Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1844-02-07
Remarks of Ws'. McDufle e
In SENATE, Jan. lS.
TIE TARIFF

-
The Senate then took up (or considera-
ton the report from the Committee on FL
nance, as follows:
January 8, lS44-Mr. Evans from the
Committee on Finance, reported the fol-
lowing resolutions.
Resolved, That The bill entitled "A
bill 10 revive the act Of The 81 March,
1888, usually called the compromise act,
aud to modify the existing duties upon for
eigu imports. in conformity with lis provi,
sious," is bill "for raising revenuh," ;"
within the meaning of the 7,h section of
the 1st article Of the Constitutions. and
cannot therefore originate in the Senate {;
therefore,
Resolved, Tha, it be indefinitely post
poned.
:. Mr.. McDuflie said if nne of the i!lustri-
Gus trainers Of the Constitution could have
presented himself before us in the debate Of
Yesterday, with whal utter asionishment
would he have found us constituting pro.
vision, which was made 10 project the
people of The United States from injustice
and oppression, in such a manner rs to
make il barrier against any effort to free
the people from the most unjust and op.
prcssive system tha, was ever imposed or
them. The ilfuslrious patriots who framed
this instrument had seen so much Of The
abuse of the taxing power, that they en-
deayored TO rescue their posterily from The
evil. They therefore provided that all
bills raising revenue should originate in The
House, more directly representing the peo
pie of the United States. The people
could not suppose that the trainers Of the
Constitution would deal in mere idle
words. aud that they would insert a clause
wilhnno particular meaning. What ra-
tionaI construction could be given TO the
clause excep, that it was intended TO pre-
vent unjust and unnecessary taxation {!
Ii did not prevent the Senate from putting
money into the Treasury, but from taking
it,out of the pockets of The people. Raj
sing money vas nothing; but The design
was to prevent US from raising in such n
manner as to take il from the pockets Of
The people. One of The gentlemen who
had taken part in the debate had let Out
what was the true view of the question:.
The Senator from New Hampshire had
shown beyond dispute that the Senate had
passed bills affecting The revenue, and the
Senator from Connecticut had said truly
that they did mol raise sevenue by impo-
sing taxes. Suppose we had some mode
ofraisins revenue without resor 10 i'm.
posts; suppose we had some magic pnwer
of raising it--by stamping on The earth
we could raise IN hat or any way, except
by imposing burdens on the people. In
any oiher lightihe provision would appear
frivolous andunmeauing, consisting mere
ly in words. But let US look al the bill.
Is that, in any form or shape, a bill to raise
revenue! Is that its object or effect
1t was absolutely and essentially bill re-
pealius duties, and nothing else; and yet
a construction had been assumed here tor
the purpose of scouting it out of.Ihe Sem
ale, and the people were 10 be toldthat we
had no power 10 mitigate their burdens.
-sssIt was conteudcd by the Senator from
Maine. that duties must be collected unda!
the billiflil passed into law. lf,his was
true, i'll any just sense, he would give ur
ihe question. How can it be said that a
bill reducing duties from fifty TO thirty pc,
cent imposes duties? The gentleman
says if you repeal the other twenty pei
cen, you would impose duties; that is ia
SAY, iflhe bill fails to repeal part Of the
duties, it imposes the whole. He could
not comprehend this reasoning. Why
sir, an act repeating duties, because i
docs not repeal the whole, is an act i'm
posing duties Ile had never seen any
,hingfkc This, excer, the case oflhe sports
nran,gwhn, having lost twenty dollars on /;
ehorse.race. said he had lost forty dollars
for his own twenty was gone, and lht
,welIy he expected 10 win. lie did no