Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-09-07
the rule Of taxation but when the money cOlected

n.;har .r i eve the whole 10 sii-ie S'a'c. :.
IN. fu'c r li.,.luiien is nj governed By tie c"sS'-
,,i,n hut the mere discretion oi Congress, there Is no
limitation upon the quality and injustice which may
~ prnc,isrd Under tins bill as ~, Dsil"are, COM
n,r with Pennsy'yana, contributes In the land 10 te
distributed Z; to twem;y-e's ana receives from u
N the distribution as 10 len aud u this b consul
,u,onal 30 would be law winch should compel Penn.
sylvania and Delaware - rase n fund, py tax'''"n
y, The proportions Of tNemiy.r,..t oonc, and, when,
raised To divide II equally between them WI! any
man stand 40 ana say that the Constitution oi The
United States sanctions sgch injustice
Another provision oi the bill open 10 the same OBJ
cc,ians If possible strongly and ralpahly EXIT
lifted | refer 10 the provision which gives 10 thu new
States ten per cent from the entire fund, before the ge
neral distribution 10 all the States ~ entered upon
This provision cxcmp!,fes practically the snunfncss 81
one OF the POSITIONS above taken. II is IN effect TO
raise fund h; taxation, according TO tie constitutional
rule from all lie States, and give the whole money
10 par, Of them. Suppose, again the whole Juno
for annual distribution, IL be three millions OF dollars.
Then by the provision under consideration three nun
dred thousand dollars OF the amount, Just one tcni o.
the whole are first 10 be taken out and pad To crrah
States named in unequal and arbitrary proportions mo-
according their population or representations or aA
alton but dependent upon the location oil the lanas,
which shall happen To have hcen sold Tor The gwen
year. Hence il may well happen that some oil lhese
favored States years, may not receive as nue
from these ten per cent funds as the same State WIN
I
,ba Treasury lis subtraction from II. Whether TINS
NAV be so or not however, the three hundred tnou
sand dollars is lnnd To he annually raised III taxes,
from all the States, according TO inc constitutions
rule of taxation, ia" the sole ana exclusive use 81
small number Of designated States. OF tins fund o
three hundred thousand dollars, New York must pay
forty pars out 81 two hundred ana forty Two paris az
most one.sixh of the whole amount anu must receive
hack nothing She mus. pay almost fifty thousand dol
lars annually to this fund, from which she is 10 receive
,ot one cent Can the Constitution authorize such eX-
actions for such uses, Can compel al! lie States
"a pay taxes for the separate and exclusive local use :"
snGIe S,ale or SNAIL number of the States: IL can
not be- Such powers are not gwen 10 TINS genefa le
gslature by that instrument.
bav heard bu, one reason attempted 10 be assigned
for this nvidous graat to few States, and that one
is that the States are so rapidly increasing ~ pn-
pnotion in comparison with The old, that Il The disrI-
button by uniform rule upon each census, peore
The cxpration Of each period of ten years, fran one
census TO annlher, their population would far exceed
the Gs,ribuve share they would receive by The Old
census and hence that this ten per cent per annnm
extraordinary npon the whole fund should he gwen 10
them Does this argument AVOID Al MI the cons.i!u-
,,onnl difficulty. Is The constitutional rule Of taxation
Glanced as In them, in consequence Ut their change
If population: Certainly not. II Congress were to
arpoftion three millions n tax, the proportion tor
each State would be ascertaincd by the then last
census. and although n particular State should, m
mint al fact, have doubled population after the talk
mr. Of that census yet Congress could not conslItn.
