The Arkansas advocate., 1836-12-30


 But what would be the value of such an uniform re # the moneys raised by 1t could be immediately retnrd by different one which will give to the peone of soea states much more, and to those of the others much es than their fair proportions Were the federal ment to exempt, express terms the imDorts n}olot and manufactures of portions of the co66ry fom all duties, while it imposed heavy ones 6a others tha injustice could not be greater 1t would be easy show how, by the operation of such principle the aroe 9tates oi the Union would not only have to contribute her Just share towards the support of the federal coy feFheht but also have to bear in degree the taxes necessary to support the governments of their smaller sisters but It IS deemed unnecessary to state the detals where the general principle is obvious
 system liable to such objections can never be sun posed to have been sanctioned by the framers If the stution, when they conferred on congress tb tSl, power: and feel persuaded that mature examnaia9 o the subject will satisfy every one that there arc surmountabe difficulties in the operation of any nlan winch can be devised of collecting revenue for the nur pose oi distributing 1t. Congress is only authorized o eVy taxes, o Payfhe de6ts ad proutde for He comnton l a(eHce aud general apelfare of Hc Uaaed Sigteso here IS no such provision would authorize Compress to collect together the property of the chnntrv ndep m name o revenue for the purpose of dividing 1t equally or unequally among the States the people, Indeed
 not probable that such idea ever occurred o fine States when they adopted the constitution But, how ever this may be, the only safe rule for Us in nterpretno the powers granted to the federal government is to ya gard the absence of express authority to touch b;ect so important and delicate as this is. as equivalent to prohibitions
 Even if powers were less doubtful in this respect as the constitution now sands there considerations l afforded by recent experience which would seem to make It our duty to avoid resort to such I system
 AllWi admit the simplicity and economy of the state governments manly depend the fact that money has to DC supplied to support them by the same men or their agents, who vote It away appropriations. Hence When there are cXtavagant and wasefu appropratons there must be corresponding increase of taxes and tic people becoming awakened will necessarily scruti- nlze the character of which thus their burdens By the watehful eye of self-interest the agents o the people Ill the state governments are repres- sed and kept within the limits of just economy. Hut 1he necessity o eYymg the be taken from theso who make the appropriations, and thrown upon moro distant and less responsible of public agents who have power to approach the people by an indirect and stealthy taxaton there IS to fear that prodoa
 Will soon snpefsede those characteristics which have thus far made us look with much pride and confidence Vefnnents, as the stay of our Uniau ana liberties Tho State legislatures instead of study Ing to restrict their state expenditures to tbe smalest possible sum- will claim credit for their profsion and hafrass the general government for fresh supplies prac- tealy there would soon be but taxing power and aat vested III body o men far removed from the psone ID which the farming and mechanic interests would be scarcely represented The States would gradually lose then purity as well us their ndependence they would not dare to urmur at the proceedings of the general ro vernment, lest they should lose their supplies; all would be merged in practical consolidation cemented bv
 Wide spread eorfuptloA which could only be eradicated by one o those bloody revolutions which occasionally 29cftiite# the desPotic systems of tie old world
 In all the other aspects n which have been able to look at the effect of such principle of distribution upon the pest interests of the country, see nothing to compensate for the disadvantages to which have ad. Verted. If we consider the protective dltes ,.hcb are Tn great degree, the sources of the surpus reve nue. benehclal to one section of the Unon and preud. ca to another there corrective for the evil in s,,c plan o distribution. On the contrary there s to fear that all the complaints which sprung from tba cause would De aggravated Every must be sensible that distribution of the surplus must begef 5isnos, ton to cherish the means which create it. and any svs tem therefore which eners must have teoehey to increase rather than diminish the tariff If
 even admitted that the advantages of such sys- tenn could be made equal to all sections of the Union the reasons already urgently calling on me for re- ductlon o the revenue would nevertheless lose none of tler force; for will always be improbable that an n telgept and vrtuous community consent to raise q surplus for the mere purpose of dividing it, diminished as It must inevitably be.
 The safest and simplest mode of obviatinr all thesa difficulties which have been mentioned is to collect only revenue enough to meet the wants of the government and let people keep the balance of the property m their own hands to be used for their own profit Each State VIII then support its own government and contribute it's que snare towards the support Of the general govern- nent. There would be surplus to cramp and lessen the resources of individual wealth and enterprise and the banks would be left to their ordinary means What ever agltatens fluctuations might arise from OFT fortunate paper system they would never be justly unusy, to the action of the federal govern ment There would be guaranty that the spirit of Wild speculation, which seeks to convert the s1rns re venue into banking capital, would be eectuay checked and that the of demoalization which are now so prevalent through the land, would disappear
 Without desiring to conceal that the experience and observation of the last two years, have operated par ta change in my views upon this interesting subject it nevertheless regretted that the suggestions made by me, in my annual messages of 1929 and lS3O have been greatly misunderstood. At that tme the great struggle begun against the atitudinaran constrtc ton of the constitution which authorizes the unlimited appropriation of the of the Union to the internal improvements within the States tending to invest in inc hands, and place under the control of the general gov ernment all the principal roads and canals of the cou try, in violation of State rights, and in derogaton of ,tntna ncalr 4I,e