Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-02-12

Representatives If the American people to con-
slder and decide that most delicate and deeply
interesting question-the right OF the Federal
Government to reduce one OF the sovereign men,
bers Of the Union to obedience 10 it's laws by MI
litary force-a power, let it be remembered, that
was several times proposed to be gwen IN the
formation Of the Federal Constitution. but never
conferred.
The committee have made no provision for the
removal Of custom houses, and exaction OF cash
duties, as suggested by the President Such re.
guiations, especially the latter, they conceive
would be in violation Of those clauses OF the Con-
stitution, which declare that ''aH duties imposts,
and excuses, shall be uniform throughout the
United States" and that I" no preference shall
be given by any regulation of commerce or reUe-
nue. to the ports of one State over those OF ano-
Their" To require the duties on goods brought
into the ports Of one State to be paid in cash AMI
to allow credit upon those imported into the
others, would be entirely at variance with that
uniformity thus required by the constitution, and
must give decided advantage to those ports
where the credit system prevails, over those
where cash payments are enforced. 1t would
do more; it would be virtually denying to citizens
of one State, privileges which are enjoyed by
those of another. rne merchant at Charleston
must pay the custom house duties OH receiving
his goods, while the merchant at Savannah is al
lowed credit Of from three to twelve months
Is this uniformity Do these merchants enjoy
equal privileges?
This objection is attempted to be obviated by
allowing deduction Of the interest, when the
duties are required to be paid IN cash. But
| where is the merchant who would be willing To
| such an arrangement? Where IS the man en-
gagged in trade who is content with profit OF SIX
l. .knlS m ho INDIA mn
difference between the present system Of credits
| and cash payments, with deduction Of six per
cent, why does not Congress at once abolish the
former, and avoid not only the expense, and trou-
BILE. and litigation, Occasioned by the non.pay-
ment Of custom house bond, but secure the Gov.
eminent against the immense losses annually, al
most daily, occurring by the failures of import
ing merchants, and their sureties! The commit.
tee doubt whether the importing merchants
| would consent to pay cash duties, if they we're
offered deduction Of double the legal interest
| Indeed, there can be but little doubt that many
Of the merchants even Of Charleston, would land
| their goods ar Savannah, and incur the expense,
Inconvenience. and additional hazard OF rc.ship-
| ping them, rather than be subjected to the pay.
ment of the duties in cash. Assuretlly, the mer-
CHI ants of the interior would not hesitate as to
which of these ports they would, under these cir
cumstdnces, order their goods. Is 1t not perfect.
iy obvious, then, that by this " regulation Of re-.
venue," Congress would present strong induce.
ments for the landing Of goods at Savannah. in
preference to Charleston. and thus give deci-
ded advantage to the one port over the Other?-
And can any one believe that it such regula-
ton we're established and long maintained, that
il would not as effectualiy ruin the trade oil
Charleston as though that port were blockaded,
| In of han y
prohibited?
But, it may be said. that these regulations are
general; that no particular State is named; that
If they apply to South Carolina, 1t is in conse-
quence of her own act, and that they will be
equally applicable TO any other State which shall
assume the same attitude The plain answer ia
this argument Is, that the Constitution has moi
gwen to Congress the power 10 make such dis
tinctions under such circumstances, or under any
circumstances: the provisions OF the Constitution
are broad. general, and unqualified.
| Admitting, however, for a moment. the power
10 question to exist. the committee are OF opinion
that the exercise Of 1t in the manner proposed.
would operate with peculiar I'M Justice There
are. it is well understood, a number Of merchants
VI Charleston, who, notwithstanding the ordi.
nance Of South Carolina, will continue to impor,
their goods into that port. give their bonds. and
pay them as heretofore. Now, would 1t not b.
contrary to the very spirit and genius Of our CO.
vernment, that, on account of the acts Ut the State
authorities, even Ut the great body vt the State,
these individuals should be deprived OF privileg
es secured to the cl,Zens Of other States!
Thes. considerations are, with your committee,
conclusive against the proposition Tor the exa
ton Of cash dutIes; and. a. the removal OF the
custom houses seems to have been chiefly intro
duced To render that measure the more effectual,
the cuma'ittee consider 1t entirely unnecessary
to provide for such removals.
The committee have not deemed it necessary
to enter INTO many Of the important questions
presented by the documents which have been re
ierred to them. They have confined themselves
more particularly to the suggestions of the Presi
dent as to the alterations and notifications ne.
cessary for more effectuaIly securing the colec.
ton Of the revenue, and they have considered it
due to themselves and to the House, as we'll as
to the high source from which these suggestions
proceed, to state the considerations by which they
have been governed in reporting the bill, which
is herewith submitted.