The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1836-12-23

tectiye duties, which are, in great degree
the source ofthe surplus revenue, beneficial
TO one section Of the Union, aud preludiclal
To another, there is no corrective for the e.
vii in such plan of distribution. On the
contrary, there is reason to fear that all the
complaints which have sprung from this
cause would be aggravated. Every ons
must be sensible that Distribution of the
surplus must beget disposition TO cherish
the means which create II aud any system,
therefore, into which it enters, must have
powerful tendency 10 increase rather than
diminish the tariff. If il we're even admit
ted that the advantages of snch system
could be made equal to all the sections OF
the Union, the reasons already so urgently
calling for reduction of the revenue, would,
nevertheless, lose none Of their force; for It
will always be improbable that an intelligent
and yrtuous community can consent 10
raise a surplus for the mere purpose OF Oh.
vIding it, diminished as bust inevitably
be by the expense ofthe vdrious machinery
necessary to the process.
The safest and simplest mode Of obvia-
ting all the difficulties which have been
mentioned, is TO collect only revenue enough
TO meet the wants of the Government, and
To let the people keep the balance of the
property u FIr own hands, TO be used for
their own pYckt. Each State will then sup
port It's own Government, and contribute its
cue share towards the support Of the Gen.
eraI Government. There would be no sur
plus TO cramp and lessen the resources Of
individual wealth and enterprise, and the
banks would be left to their ordinary means.
Whatever agitatons and fluctuations might
arise from our unfortunate paper system,
they could never be attributed, Justly or un-
Justly, TO the action of the Federal Govern
uent. There would be some guaranty that
the spirit of wild speculation, which seeks
to convert the surplus revenue into banking
capital, would be eiectually checked, and
that the scenes of decentralization, which are
prevalent through the land, would disappear.
Without desiring TO conceal tina, the ex-
peuence and observation Of the last two
wears, have operated a partial change in my
views upon this interesting subject, II is new.
ertheless regretted that the suggestions
made by me IN my annual messages of 1929
and 1880, have been greatly misunderstood.
At that time, the great struggle was begun
against the la,uudlnarlan construction Of The
constitution, which authorizes the unlimited
appropriation of the revenues of the Union
TO internal Improvements within the States,
tendnc TO inyeS, tn the hands, and place
under the control, of the General Govern
ment all the principal roads and canals of
the country, in violation of State rights, and
IN derogauon Of State authority. AT the
same time, the condition OF the manufacture
ing interest was such as TO create an appre-
/ hension that the duties on imports could not,
without extensive mischief. be reduced in
season TO prevent the accumulation OF con-
siderable surplus after the paymen. Of the
national debt. In view of the dangers Of
such surplus, and IN preference to It's APP
! pication TO internal Improvements, In dero-
CATION OF the rights and powers of the States,
( the suggestion of an amendment Of The con-
stiuton TO authorize its distribution was
made. 1t was an.aiernative for what were
deemed greater evils--a temporary resort
To relieve an overburdened Treasury until
the Government, could without sudden and
destructive revulslonin the business of The
country, gradually return to the Just prln-
ciple OF raising no more revenue from the
people, in taxes, than is necessary for its
economical support. Even that alternative
was not spoken of but IN connection with all
amendment Of the constitution. No tenn
porarv Inconvenience can justify the exer.
Fcise Of prohibited power, or power not
granted by that instrument and il was from
a conviction that the power to distribute
even temporary surplus of revenue is of
that character, that 1t was suggested only
in connection with an appeal TO the source
Of all legal power in the General Govern
meut, the States which have established it.
No such appeal has been taken, and IN my
opinion distribution OF the surplus revenue
BY Congress, either to the States or the
peone, is - be considered as among tho
prohibltions Of the constitution. As alrea.
DIV m,imated, my views have undergone
change, so far as to be convinced that no
alteration OF the constitution IN this respect
is wise or expedIent. The influence of an
accommodating surplus upon the legislation Of
+ the General Government and The States, ts
effects upon the credit system Of the coun-
try, producing dangerous extensions, and
ruuous con,rac,lonS. fluctuations IN the price
Of property, rash speculation, rdIeness, eSs
travagance, and a deterioration of morals,