Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-07-03


practical operation Of this system, ms a scheme
OF oppressive taxation tending to exhaust the
resources, and, through these. the moral tone
AMI spirit of the southern States.
propose now to examine its bearing on the
grand principles of constitutional liberty, aud
particularly tho principle Of representative re-
spons'til,ty, without which, liberty has no eff-c-
tuai safeguard against arbitrary power, even in
| popular government.
Will submit a very few remarks on the ques
u"n OF the constitutional power az Congress To
| impose duties on imports for tho purpose OF pro-
tectiug manufactures. Many of those Who hear
| me, are aware, that never have been one Of
those who put any faith in the security which
liberty car derive from giving the constitution a
| strict and literal construction. My rule has al
ways been, To inquire what Is the true meaning
| and intsntion Of the constitution. regarding its
| 81 irit and objects than it's mere letter. IL
| Is upon this principle that hold that tho ex
i>'ing tariff though strictly within tho letter o;
| tie constitution, 10 a gross and palpahle viola
ton of its true spirit, aui Of tho great aud pri.
| mary end for which il was adopted. Nothing
| eau be more Obvious, in my opinion. than that
| he "power to levy and collect import aud excise
duties" was conferred upon Congress for no
| other purpose than to raise revenue. Men may
! differ in opinion to the uses and pur poses to
which this revenue may DO properly applied, but
l eau hardly conceive il possible that any one
can suppose that, under this clause, import duties
|
pose than to produce revenue. frankly admit,
however, thnt tho power to regulate commerce
with foreign nations" conferred by another
clause, may DO eous,ulionally carried into effect
by "import duties" carried even to the point Of
prohibition, provided they be imposed. in good
| faith, for the purpose of "reguiat ng foreign
commerce." and for causes which give this Co
| vernment jurisdiction over that subject. This
power was evidently confined to the Federal
Government, principally for the purpose Of pro.
tecttng and dcfnding our foreign commerce a.
gdinst all dggressions committed on II by foreign
Po,cers, or sanctioned by their authority. The
eusus f9deris. without which this power cannot
be rghtfully exercised, in my opinion, to restrct
suspend, or destroy any branch of foreign com
merce, is violation Ivy some foreign poirer at
the rights Of the United States, Of their ciri-
zeDs, AZ secured either by treaty or the law of
nations. This is strictly an International power
having reference to International rights and inte-
rests. Ii any Of these tights are violated by
foreign power. rs to one branch Of commerce.
all other branches of commerce may be Suspend
ed or restricted Tor the purpose Of vindicating
the violated right, or Of inducing the foreign
power to restore it. 1t was upon this principle,
only, that the embargo aud non intercourse
! laws can he held to have been constitutional
IL foreign nation should adopt an internal re-
sulation which inpars the commercial interests
| OF one part OF the Union, and one branch of our
! commerce, withou: violating any CONNER ciai
right, do think this " i'll authorize Congress
to impose restrictions on another branch of our
commerce and injurious TO another part Of the
| UniOn, whatever may be the purpose of such re-
strictions But most assuredly, if Congress may
constuiionally interfere 10 such case, it can
only be for the bona fie purpose, and IN the rea-
power TO resciud the injurious regulation. If
| some OF our productions excluded from fo
reign countries by domestic regulations which
theV nave right to make, and which cous-
tuts their established policy in regard to
other nations as well as the United States, this
gives Congress NO right whatever to impose
restrictions on other branches of our commerce.
II England, for example, excludes our grain
by her corn laws, this gives Congress no more
right TO impose restrictions our commerce in
other staples than If our grain werc excluded
from England by the fertility Of her soil the
Cause. S''t'"
II is. indeed, the most idle and empty OF all
Pretexis, to aliege that the English corn laws
are the foundation of our protecting system; or
that II Is the purpose desire of the authors of
| that system to induce England to repenl these
laws. nave no where heard them so exrraya-
| gantly eulOgized for their wisdom as in the
United States; and certain it IL, that nothing
| short of the repeal Of our protecting duties would
give 30 great shock to our manufacturing
establishments as the repeal of the English corn
| laws. 1t rs easy to perceive. that, the food
oil the English operatives were reduced to one
| hall its present price, il would be much more
dlthcult for our manufacturers to maintain the
competition with those of England than il is
now. While the repeal Of the corn Tvs, there
fore, would iDjure the domestic manufac turers,
It would lie of very liue benefit to tho farmers
OF the north. The prices current show thai,
grain is generally higher in the ports of the
United States than it is in those of the continent
OF Europe. Even if the ports Of England, there
| ioro were thrown open to receive foreign grain
under mere revenue duty, our farmers could
| not hold competition with those Of Poland and
| other corn countries. 1t is very certain that
British manufactures could not be imported TO
any extent, under system Of revenue duties,
III eAchBuge for the grain of our northern States.
Thus much, sir, for the constitutional power
Of Congress on this subject, and the pretexls
upon which the assumption IF that power has
been attempted to be justified Tho avowed
and undisguiscd object Of the protecting system
ID TO destroy. permanently, one great branch of
our commerce, vital tn the prosperity Of seven
States of this Union, for the urjust and uncon.
Siltutional purpose of building up, on The runs
OF that commerce, the prosperity Of certain man
nfac'ures, for the exclusive benefit Of other
! States.
| But the great and radical objection to the
protecting system, is not that it is unequal in
ITS operation, or even that it is unconstitutional
but mat by throwing the great pecuniary inter.
est5 OF the manufacturing and planting States
INTO direct and rrscUncieable hostility il entire
II destroys the security which the representa-
tive principle was designed to provide, and con-
ver,s the majority ofCongress into an irrespons-
ble desporisrn only as it regards The power of
taxation itself, but il regards all the interests
mr. mil lu cfaI