Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1830-03-23
rContipued from 6rst page.1

CONTINUED from FIRST page.1
odious sense, in which it means an accumu-
lation in the Federal Government Of the
powers properly belonging to the States.
.Irepeat. sir, that, in adopting the sentl-
ments of the trainers Of the Constitution,
read their language audibly, and word for
word, and pointed out the distinction, just
as fully as have now done, between the
consolidation Of the Union and that other
obnoxious consolidation, which disclaimed.
And yet the honorable member mlsundor-
stood me. The gentleman had said that he
wished for no fixed revenue--not shilling.
If, BY word, he could convert the Capitol
into gold, he would not do it. Why all
this fear of revenue? Why, sir, because, as
the gentleman told US, it tends to consolida-
ton. Now, this can mean neither more nor
less than common revenue is a common
interest, and that all common interests tend
to hold the union of the States together. |
confess | like that tendency; if the gentle
man dislikes it, he is right in deprecating a
shilling's fixed revenue. So much, sir, for
consolidation.
As well as recollect the course of his
remarks, the honorable gentleman next
REQUIRED TO the subject of the Tariff. He
did not doubt the word must be of unpleas-
ant sound to me, and proceeded, with an Ell
fort neither new nor attended with new sue
cess, to involve me and my votes in incon-
sistency and contradiction. am happy the
honorable gentleman has furnished me an
opportunity Of timely remark or two on
that subject. was glad he approached it,
for it is question enter upon without tie ar
from any body. The strenuous toll of the
gentleman has been to raise an Inconsistent
cy between my dissent to the Tariff In 1924
and my vote in 1928. 1t is labour lost. He
pays undeserved compliment to my speech
IN 1924; but this is to raise me high, that
my fall, as he would have it, in 1928, may
be the more signal. Sir. there was no fall
at all. Between the ground stood on in
1924, and that took i'll 1928, there was not
only no precipice, but no decllvity. 1t was
change of position, to meet new circum-
stances, but on the same level. A plain
tale explains the whole matter. In 1916, |
had not acquesced in the tariff, then sup
ported by South Carolina. To some parts
oft, especially, felt and expressed great
repugnance. | held the same opinions IN
1891, at the meeting in Faneuil Hall, to
which the gentleman has alluded. i said
then, and say now, that. as an original ques-
ton, the authority of Congress to exercise
the revenue power, with direct reference to
the protection of manufactures, is ques-
tionable authority, far more questionable,
in my judgment, than the power OF Inter
nal improvements. / must confess, sir,
that in one respect, some impression
has been made on my opinions lately. Mr..
Madison's publication has put the power in
very strong light. He has placed it, l
must acknowledge, upon grounds of con-
struction and arguments, which seem i'm
pregnable. But, even if the power were
doubtful, on the face of the Constitution it.
self, it had been assumed and asserted in the
first revenue law ever passed under that
same Constitution, and, or this ground as a
matter settled by cotemporaneous practice,
had RETAINED from expressing the opinion
that the Tariff laws transcribed constltu-
tional limits, as the gentleman supposes.
What did say at Faneuil Hall, as far as |
now remember, was, that this was original
ly matter of doubtful construction. The
gentleman himself, suppose, thinks that
there is no doubt about it, and that the laws
are plainly against the Constitution. Mr..
Madison's letters, already referred to, con-
tain in my judgement, by far the most able
exposition extant of this part of the Consti
tuition. He has satisfied me, so far as the
practice of the Government had left it in an
open question.
With great majority of the Representa-
tives of Massachusetts,, ! voted aga.ns the
Tariff of 1924. My reasons were then Civ
en-, and will not now repeat them. But,
Notwithstanding our dissent, the great
States of New-York, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
and Kentucky went for the bill, in almost
unbroken column, and it passed. Congress
and the President sanctioned it, and it be-
came the law of the land. What, then,
were we to do? Our only option was, Ell
Their to fall in with this settled course OF
publick policy, and accommodate ourselves
to it as we'll as we could, or to embrace the
South Carolina doctrine, and talk Of nullify-
ing the statute by State interference.
This last alternative did not suit our prin-
ciples, and, of course. we adopted tine form
er. In 1927, the subject came again before
Congress, on a proposition favourable to
wool and woolens. We looked upon the
system of protection as being fixed and set
tied. The law of 1924, remained. 1t had
gone into full operation, and in regard to
some objects intended by it, perhaps most
of them, had produced all its expected ef-
fects. No man proposed to repeal it, no
man attempted to renew the general con-
test on its principle. But, owing to subse-
quent and unforeseen occurrences, the ben
eft intended by it to wool and wooden ia
brics, had not been realized.
Events, not known here when the law
passed, had taken place, which defeated its
object in that particular respect. A meas
urc was accordingly brought forward to
meet this precise deficiency, to remedy this
particular defect. 1t was limited to wool
and woolens. Was ever any thing more
reasonable If the policy Of the Tariff laws
had become established in principle, as the
permanent policy of the Government, should
they not be revised and amended, and
made equal, like other laws, as exigencies
should arise, or justice require Because we
had 1ouhted ahout adnntin r the evatenn ware