Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-04-15
NEW YORK AND VIRGINIA

NEW YORK AND VIRGINIA.
Mr. sCOTT'S rejOiadsr TO Mr.. Bayiy, ON the sub
j,ef Of the bill concerning the eSnivOpsrsy ,eiih
.vtW York.
IcoscLupEpl
Mr.. SCOTT said: Hehad thought that il was
the least OF the blessings secured by the glori-
Gus instrument which had united one people,
that wherever in this wide domain we might chance
to be, the broad 9sis Of The Constitution covers
usthat free to go, free to come free to ENJOY The
rights Of properly subject only TO such regulations
rs may be prescribed for the general good OF all,
operating on all alike, to protect our persons from
restraint, property from SEIZURE ike the proud
Roman of ancient days, we had only TO declare
ourselves american citizens. Ia support OF the OBJ
lection against the discriminating feature of the bill,
IN his former remarks, he had quoted from the
port of the committee Of the last session. But the
gentleman from Accomac, said, that the word per
haps" by which the doubt of the constitutonalty
OF such a measure was intimaed, did not originally
belong to the sentence, but was inserted, suhse-
quently, to conciliate his (Mr. s. support Tor the
report, and quiet his opposition. In this he was
mis- AIKEN. The entire structure OF the sentence
showed that the word originally belonged to IT.
Besides, he not present when the report was
submitted TO the committee, and did not see u until
after il printed and laid upon the desks OF men,
bers His objection was to that part of the report
and resolutions which affirmed that the Constitu-
lion was q compact between the States, and when
broken by one OF the parties, 1t ceased to be
binding on the rest This he thought was pushing
Modification even beyond the doctrine Of the South
Carolina school. The obnoxious sentence was
stricken from the resolutions, but no effort was
made TO reform the report
But the gentleman maintains that the bill Is not
in conflict with the Sth OF the LIST Art Now,
its provisions contain commercial regulations, con-
dtons prescribed upon winch the citizens of
New York shalt be entitled TO the privilege OF trade
in our ports. This involves the exercise of the
potoer TO regulate commerce. But the gentleman
maintains that there is nothing in the nature OF this
power which renders it exclusive IN Congress he
regards 1t concurrent poiosr-whIch OF course
can be exercised by the States coneurently with
Congress. Although much had been said about
this supposed concurrent power IN the States, there
great difficulty IN understanding what was
meant by 1t. IL was power, we are told, by
which the States could pass laws on the subject of
commercial regulations, which would be valid, IN
ill Congress should pass other laws, controlling
them or inconsistent with them; and then the State
laws must yield. What sort OF concurrent powers
were these which could not exist together2 This
doctrine was insidIous and dangerous; if it be adj
nitted could say where II would stop
That the power 10 regulate commerce Is exclusive
ia the General Government, has been settled upon
the most solemn deliberaon. IL was so held IN the
celebrated case of Gibbons VS.. Ogden, 9 Wheaton's
Rep. I Brown VS. Maryland, IL Wheaton's Rep,
4I9; 445, 446, Governs Rep. 7l3, and fuckers
Blackstone, App. $50, 500. The latter will GER
tanly be received n good State Rights authority.
Ii is held by all the commentators upon the Con-
siitulon In tact, II is no longer an open question.
But it is admitted. that when Congress and the
States have power 10 leglsiate over the same sub
ject, the power Of Congress, when exercised, con-
trols and extinguishes the Stale power. This ad-
mission is fatal 10 the argument IN favor OF the bill
In the case of Gibbons VS. Ogden, p. ls9, the Chief
Justice uses tins language: Commerce, undoubt-
edly, traffic but is something more: II is iHfer-
%" course. IL describes the commercial intercourse
" between nations, and parts of nations, in ali its
branches, and "a regulated Ivy prescribing rules
I" for carrying on that intercourse. Congress has
acted on this power; il has done all that is deemed
lnsaf taTtnn Anas mr. m
siraint; and that which Congress sees fit to leave
Free s part of its regulation, as much as the rest
Congress has, by law, regulated the trade be-
tween this country and foreign countries; II has
regulated the trade between the States; it has pre-.
scribed the rules and regulations which shall govern
the commercial intercourse between the citizens OF
the several States. license under the acts OF
Congress for regulating the coasting trade gives
permission TO carry that trade. The consequence
follows that State can add TO subtract from
these rules and regulations, prescribe another con-
dition TO the license More than one power, IN cases
OF this sort, cannot give the rule. A State cannot
regulate commerce between the States while Con-
gres3 IS regulating IT,.
