Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-06-11

forever great branch OF commerce beonp ing 10 eight
sovereign states OF this conederacy There no hing
SIR either In history fable, that be
win this most unnatural aud mcns,r,us psrversion OF
power The very commerce. which this governms mt
was created to preserve, an which IL il under the
cleared and most solemn constitutional obligations 10
project and defend against all tor1ig outrage, actual
~ destroyed by the Government which created TO
Pre-erve IT., and protecting unlrr p.wer evil
denliy cohieried Tor no other purpo-e Yes. Sir and
10 add nockcry To the outrage Congress very mode silly
c3ims the title OF parental and prote ting Govern.
ment. Tor the very act OF sacrificing that commerce
which IT is bound preserve to build up on it's ruins
disnc, branch Of indus,ry-domestic
which the constitution has committed 20 tho uar,,ian.
ship Of the Federal Governmen in any respect what
ever The monster which should devour his own off
spring, would not commit greater outrage against ma
tur-, Than this body Is thus perpetratng against the
Constitution under which it assumes to act, aud from,
which only 1t can derive any legitimate authority.
The only which justify Congress in impo ing
re'trctions and prohibitions upon commerce, i, the vi
oa,ion by foreign powers, OF those principles OF
national law which are the guarantee of our
cial and other sovereign rgh's nation; and the or
ly constitutional objectto whcs these restrictions and
prohibitions can he directed Is induce or constran T.,
reign powers to repeal the regulations abandon the
course OF action by which national rights are viola
ted. This Government principally designed by its
amers TO concentrate tho whole Paw.r of the confede
racy Tor the purpose OF resisting the of 70
reign nations upon our rights on the II such
aggression has been committed il all rights Of com.
merce and navigation are secure under the proe elton
OF the law of nations from appre nded
ments then, Sir, maintain that the case has not occur
red in which this Government may rghtf,ly inte
its power to vndcae the sovereign rights Of the con.
federacy, either by mill airy force or legislative
tons and prohibitions.
will now illustrate my views on this subject BY a
brief examination of the embargo of 1907 me sure
too memorable 10 have been gotten and with the his
tory OF which, take IL for granted every member of
the committee is familiar. II is well known fact that
an entire political party, constituting decided MAORI.
tyoi the people oil New England. and headed by men
OF very distinguished talents AMI great political expe-
Renee, denounced the measure in quesisn as an un-
constitutional perveson OF the power regulate com
MERGE believe Sir that every public functionary,
from the chief Executive downwards, and everv de.
partment OF the Government. in almost every New
England State, solemny pronounced the embargo law
unconstitutional. There never political party
arrayed against This Government with mote unanitnty
upon any question, than the Federal party Of N
England upon the unconstitutionay of that me asure
Now. Sir, what was the ground upon which ii
tended that the embargo was unconstitutional? have
recently heard that ground stated, from hiyh author-
ty, in speech delivered not far off, in which the i'd
seemed still TO be maintained The ground this:
that the embargo law contained limitation upon i,s
face, and was, therefore, indefinite suspension of
commerce. To suspend commerce indefinitely, il to
de troy II; and The power to regulate commence does
rot confer the right TO destroy it. Such Sir was the
argument, as nndersand it Though it i. certainly
plausible and imposing argument. do not think il
sound one. II entirely overoeks the cause which in.
Iuced Congress TO pass hs embargo law, and the OBJ
tecf TO accomplish which It enacted both Of them
considerations essential TO the correct determination of
the question OF cons'ituonality Let be remember
eu mat the DelngereDt powers OF had commit.
ted series of ouiiages upon national and CONNER
cal rights in open violation of the clearest principles Of
the law OF nations. Here, then, undoubed case
for the constitutional n,erposi,on Of The power OF the
Federal Government. The cdsUs Jgderis of the con-
stituonal compact had evidently occurred The right.
OF the citizens violated by foreign powers And
this Government having in charge the foreign relations
OF The country, was not only authorized 10 vinjcae
these rights by commercial retrciions but eren by war
itself-ths last resort of injured nations Indeed the
embargo was war measure in all its material charac-
teistcs, view cd in ference either 10 its causes or its
objects.
And what, Sir, was the end. the final end, wi ch
Congress proposed tt accomplish by the embargo' Wa.
there man in America at the tme-is there man in
America at present, far gone the deuson. of party
prejadice TO believe that Mr.. Jefferson, in recon-
mendiDg the embargo Congress. in adopting it, aim
ed at the permanent destruction of commerce. or OF
any branch OF it, as the ultimate and final end Of that
measure: 1t will hardly be doubted at hi. day that
the sole and exclusive object which the Government
had IN view, in this temporary suspension Of foreign
commerce, was TO compel the beigerent powers
lieve that very from the shackles and re-
stTctons which they had thrown around il, contrary
to the law OF raons and in violation OF the
rights OF the United States am decidedly OF the opin
ION, therefore, that the embargo constitutions
measure; but am very far from believing that il
wise one.
Let us. now, Mr. Chairman, see how The prohbi'orc
acts OF 1924 and 1925 will stand comparison vi the
embargo OF 1907, in regard TO the two essential requ
sites OF a constitutional regulation of commerce-I
mean, sufficient, cause, and justfable object What,
men, was he cause OF theSe TWO prohlbory acts! Was
it pretended ifa any foreign power had violated our
rIghts, by imposing restrictions upon commerce not
warranted by the law of nations? So for from this he
ing the Gaze, the only measure Of foreign nower
which has been alleged a motive for prohbitory
tariff on part il the prohibition of foreign rain by
Great Britain; highly applauded it was
nnwsey initiated by Tie advocates of the prohbi'ory
system IN This county Ii not 10 vndcate any vi
oated right, then, that the Of 1924 and 1928 were
passed, and thus far they the jusnfyng cause III al
existed in the Of the embargo What then il tbs
object, the hnal end, which these propose TO ac
compsh! Are they intended 10 compel any foreign
power TO abandon restrictions irntou. our CONNER.
cal rights, or even detrimental our commercial in
terests! This will scarcely be pretended. The only
foreign restriction which has been alleged an inter-
ference with our commerce. is that imposed BY the Bfi-
fish Com Laws
Now will ii be seriously argued, that the manulac.
tuTers OF the United States, anxious 10 induce or
constran Great Britain TO repeal her corn laws, viii
any in this Houfe hazard the assertion that the
prohbiory duties imposed by Congress were designed
TO produce such eec'i Nothing Sir was more re-.
mote from the wi hes OF those by whom these duties
were imposed. When the subject OF negotiating a
commercial treaty with Great Britain, providing for a
reciprocal Tree trade between the two countries was
agalee some months ago in the public journals in
what tone and temper il denounced BY the advo-
Gates Of the manufacturing INTEREST," And when bin
was reported few days ago, by the Committee on
Commerce. proposing o effect The object, in par
ll degree by legiAaicn, what electric terror sses
ed to through the ranks of the tariff party in this
House!
NJ could be adopted by any foreign govern
men and particularly by that Of Great Britain that
would be more earnestly deprecated by the friends OF
the protecting system in this country, than an uncond-
Onal repeal to all commercial restrictions If the Br-
fish Barls IoI;.l H.