Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-03-15

W NO ~ u a uttu nTKfu INA tnft
power is expressly conferred on the Supreme Court, by
that portion OF the Constitution which provides, that the
Judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity,
arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United
States, aud treaties made under their authority. He be-
mryed the assertion TO be utterly destitute of any founda-
uoh. " obviously was the intention of the Constitu.
uon SIMPLY 10 make the judicial power commensurate
WIN the law,inaking and treaty making powers; and 10
vestit with the right OF applying the Consultation. te
laws, and the treaties, TO the cases which migb, ,riso
under them; and not TO make it the Judge of the Constitu-
ton, the laws, and the treaties themselves. In fact. IN,
power OF applying the laws to the facts OF the case. and
ueciJing upon such application, constitutes in truth tho
judicial power: The distinction between such power,
ahc mat OF Judging OF the laws, would be perfectly nm
p".ent wneh we advert to what is the acknowledged
power OF the Court in reference 10 treaties or cornpsc,s
between sovereigns. IL was perfectly established, that the
Courts have no right 10 Judge of the violation of treaties:
ana that, in reference 10 them, their power is limited 10 The
.,sht OF Judging, simply Of the violation of rights unuer
them; and that the right of Judging OF infractions belonps
exclusively to the parties themselves, and no, 10 the
courts: oil which we have an example in the French trca.
ty, which was declared by Congress, null and voiJ in .
sequence OF lis violation by the Government of France.
without such declaration, had a French citizen sued a
ei'lAen 81 this country under the treaty, the Court could
nave taken no cognizance ofits inf nor after such a
declaration, would II have heard any argument or proof
going to show that the treaty had not been violated.
me declaration of itself was conclusive on the court.
put II would be asked how the court obtained the powers
10 pronounce a law or treaty unconstitutional. when thew
come IN conflict with that Instrument? He did not DENY
that II possesses the right, but he could bv no means con
ceue nj u was derived from the Constitution. IL had
It's origin in the necessity of the case. Where there wers
TWO or more rules established, one from a higher, the other
mummy WHICH mlROt come INTO conflict.
IN applying them 10 a particular case, the Judge could, not
AVOID pronounring in favor OF the superior against the in
=, I,,or IL was from This necessity, and this alone, that
ue power which is now set up 10 override the rights of
thc States, against an express provision of the Consti-
n'oh' was derived. 1t had no other origin. That he
nau traced II 10 It's true source, would be manifest from
C'e lac'' That II. was a power which, so far from being con-
lerred exclusively on the Supreme Court, as was insisted,
belonged 10 every court-infGr ior and superior-S,ate and
oenerail-ande even 10 foreign courts.
But the Senator from Delaware (NIr. Clay,on) relies on
imt t -, L o. me Convention to prove that it was the
right OF deciding in the last resort between a State and
The General Government. He would not follow him
through the journals, as he did not deem that to be me-
eess"'y VoreIu'e ms argument. II was sufficient for this
purpose to state, that Mr.. Rutledge reported a reso-
iunon providing expressly that the United States and the
states might be parties before the Supreme Court. H,bis
proposition had been adopted, nc would ask the Senator.
whether this very controversy between the United States
and South Carolina might not have been brought he
fore the Court? He would also ask him. whether il
could be brought before the court as the Constitution
now stands! IL he answers the former in the aHirma-
1--WE ana the latter in the negative, as he must. then
it is ceor, his elaborate argrnco, 10 The cou,rarv nor.
wihsfanding, that the report OF Mir. RuUedee was no, IN
substance adopt as he c%ou;cuded; and that te journals.
.' 'V" supporting, are % direct opposition 10 he poo
~ he"tTr 1'otr2Hur |"te,srjrj Foe .J+s 4,'4Jt grsH H-
thc discussion lttho views which had already 5~3ta1re-
se.ted be correct, and be did not see how they could DE re-
sisted, the conclusion was inevitable, that the reserved
powers were reserved equally against every department
the government, and as strongly against the judicial as
against the other departments; and OF course were left un-
the exclusive will of the States.
