Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-11-10

bciorb mo. Bat i could,add nothing to the weight
OF what I have already adduccd. Tho whole tc-
sf colonial and revolutionary history proves
the tho truth of Burke's assertion in his speech
on American taxation, in 17Il. 'I'hat f.o;n the
act of navigation. the policy OF Great Britain to-
wadshcr colonies was purely commercial and that
COMMERCIAL system wholly restrictive. 1t was
| the system of monopoly"
! For what end were these restrictions, this mono
! poly by commercial regulation! Surely, for no
ether than retain the whulo American market
| for the manufactures of England and the produce
of her sugar islands free from foreign petition.
/ And this was what chiefly meant, and must
have been meant by the phrase of 'conInercial re-
1 gulation
| My mind, therefore, cannot resist the concln.
sion, that tho phrases thc laying of taxes and i'm.
posts for the purpose of revenue" and s'the regu.
lation of commerce." were from l76l 10 tho adop-
ton of our constitution, 'fumiliar in their mouths
as household words" not only to the statesman,
but to the people of the rcvolution-that they
were used in very definite sense, precisely fixed
by legal as we'll as constant popular use-and that
IN the latter phrase of reguiation of trade" was
included what the BritMi government had always
claimed and exercised, and in which America had
always acquiesced, the pc,ccr Of fauorimg and pro-
hibiting particular trGGcs, products or fdJrcs by
dates.
When, then, in 1877, the Convention selected
these phrases to express the powers they meant
to confer upon the new Government, in what other
sense than this could they have cmploved them?
Tho members of that body all Of them men
|
sions of which these Phrases formed tho watch
words aud the text. Many of them had themselves
conducted those discussions. There was George
Washington, their President; Hamilton, whose first
political essay said to have been an examina-
ton of the questions ut issue between Great Bri-
tain and her colonies; Benjamin Franklin, John
Dickinson and Gouvcrneur Morris, of whose
familiarity with this subject proofs have been above
given.
1t is worthy of observation that the chairman
of the committee appointed to revise he style and
arrange the articles OF the constitution after the
principles had been settled, William Johnson
OF Connecticut who doubtless selected, for
that post by the president of the Conventions from
his union of legal eminence with distinguished Ii
tcrary requirement; and this statesman had in the
congress which met at New York, in l7G5, drawn
up report the subject of American rights in
relation to these very points of taxation and regu-
atlon nf trade* in which very report this distinc-
ton strongly marked.
Now to my mind it seems plain, that such mon
must of course have intended to use these phrases
in the very same sense, (ncther wider nor mar
rower) which fifteen years of discussion had
given them England and America. They
were familiar with the we'll settled distinction in
principle between the power OF taxation for
nue., which they denied TO the mother country,
and that of laying duties foT commercial regula-
ton, which they allowed, whilst they complained
OF lis oppressive use. AT the same time, knowing
from experience that it practically difficult
sometimes to draw the precise line between duties
OF regulation and duties for revenue, they meant
TO confer both powers upon the government
OF their formation III the broadest latitude, and
thus to cut off all doubt. This, thSe9Gore they
designed to do, not by implication constructions
but by words TO which common use had then aflix-
ed the clearest sense
They gave to congress the authority to regulate
commerce TO the full extent of that power, then
understood limited only by the accompanying
words, with foreign nations, among the several
states, and with the Indian tribes" that it might
not, like some of the offensive British regulations,
he directly exercised upon what might be strictly
internal within the several states.
They gave also the power of s'laving and collec-
ting taxes, duties and imposts, TO pay the debts
and Pr"cidc for the defence and gene
raj nrgGFe of the United States" No disciple of
the strictcst school of rcpublicanism car 90 be-
yond myself IN opposing the unfounded and dan
gcrous notion of ''thc power of providing for the
general welfare" having ever been granted as Sc
paf"e ana sweeping authority of general legsla-
ton But these words must have been intended
Tor some purpose; and the history of our discus
sIons with Great Britain to me to indicate
clearly that they meant that taxation might be i'm
posed not merely for revenue, but to provide for
the common good IN relation to the several specific
powers specially intruscd Congress, that of com
mcrclal regulation being of them. Thus, it
might have been expected that there would be no
room left for any of those doubts which had occu-
sionally been raised under the British trade laws
whether any particular duty imposed as tax,
or merely as regulation of trade Yet the sense
OF these phrases, familiar al that time, has al
ready been clouded by the lapse of forty years. SO
vain arc the precautions of human wisdom
All contemporary authority confirms the conclu-
SION which have drawn from historical and do
cumcntary testimony. Mr.. Madison has told us
III his letter to Mr Cabc, that the objects of our
present tarifflaws were .lhe objects to which this
power generally understood TO be appli
cable, when the words were inserted in the
constitution Mr.. Gallatin, one of the ear
lest, and certainly of the most conss
tent and able champions of FREQ trade in this
country, has stated in the conferences of the free
trade committee, am told, and repeatedly in
conversation with myself, that such he found III on
his first entrance into political life in 1889 to be the
universal opinion of the statesmen who formed and
OF those who opposed the constitution. In the de-
sates of the first congress under it, whilst the policy
OF laying protecting duties strongly Supported
by some members all, far as can gather from
the reports, seemed to take the power for granted
Petitions for duties 10 foster manufactures were
presented, meetings held, and societies formed for
eftectIng that object; and after digent inquiry I
can IND no trace of opposition censure from
the press or from the public on constitutional
grounds, or any doubt any whcro intmatcd as 10
this power ofcongress. The preamIslc of the first
act imposing duties, recting that they are laid, a
mongst other purposes, 'lor the cncoura cement Of
manufactures" has often been quoted. Merely as
expression of the opinion ofthe first congress
on this head, it is doubtless entitled great weight
But circumstance which / have never seen or
heard remarked upon strikes me with much great
or force There is evidence of any opposition
proposed amendment to this assertion OF power
1t was not, therefore, simply the expression of the
federal minority of that congress, who might on
other points, be supposed TO claim liberal or la
tltudlnarian construction Of the constitutions but