Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-01-31

Inc constitution gives to Congress the right "to
regulate commerce with foreign nations, and n
mong the several States" AS this grant of now.
er Is given without limitation, IL follows that Con-
gress may regulate commerce as it pleases-rnay
impose high duty upon one article, and admit
another free of duty. On any fair construction of
THIS clause, the power is as undOubted in tho case
OF discriminating duties, in the case of declar-
ing ,odr or maintaining navy. This power of
discrimination in the imposition of duties seems
essential not only to tho regulation, but TO the We
ry existence Of commerce.
Great Brituin, with whom we are more init.
nalely connected by commercial intercourse thnn
with any other nation, let's no opportunity of pro-
tectng her commerce and her industry pass I'M
improved. This she does by fostering her own
commerce. and by restricting ibnt OF other ma
tons. Look at her restrictions upon the COM
merce of the United States. While we export
fish to the amount of 100000 annually, she pro.
hlblls its importation into the United Kingdom,
aud, at the same time, admits the products Of her
own fisheries free OF duty. The whale fisheries
constitute no inconslderable portion of our COM
merce; and how does she meet us in this case
With free trade? No, sir; she imposes duty of
E26 rs. per tun upon our oil, and admits the
same article, the product OF her own fisheries, at
a duty Of Is. per tun, making discrimination vf
E26 ls. against the United Stute. Whaebone is
another considerable article of our commerce. but
this is nearly excluded from The English market
by her onerous exactions. She imposes duty of
J-JO per tOU upon hneTCUH WnuIeDODe, ana H0-
mits the same article from her provinces at duty
OF 81 per ton. We exported TO Great Britain last
year tobacco to the amount Of $3077 900, and
she meets this article, worth from six 10 len cents
per pound, with the enormous duty of three shiI-
lings sterling per pound and thereby raises rev.
enue, on one third of our exported tobacco, equal
at least to the entire of the United States.
The corn laws Of England are too well under
stood to require comment; they amount to pro-
hibition in ordinary cases. will not stop here to
inquire whether such rigid restrictions are wise or
unwise il is sufficient 10 my purpose 10 know that
such is the policy of Great Britain, and that il OPP
crates oppressfvey upon our commerce. Now,
under these circumstances, who will say that the
power "t0 regulate commerce" does not necessa-
rlly imply the power TO pass counleryailing du-
ties? This seems Indispensable TO the wise regu-
laton, and almost to the existence OF our COM
merce.
But the gentleman from South Carolina de-
spatches this at once: by saying that 10 regulate is
not 10 destroy. Does the gentleman mean to in
sinuate that commerce cannot exist under the re-
straint of discriminating dutes9 Our commerce
has always been under this restraint; and has it
not gone on increasing Under the power to reg
ulae commerce, Congress may suspend it, or if
the gentleman peases, may destroy it for the time
being. What was the embargo but destruction
OF commerce for limited period What the
non-nercourse laws, but restriction much great
err than any friend OF protection now proposes p
and the constitutionaty OF these laws will not at
this day be denied. That question has been set
lied IN the most solemn manner. The term COM
lnerce is general, and includes every article which
goes into our foreign trade; and it is perfectly
competent for Congress to prohibit the importa-
tion Of any one article, under the power to regu-
late commerce. The foreign SLAVE trade was con-
slered by the trainers of the Constitution as COM
| ing under the general denomination of commerce;
aud so sensible were all parties that this CONNER
| cal power gave Congress right to prohibit the
thaf Stnta-
Constitution until the provision was incorporated
therein, that this power should not be exercised
ill 1903.
But, sir, there is another clause in the Constitu.
lon, which seems perfectly decisive on this sub
ltct. " Congress shall have power" saws the sa-
cred instrument, TO lay and collect taxes, duties
Ilnposts, and excuses" Here is full power TO Law
duties upon imports, at any time, and to any ex-
tent. The grant of power is absolute and uulim-
tied; attended with no restriction whatever, save
that The duties " shall be uniform throughout the
United States" This would be sufficient of itself
to decide the questions but the context makes the
subject still more clear. After giving unlimited
power 10 lay duties the objects for which duties
may he levied are expressly enumerated" to pay
the debts and provide for the common defence aud
general welfare Of the United States"
Yes, sir duties may be impose for the two fold
object OF paying the debts of the nation, and of
providing Tor the common defence and general
welfare of the people. 1t is narrow view of the
whole subectto suppose that The defence here spc-
Ken OF must be mere military defence. Congress
has as much power 10 defend our citizens against
the commercial policy OF any foreign nation asa.
ganst her military operations-ns clear a right to
protect us against the pauper laborers of Great
Britain, as against her hired soldiers. We build
ships to protect our commerce; and can we not
protect Thy wise enactments? 1t is absurd to say
that we may erect forts OH the seaboard and send
our ships upon the ocean, to secure our property
but hay
tiona power to secure the same end by counter
vang laws and discriminating duties Congress
not only has the right but is bound 10 provide for
the general welfare and our Government would
be wanting in duty-nay it would fail in securing
the object for which il was created-if il did NOT
encourage domestic industry, and secure to labor
Its Just reward, by protecting against the restrc
tive policy and pauper labor Of the old world
But the gentleman from South Carolina dispos.
es OF this in manner equally summary He
maintains that If 1t were once allowed that Con-
gress might discriminate in favor Of manufactures,
then il would follow that the whole subject of
taxation absolutely confded Ia Congress -
This statement, Mr. Speaker, comes from gen!
tlenan who processes the most absolute, entire,
unbonnded confidence in the people; and can he
not trust thls question with the peoples repTeser-
tatves?
Here Mr.. Rheu interposed to explain, and sta
ted that he had put the question even more broad
ly than 1t had been stated by the gentleman. His
statement was that the protection doctrine made
majority of Congress the sole Judge tchat 10 tax
as well as hotg much.
We'll, sir, this comes TO The same thing; and
the genlIeman's principle broadly stated, is this
that nothing could be submitted to the discretion
ofCongress without annihating the Constitution
Is the gentleman unwilling that majority should
govern? II this annihiiaies the Constitution. as
The gentleman says, then the Constitution is ami
Inflated, whenever any subject is submitted TO the
good sense and judgment of the House, and deci-
ded by ina ority.
The gentleman from South Carolina would set
Tie this whole question at once. lie insists that
duties for protection and duties for revenue are
not only different, but directly opposed to each
other. "Where protection commences revenue
ceases is the gentlemans maxim. lie even goes