The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1831-1858, 1831-11-23

a greater aggregate sum will have been take,
from the pockets of tho people; and il will then
be found that Congress, instead of lessening the
public burihens by the reduction of duties
will have only been encouraging the consump.
ton OF greater quantity Of the taxed article
A large consumption with small tax being
in this case, more than equivalent to a small
consumption with large tax. And thus.
in spite of all the precautions which the
most scrupulous guardians of the cons,itu.
ton may exercise, the public functionaries.
against their will and with the most Conscien.
;ious desire to avoid infracions of the law. will
oitentimes be fated to discover that thew have
produced unconstitutional results The ONLY
remedy for which would seem to be to abandon
this intractabie mode Of taxation by inposts
and resort to direct taxes upon the people
AS long, however, as such results NAV follow
the reduction of duties, it will be seen that n
system which merely increases the consump.
ton Of imported commodities without diminish.
ing the revenue will be, in effect, the adoption
OF policy for the encouragement of foreign
industry. And we might here pause and ask,
whether II can be supposed that the founders
Of our government intended to give power to
congress to adopt scheme Of policy directed
TO The encouragement of foreign labor by a
scale oil low duties without also allowing TO that
body right, when they found it convenient, to
encourage domestic industry by higher scale
OF duties? Let those who answer this question
IN the affirmative, show some reason for the
opinion that the convention which framed the
constitution should set more value upon pow.
er to encourage foreign industry, under any
possible necessity TO exercise il, than upon a
similar power TO encourage and protect our own
We think we have said enough TO Indicate
the pernicious tendencies of the doctrine, sus.
tanned by many eminent citizens of our land,
which ascrihes the right to protect domestic
manufactures, solely to the revenue power con-
ierred by the constitution upon Congress and
have demonstrated that this error, if adopted
must lead the public tunctionaries into practical
embarrassments entirely irreconcilable with
wholesome administration of the laws
With view to show that the protection of
manufacturing industry is mainly referrable to
the power 10 regulate commerce, and was in
tended to be embraced by the tlause of the con-
stitution that invests the supreme legislature
with that power, in addition to the suggestions
that we have already made, we deem il not un-
profitable briefly 10 recur 10 the history of the
country, from which we shall derive lights that
may GUIDE us to the most unerring conclusions
In confirmation of our doctrine. The narrative
OF events from 1888 to 1897, the circumstances
attending the adoption of the constitution and
the range OF its early operations, whilst yet in
the hands OF its authors, afford a mass of testi-
mony that Congress has but responded to the
expectations of the country in so regulating
trade as TO furnish the requisite protection to
The expansion and growth U; our own labor.
The regulation of c0mmefce was not a new
term invented by the framcts of the consttu.
ton. 1t was at the time of HE adoption of that
instrument by the people a term familiar TO
their apprehension and impressed upon their
understandings, by the strongest comments that
Inc history OF oppression could furnish. The
war St the revolution, that had Just closed,
sprang out of the conflicts IN which this subject
mad been presented in the countless forms which
an engrossing topic Of complaint may be sup
posed to assume in the discussions Of an excited
and rebelling people. The same subject had
been canvassed in the British Parliament until
argument and defamation were exhausted
Inc mother country had regulated the COM
merce OF the colonies, through series of obi
Gus and unfeeling restrictions, for more than a
century, until the phrase had acquired the no.
torlety off hateful grievance. She had fetter.
ed Their trade by cruel prohibitions, and con
trolled their labor by systems of denial that re-
duced them to the lowest state of suffering |;
yet 1t IS remarkable, that, deeming this oppres.
sive policy lawful exercise of the prerogative
OF regulating commerce, 1.-THE colonists submitted
to these evils with resignation that indicated
their sense o. the duty Of obedience to an &C.
knowledged though misused power. All man.
utactures calculated TO bring wealth into the
country were strictly forbidden; the erection
vi iorges' lot example, was denounced as nui-
sance' and these establishments were liable to
DC aoa,sc by that name; it was declared IN
'a"iui 10 export the simplest fabrics, even Of
SHOES or mats from one province TO another.
gun tae people did not deny the legality Of
tnese attempts to regulate commerce. But
when the right was assumed to collect revenue
IN Inc colonies tor the benefit of the mother
country the hrst assertion Of snch principle
was met oy open rebellion. The distinction
was pa'Paoie enough, to every man, between
.nese Two pretenslons OF authority. 1t is wor-
NY 0i remark, That Lord Chatham, IN 1908, in
the BRITISH House of Commons, distinctly de-
nheu the Two branches OF power in terms that
'teraily apply to the subject we have been dis
cussing, ana which show how clearly they were
brought 10 the notice of the country; there is
pam distinction, in his language, between
taxes levied :or the purpose ofraising revenue
ana duties imposed for the regulation Of trade,
Tor me accommodation of the subject; although
IN the consequences, some recenue might incl
dsntauy arse from The latter Indeed, the
whole tenor OF the public discussion on those
SUBJECTS, so rife at that period throughout Eng
land and America, furnishes the most conclu-
sive evidence that specific idea was attached
tn the phrase incorporated into our constitution
and that~its scope was to include the idea orlevy-
ing duties in such form as 10 encourage and
protect, or, at least, 10 control and direct the
growth ofdomestic industry
The complaints against the articles Of con.
federation for which the constitution was sub.
stltuted, embraced nmon1st ather thinr. an