,mnally increase lis quota Of tax beyond what the cen
sus would impose Take the other side Of the ques
ton Suppose Of The old States should have lost
arge share OF lis population at the time of the impo-
son of the tax, could Congress consider 1t, and light
en- its BURDEN Surely not. lis quota OF tax would be
ascer;ain.d hy the then last census, and no regard
whatever could BE- cnnslitnt,onay paid 10 any chang
Of population subsequent t. the crnsns The Constr
tuition hns not oay graduated representation and taxa
ton upon poqulaiou, VI il has fixed the periods when
I'm, popnIatlon shall BE- asceriainrd aud knows II"
change between those periods II, then, ihs be the
ru,e fur The burdens 50 also should it lie FIR benefits
md il would he constitutional 10 say that Tie re-
presentation of the new States ought TO b. apPooned
more frequently than in ten years, an account o.
their RAPIDLY increasing popua'ion while Their habit
~ to taxation should remain stationary as 7" c"n'rnd
mat Their distsbuli"e shares under i'ils ball should he
increased hcycnd the ratio for the other States Willie
!rr Liability rr the taxes which supply the fund - be
distributed Is not changed Tis reason, therefore, does
not HELM out the case from the objection of principle,
and il is upon The ground of principle alone that have
intended to discuss these Two objectionable provisions
| wi.h 10 be distinctly understood here do not
envy The new States any thing they are to receive IN
der This JILL d. think they get TOO much for the
sacrifice they viii he compelled to make for believe
IN nv heart il viii be on. If the most blighting mea
sur,s 10 i.-u @iic, presented to Congress,
or hic, the 81; oi man could devise against their
quic; and prosperity.
Trrrc is another principle violated by these prov'
siols OF tins bill, u winch must give moment ds.H-
ton This whole policy Of distributing 10 the States
l proceeds u the sales Of the public lands, was orlG
ua.ly rested upon the deeds of ccssnn from certain
States 10 The IT, S Of their INDICATED domain the
States IL said had made these ccssnns Tor par'i-
cu,r nlrpose the payment ofihe debt ofhe Revolution;
and that deb; beng paid that the States themselves and
not the Federal Government, should enjoy the surplus
proceeds All these assumptions have been, over anu
over again sho..n be unounded in fact, and wholly
insufficient sustain this measure they were wen
funded inasmuch but mere fraction OF he lends
which remain unsnd are within TIE cedcd territory but
IL, the purposes nj this argument, will suppose that
ieae positions well assumed, and the states have
rht Ia the proceeds Of the lands ccdcd and which re-
main nnsod Nv virtue nitinsc deeds And what are the
respective rights the States expressly drned upon
the face IF the deeds They are TO interests in the
lands and consequently in the proceeds OF their sales,
"accordino To their serai md respeetirc proportions
in tie general charge md crptnditare' quote from
memory, but believe Gin'e the terms, certainty !
90 the substance Of the deeds What we're ana are
"the several and respective proportions in the general
raarae and syendifure OF The States Of the Con:ed'.
racy and States Of Tie Union: The liability 81 taxa
ton was the rule under the articles of confederation,
and is the rule under the Constitution.
How then, 10 The provisions Of the bill 10 which
have referred square with the deeds of cesson' 1t
vas said at Cur last session. by distinguished lawyer
whose seat was before ne, (Mr Crittenden oil Ken
,ucky J that liz ccnd, If the United STATES we're sra-
Die! ~ bin of Chancery, recover these coded ands,
the proceeds al titm, IN iavor OF TIE aat'H
this Government In what proportions would ms
recovery have been made; "AccordlnG 10 iheir Sc
vera and respective proportions the general charge
and expenditure" l. there any pr cent TO the
new States, or any commixrrc Of the Senate, IN this
distributions No. ], Is distribution to the States OF
strictly equal and equitable character, according 10
their several aad respective proportions IN the gene
raj chargc and aTPcadiiare.' WHY, then, are ,he
deeds of cesson, well The Constitution, violated
in the provisions Of this bill: In neither can there be
found any nr the ten per cent 10 the new States
or from The introduction o this branch Of Congress us
part OF the data upon which The distribution is !" De
mldc The several and respective proportions oil the
States the general charge and expenditure nave no
reference 10 this body and the ten per cent to the new
States is a modern invention. ask again, why are
these provisions introduced Is there but one answer:
To pass the bill Without gratui,ies to the new States,
in some form, the measure could not sir an men IN
this body and without advantages 10 the sm, states
over the lar re ones aie here, where all the States
are equal NIGH, BE- Al least doubtful Is this an unse-
nerous to the inquiry, after what W. have seen
in the Of our action upon the bill: 10 me II IS
the only known answer to the inquiry make.