Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-01-10
DOMESTIC.

| MIR. MADlSON'S LETTERING have pc
rused with attention MIR. MADISON'S first Let
Ter on the Constitutional power of Congress to pass
Tariff for the protection Of Manufactures and
Notwithstanding the sanction Of his high name on
subjects oil this nature, and the respect due to his
opinions on all political topics, are as yet I'M
convinced by his reasonngs, in favour Of the doc
trine he contends Tor. Interpreting the Consttu-
ton according 10 its letter, have conceiv-
ed that II admitted OF dissent but what Congress
had the power in question. Now, MR. MADG-
SUN whole argument proceeds on the literal
construction OF the instrument, s. not ON 4 consL-
Grafton Of the spirit in which the compact was
framed, and by which il should be interpreted
~ Is admitted, we believe, on all hands, that the
power 10 regulate commerce involves that OF levy
ing imposts, this is necessarily one Of the in
struInents OF etfecDg that end. Ii has been con-
ceded that foreign regulations injurious to our
trade could not be counte rvailed it'll unless
congress could meet restriction by restriction, and
mat something mere was intended by the power in
question, than the collection of revenue. But ad-
uniting the construction of MR.. MADISON, and
II Is competent for Congress to use this power for
the purpose OF protecting any and every branch
OF National industry. There is no limit 10 the APP
pIcation oil the power levying imposts but the dis
cretion of the National Legislature. This is GER
tainiy not constituting the Federal Charter accord
ing 10 its spirit and just and rational ends This
is not giving TO all parts of the Union the ad-
vantage oil that interpretation, which will ensure
an equality oil benefits and burthens, as far as such
purpose is attanabie in an instrument OF confe-
deration adopted in the spirit of compromise and
mutual concession.
Much stress is laid in MR.. MADISON'S Let
ter on the practice Of the Feral Government since
the adoption OF the Constitution. There is very
little weight in this argument. When iinposts were
hrst laid there were Ho Manufactures in the Uni
ted States worthy of being protected, and for up
wards OF 20 years the power in question never
exercised. The question was at total rest Ii
however presented itself in a different aspect in
1916, TO what it did in 1889, and thc assertion of
The right OF Congress TO protect Manufactures w as
then strenuousy resisted, and the resistance has
not been intermitted TO this hour
But, adopting as the just rule ofinterprctinr the
Constitution, and equality, As far attainabie of
The Dement'S and burthens which are 10 result from
the FEDERAL association, would the power in ques-
ton have been e. - ted il the States a, the fortna.
ton oil the Constitution had stood in the same re-
lation to each other that they stand now. Admit
ting that to protect any and every branch Of Ma
uoha industry was right relnquished TO the Fee
derai Government, would such a conc esson have
been made il il had been anticipated that the
Southern division of the Confederacy, by bccon-
ing exporting States OF valuable staple, could re-
ceive 10 share of the protection which the others
by their density OF population have exclusively en-
Joyed IN becoming manufacturing States? Would
u ever have been listened 10, that boon so valu-
able to one part OF the Union would have been
granted without any equivalent 10 that portion
which made the surrender? The true question
Is then, how would the trainers of the Constitution
nave acted, supposing the present state Of things
and the existing relations among the States, 10
have been the foundation on which they were to
build their superstructure of Government? This
is the view, we think, that the State smen of en-
larged mind, should take OF the subject. This
would be TO construe the Federal Charter accord.
ing to the spirit in which it named, and its
just and rational ends. [Chdrleston Patriot.