Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1839-11-28
1fr. Editor:

/ would not have believed that The ar
ticle, which appeared in yonr last paper,
signed Cato" could deceive any one,
who had been sufficiently educated to
read il had you not mentioned the fact
that it was published "by request" For
the benefit, then, Of those who are as ig-
norant Of the subject, as "Calo," is him
aelf, [ will currentc calamo comment upon
his argument.
Having assumed that all who are op-
posed to the present license Law, are sin.
fatuated by blind ZEAL" he communicates
to the Legislature. the important intr!li
Eence. that we area bout to "sweep away
with one fell blow" what he is pleased
poelically to term, "lhe radical element
of liberty in these States, the
Drom Shops!
But let us examine his arsument.-
What is the object of his article? If he
had any object, il must have been to inves-
tgaie what was the political power of S.
Carolina. To ascertain this, with certain.
~. he commences by eupuiring into the
powers of Congress. And recollectipg
that the "American System" was pro-
nounced unconstitutional by South Caro-
lima, he comes to the following conclusion
Congress has NOT the right 10 protect North
ern Manufcto1es, at the expense of South
EN- interests and therefore, the people Of
South Carolina have moi the right to
brake up "grog shops" His conclusion
is irresistible
The next position which he assumes is.
.rhat no State in the Union can possess
such right; because the erclusire rcgula-
zion Of commerce is lodged in Congress"
And he thinks that 'anv sensible man must
see This" Will Cato" he kind enough
10 poiut me ont The clause of the Cousllu
tion, which grants 10 Congress the "er-
clusire righ, TO regulate commerce? 1t
is we'll 10 he accurate when arguing
question which SO deeply, directly. and
dangerously effects not only the liberties of
the people of South Carolina, bur even
the very existence Of our State Govern
,nent.. For If we have moi the right. as
" Cato says, Of taxing the property
of our cilizens.-I would he glad to he
Informed how we are to pay the expenses
of our State Government! If we can
raise no revenue, how can our Govern
ment exist! Is "Calo" aware that the
construction of this very clause of the
Constitution was The origin of lha, bitter.
though bioodless dispute which "ame so
near severing our Union in 1892 But
even the advocates of the Tariff aud The
Federal Conrr have never claimed that
Congress had the right to regulate COM
mere I'M ng he citizens Of the same State.
No one kept Cato" has evrr denied
that tn States have the right to regu.
la:e he traffic. bet'usen their o,on citizens
How else could we tax the capital of our
nj re Iants. nr even trades aud professions.
B ): Io return To "Caro's" argument. |
have b. en- unable to find the word "crciu-
siye," in copy of the Constitution which
! have though the Bird clause of the Sth
secrion of the Isl Article, does give to
Congress the power ITO rrgutute corr
merce wit, foreign nations, among The sew
eral States, and with the Indian Tribes"
Does "Catn," know thar it was moved.
in the Convention which adop'ed he Con-
stituli0n. 10 amen that clause. so as to
give 10 Congress The .'sole and erciusiue."
pUwer TO regulate commerce and that the
proposition ,ols rejected, The votes heing
taken by States, (See 22O. and 270,
"Jnurual Of Cnuvention.") hope, on
"Cato's" orcn account, that, when he made
the assertion. he was ignorant Of the fact
that the States had, so far from granting,
positively refused. to Congress The "errlu-
sire" rig ght to regulate Commerce; for
though the exposure of his ignorance and
arrogance must he wounding to "Cato's"
vanity. i, will be some consolation to him,
10 know that at least he is an honest man.
IF il is Ignorance las we are bound in
charity to believe) and not viriousness,
which has caused Cato" TO commit the
errors which he has. may. by giving
him some Information on this subject, save
him the modification Of again seeing his
ignorance exposed IN the papers. BY re-
ferrins to the case of Gibbons VS. Ogden
%. Wheat. r. !, 1879 to 202) he will see
,ha, the Supreme Court of the U. States,
has determined that the States have not
srauled to Congress any control ''ov r the
commerce" which is completely internal,
"whichis carried on between man and
man in a State. or between different parts
of the same State" But that 1.-The COM
ple,ely Internal commerce Of Stale may
be considered as reserred for the State
.itself." By referrln,. to the case "Cato"
will also see that hSe quoted the rery
,,o,ds used by Mr.. ChIeiJ Marshall,
w',o .lelivered the opinioAo of the Cour,.-
Sine the sage &c" EmmetI Lodge" and the
Chi,f Justice of me United States differ
upnn ,hi, constitutional 'resrion I wouIj
find much difficulty in conn, ,:.,o , concIn.
SION, but thn, it is provided IN - " ond % SOC
,;on Of the Sd A-tirle "f thai Coz,
in ,hq defence OF Which Cato" ke, ve,