, and that even
those vino excuse this policy, do so solely upon the
strict abstract right OF parent nation, to monopo
Use the benefits derivabe from her colonies their
adversarles even oppugning the principle.-Now, |
Sir, what weight can belong TO the assertion that
&c The main and admitted ohec. Of the regulations
OF trade with the Colonies, was the encourage |
ment OF manufactures" when that power, if tex.
ist nj All, (Which we have seen questioned) could
only exist because Of their situation as DEPENDENT
Colonies-when. moreover, in some cases il was !
actually resisted, and when it was only not re-
s,s'ed IN all, because by reason OF The superior
cheapness and excellence of English manufac-
lures, its operation could seldom be detrimental G.
never oppressive!
In my next, shall take into consideration the
several reasons, assigned by Mr.. Madison, why
under dte Constitution of The u. S., the power
to regulate trade with foreign nations, embraces
the OBJECT OF encouraging the manufactures of the
country. HANDLES,
This assertion Is literally accurate-for tho @.
Britain at one time assumed a right to tax us, i'll
was never pretended TO be in virtue Of their con-