New-York tribune., 1842-01-17

Mr.. HuDsos addressed the House IS follows:
Mr. SPEAKER: | have, from the FIRST, regarded
this debite as premature; and now, If the Hous.
are disposed to pass upon the subject at once, |
will cieerfully yield the Aeor.
But, as gentlemen say /" 90 on, will cadcevor
20 present ny views the consideration o; the
House The immediate question before US, is on
the amendment OF my friend from South Carolina
Mr.. RHETT,) 10 commit to the Committee Of
Ways and Means, I" with instructions. that should
1T be in their opinion expedient to lay additional
dut:cs, they shall be so laid not 70 discriminate
in favor of am particular class ii Industry IN the
United States
This opens the whole inject ola discriminating
tariff. The gentleman from South Carolina, who
moved these instructions, has met the question
with bis characteristic frankness. He has laid the
axe a, the root Of the tree. He deries 70 Con.
gross the constitutional right OF imposing duties
which shall discriminate in favor of manufactures.
| propose briefly 10 notice this question:. T ne
Constitution gives to Congress the right to rcgu-
late commerce with foreign nations and among
the several States A this grart oc power is
given ~;tilaut limitation, it follows that Congress
may regulate commerce as it plcases-ray impose
a higtl duty upon one article, and adulit=ouoth,r
free Of duty. Gin any fair construction OF TIN,
liar-e, TIE power IS as und0ub,ed il the case OF
discriminating du.ics, in the o: declaring
acar= or m0ntatuine a nary. This power OF dis.
c,imirulon in the imposition of duties seems cs
scntial. not only iI'e regulations, but to tho very
= existence OF cosn!herCs.
Great Britain. with whom intl
matey connected. by conmercll Intercourse than
with any other milton, lets opportunity o: pro-
;ec,ins her commerce and her Industry pass uuin-
proved. This she does D7 fostering her com
ulerce, and by restricting tat OF utter .,at!1ns.
Look at her restriction upon the co.nmsrcc=ei the:
United States. While we expert ii>hto lile amount
of s9JC, 0C0 annually, he prohibit. It's importa
ton into the United kingdcn and y, the same
time, admits The products OF her own fisheries free
OF duty. The whale fisheries constitute no incen-
Siderable perton vi our commerce. and how does
she meet us IN this case With free trade No,
sir; she imposes duty Of 5.2G 125. per ton upon
our oil and admits the same article, the product
OF her own fisheries, at u duty Of Is. per ton,
making discrimination Of G26 lis against the
United States. Whoebone is another considerable
article of commerce, but this is near excluded
from the English market by her onerous exoctions.
She imposes duty Of t95 per ton upon American
wnnieLn:.e, and admits the article from her
province, n. duty of { per tor. We exported
to Great Britain last year tobacco the amount
S3,077, 000 and she meets this article, worth from
six TO ten cents per pound, with the enormous duty
of three shillings sterling per pound and thereby
raises revenue, 0ne.thrd OF our exported to-
bncco, equal at least to the entire revenue OF the
Uncd States. The corn law. of Eng land
TOO well understood TO require comment; they
amount, to q prohibition in ordinary cases. | Will
stop here to inquire whether such rgla re-
slicons are wise unwse II Is sufficient Ia my
purpose to know that such is the policy of Great
Britain and that it operates oppressively upon our
commerce. How under these circumstances, who
IL, onln MINOR
does not necessarily imply the power to pass coun-
tcryaing duties This seems indispensable to
the wise regulations and almost TO the existence
of our commerce.
But the gentleman from South Carolina de-
.putcncs this at once by saying thrt TO regulate
is not to destroy. Does the gentleman mean to
ilsinuate that commerce cannot exist under the
restraint of discriminating du,iesl Our commerce
has always been under this restraint and has Il
not soGc on increasing Under the power to re:u-
late commerce, Congress may suspend 1t, or, II
the gentleman Peases, may destroy 1t tor the tune
being What was the embargo bat destruction
OF commerce for limited period! What the non
intercourse laws, bur restriction mach greater
,kan any friend of protection now rePoses Aud
the coustilutiopav of these laws will not, at tins
day, be denied. That question has been settled IN
the most solemn manner. The term commerce is
general, and includes every article which goes INTO
our foreign trade and ii is perfectly competent tor
Con gress to prohibit the importation OF any article
under the power TO regulate commerce he
foreign stare trade WAS considered By the Trainers
OF the Constitution a, coming under The general
denomination Of commerce; and SO sensible we're
al parties that this commercial power gave Con
eress !. III. to prohibit, the slave trade, that some
States refused 10 adopt the Constitution until the
provision was Incorporated therein, that this power
should not be exercised I'LL 1908.
But air, there is another clause in the ConStitu.
ton, which seems perfectly decisive on thus sub
iect. Congress shall have power, says that
sacred instrument to lay and collect taxes du-
ties, ;mpos,s, and excises., Here is full power 10
lay duties upon imports, at any time. and 10 any
extent. The grant OF power is absolute and un-
limited attended with restriction whatever
that the duties shall be uniform Throughout
the Usted States This would be sufficient OF
itself to decide the question; but the context
makes the subject still more clear After giving
unlimited power to lay ds;ies, the objects for
which duties may be levied are expressly enume-
rated 10 pay the debts and provide for the COM
mon defence and general welfare of the United
States.
Yes, sir duties may he imposed for the two-fold
object of paying the debts of the nation, and OF
providing for the common defence and general
welfare OF the people. 1t narrow view Of the
whole subject to suppose that the defence here
spoken of must be mere military defence. Con
gress has as much power to defend our citizens
agains, The commercial policy of any foreign ma
ton, as against her military operatons-as clear "
right 10 protect against the paupsr laborers of
Grea, Britain. as against her hired soldiers. We
bald ships TO protect our commerce ard can we
TO, protect it BY wise enactments 1t is absurd 10
say that we may erect forts the sesbosrd, and
send our ships upon the ocean, to secure our