So that quorum que ria data, whether the power
10 regulate commerce be exclusive in the Govern
ment OF the United States, concurrent in the
States, the provisions OF the bill are clearly in con
hlct with the Constitution.
But the gentleman from Accomack says the bill
contains no regulation OF commerce, but is solely a
municipal regulation, intended for the protection OF
O"t PtppeIlyS yet WIN IHCoHslsteii-
cy. he urged its passage, because 1t would bring
New York 10 a sense OF justice. He said the peo-
pie of that State had bat principle-that a
tius hundred dollar priReipte-and when that was
touched. we should get redress. This bill was TO
touch that principle. Howl By burdensome re-
slrctions upon her commerce. He said the CONNER
cal interest OF the city ruled the SIate and through
that interest he proposed 10 reach the Stale. Again:
He urged the bill upon because it would operate
favorably on our own commerce-lhat is, it would
he the means of transferring the ccastng trade from
the merchants of New York 10 those OF our own
State. Could such results be produced by this bit
and yet no regulation ofcommerce be affected On
the contrary, was not every object aimed at sought
10 be attained by regulating commerce. Were not
all the provisions of the bill regulations of commercel
What else were they2 The gentleman says the
bill is an inspection tao. But what is inspection
iawf Ii acts upon the subject OF commerce. The
Chief ustce, in the opinion already quoted, de-
scrlbes II as a law whose object is TO improve the
quality Of articles produced by the labor Of couR.
try-o ht them Tor e1portation or 1t may be for do
fnesIic use. IL acts upon the subject before II lie
comes article of foreign commerce, or of com.
merce among the States, and purposes II for that
purpose. What feature Of this bill hken it TO
such iawl But the gentleman defends the coDst
tutonalIty Of the bill still upon another guOund.--
He says the object Of the bill to regulate
merce, but to protect the property of citizens,
which is fair subject Of State legislation; and he
maintains il the object be legitimate, there is no
limitation upon the means. He instances tue va
States, which contain regulations Of commerce, and
yet derive their existence from State authority. Let
us look little into this argument.
When the Ststes separated from the mother co I'M
try, they each separate ard independent sove.
REGIMES possessed severaily of all the powers Lee
glsistve, Executive and Judicial, which pertained to
Government. BY the adoption OF the Constitution
they agreed amongst themselves to invest the Gene
raj Government with certain of these powers, TO be
exercised in rightof all for the purposes of
ALL restricted themselves from the exercise Of others
and reserved the remainder. They conceded to the
new Government all such powers deemed
necessary for Uncommon purposes, and reserved
themselves such were supposed to be adequate to
their eKgencies. II follows therefore, 40 mat.
ter how convenient or necessary given power may
We for municipal purposes II It be neither granted 10
the States, rss<rvsd, IL cannot be exercised by
them.
There is, then, a broad distinction between the
oGjsei and the means The subjects Of legislation
may be legitimate the object fair and yet the State
Ice interdcted from means to attain that OBJ
jecL One familiar example will suffice for illustra.
ton. IL IL ubquesIionabIy within the power Of a
State TO pass laws for the encouragement and pro
lection Of her domestic manufactures. The most
convenient as well as most appropriate means Of ac-
complisbing that object, Is the imDofi0n Of dutfS
upon uupOyis But this the States forbid to DO.
Here then, Is case Of Legitimate objset but forbid
men means. IL Is true, IN this case the power u
'rprsssiy forbidden TO the States-buI they can no