There still remained another misrepresentation of tho
conduc: of the State, which has been made with the
view OF exciting odium. lie alluded 10 the charge that
south Carolina supported the Tariff of 1916, and vas
responsible for the protective system. To deter
mine the truth Of this charge it becomes necessary to as
certain the real character of that law-whclher it was a
tarii Tor revenue or Tor protection; which presents the in
curry OF What was the condition OF the country at that
period? The late war with Great Britain had inst ,ermi-
mated, which, with the restrictive system that preceded il,
had diverted a large amount of capital and industry from
commerce to manufactures, particularly to The cotton and
woollen branches. There was a debt at The same time Of
one hundred and thirty millions of dollars hanging over
the country; and the heavy war duties were still in exis-
tence. Under these circumstances the question was pre-
sented, to what point the duties ought TO be reduced9
That question involved another-at what time the debt
ought 10 he paid! which was a question of policy, in
volving in its consideration all the circumstances connect
ell with the then condition Of the country. Among the
most prominent arguments in favor OF an early discharge
OF the debt, was that the high duties which il would re-
qnire TO effect it, would have at the same time the effect
oil sustaining the infant manufactures, which had been
forced up under the circumstances TO which he had adj
verted. This view of the subject had a decided inha-
ence in determining in favor Of an early payment Of the
debt. The sinking fund was accordingly raised from Sc
ven TO ten millions OF dollars, with the provisions 10 apply
the surplus which might remain in the Treasury, as A
contingent appropriation TO that fund; and the duties
were graduated TO meet this increased expenditure. 1t
was thus that the policy and justice OF projecting the
large amount Of capital and industry, which had been d.
verted by the measures OF the Government, into new
channels, as he had stated, was combined with the fiscal
action OF the Government, and which, while it secured 4
prompt payment oi The debt, prevented the immense losses
to the manufacturers, which would have followed a sudden
and great reduction. Still, revenue was the main object,
and protection but the incidental. The bill TO 10 reduce
the duties was reported by the Committee of Ways and
Means, and not of Manufactures; and it proposed a heavy
reduction on the then existing rate of duties. But what
Of itself, without other evidence, was decisive as TO tho
character of the bill, is the fact, that il fixed a much high
er rate Of duties on the unprotected Than on the protected
article. He would enumerate a few leading articles ONLY:
woollen and cotton above The value of 20 cents on the
square yard, though they were the leading objects of pre-.
lection, were subject 10 a permanent duty ofonly 20 per Ct.
Iron, another leading article among the protected, had y
protection OF not more than o per cent. as fixed by tho
act, and Of but ID os reported in the bill. These rates
were all below the average duties as fixed in the act, in
GLIDING the protected, the unprotected, and even the free
articles. Mr.. G. said he had entered into some calcutta
ton in order 20 ascertain tic average rate of duties in tho
act. There was some uncertainty i'm The data, but he felt
assured that it was not less than 30 per cent. ad valoyem:
showing an excess Of the average duties above that i'm
posed on the protected articles enumerated, Of more than
10 per cent, and thus clearly establishing the character
Of the measure, that it was for revenue and not protec-
ton.
Looking back, even at this distant period, with all our
experience, he perceived but two errors in the act; the
one in reference TO iron, and the other The minimum du-
Ties on coarse cotons. As TO the former, he conceived
that the bill, as reported, proposed a duty relatively too
low, Which was still further reduced In he passage ihro'
Congress. The dpiy, at first, was fSed at seveniy.fve
cents the hundred weigh; but, in the last stage Of its pas
sage, II was reduced by y sort Of caprice, occasioned bv
an unfortunate motion, 10 forty five cents. This Injustice
was severely felt in Penn'ylvauia, the State, above ali
others, most productive Of iron; and was the principal
cause Of that great Reaction, which has since thrown her
so decidedly on the eide Of the protective policy. The
other error was that, as 10 coarse cottons, on which tho
duty was az much too high. as that on iron was too low. IL
introduced, besides, the obnoxious minimum principle,
which has since been 80 mischievously extended; and, 10
that extent he was rnnefraireH i~ --. Zee e. --f- o. -