Rutland herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1823-1847, 1844-03-28

view to such a revenue would be necessary to
the wants OF tie government. Did any contend
that the amount OF revenue raised by the tariff Of
1912 was not wanied' Was the treasury overbur-
dened with money! Was not the Government still
IN debit This principle Of the compromise act
that the aggregate of should not exceed the
sum required by the wants of the government was
not violated by the act ofisi2 Further, he con.
tended that the compromise act had become a dead
letter on the 3Oth Of June, ls42 prior to the passage
OF the tariff of 1912. The compromise act had ex-
hausted itself IL was functus o1fcio it had dis
charged its office. From the nature of the act IL
self il had become impossible to violate il. But the
tariff of 1912 confcted with no provision Of the
compromise act, excepting that clause which de-
clares that, after the Goth of June 1912, duties
should be levied exceeding 90 per cent ad vaorem.
1t was commended that this provision limited the
power Of Congress on the subject, and restricted
them from imposing any duty higher than 90 per
cent His construction Of this provision, taken to-
gether with the other provisions Of this act, was,
that the aggregate amount of the duties should not
exceed the amount required by the wants fgovern-
menf II il was the purpose OF the act to declare
that no higher rate duty than 90 per cent should
be levied even If necessary for the support OF the
government, then the act was mere nullity. 1t was
not in the power of Congress to make such pro-
vision. They could not, by any legislation, put such
limit on the discretion of Congress. Gentlemen
might take which horn Of the dilema they choose
II his construction Of the was admitted, then the
act only limited the aggregate amount Of duties TO
be raised to The wants of Government and it did
not conc. with the provisions of the act of ls42-
II 1t was to be construed limiting the action Of
Congress TO the imposition Of duty Of 20 per cent,
then 1t was an absurd and unconstitutional attempt
TO limit and abrdge the discretion Of Congress. 1t
was not necessary further to dwell on this subject,
but he had something more to say to this matter.
He was DESTROYS to know on what ground he, as
member OF this body was precuded from voting
q n
act of 1888 merely as compromise of opinon-pre-
cisely such as took place here on every subject
There was nothing binding in it, but it was necessa-
~ to any action at all. When Congress had acted
they exercised their legislative power. and when
they went away they left the power of their sue
cessors in no way abridged by their action. He re-
garded the act as one merely legislative, and no
more binding on their successors than any other leg
slative act. In regard to private and vested rights
legislation was forever binding; but, as regarded
general purposes, the action of Congress mere
ly question of legsl alive discretion ques-
ton of expediency, in the decision of which every
one was left to the exercise OF his own Judgment
lie denied that the compromise act, or any &C: oil
general iegiole.ion, was bindins in tho eo"s1 tha,
il was alledged to be obligatory. He repudiated
the pretension altogether in whatever point of view
it was 20 be Observation-Disclosures as binding in hon.
or. or as a question of expediency alone. There
were other reasons why he, as one Of the Senators
from the State of Vermont, could not look upon the
off. 1t was imposed on the people of his State a
ganst their earnest circumstances. His predeces
sors demonstrated against it, and it was imposed on
them by the will OF a majority. But it would have
derived additional force from the assent of his
predecessors. His own action in regard to it was
left free.
Another question had been raised here, wheh
er the act was constitutional or unconstitutional
Il was asserted that it unconstitutional, and i
it was so there would be an end to the question
On what ground was it said to be unconstitutional
II was said it had an eye to protection. The Sen
ator from New Hampshire had labored very hard
and, as he believed, very unnecessarily to make j
appear that some Of the duties imposed by this &C
were protective He mr. P.) voted for the bill
because il was protective, and it required no effor
to show that it was protective in its character. HI
would not have supported it en- any other ground
and it was this consideration that governed hi
vote. He would vote for no tarffbil that disge
garded that principle Let us look for moment
said Mr. p, TO this question of constitutionality,-
The question was complicated one II wa
presented in great variety of forms. In one sect
ION ofthe country the bill was looked upon as pro
tective, and therefore unconstitutional in anothe
section il was not considered as sufficient protect
ive There was no difficulty in making out tina
it was competent for Congress whenever the.
might choose, to impose duties for protection, AM
for protection only, even if the want Of the Treas
ury did not call revenue from such duties. Their
was know difficulty in establishing this principle
Where was the power derived? From the pow
err to regulate commerce. The General Gov
eminent derived the power to regulate commerce
from the States who possessed to its fullest pos:
ible extent. limited by no possible restraint or es
cepiion There power was as omnipotenf,
gentlemen chose 0s the power of Parliament
What became of ill The State ceded it to tn
General Government when the Constitution wa
formed 1t was relinquished by the States to III
General Government; il was transferred withou
qualification or abridgement TO Congress ofthe [
States, and as such we may exercise 1t in any an
every manner according to our discretion. Wht
part OF the Constitution could be pointed out cor
tanning any Limitation or abridgement Of this pow
err to regulate commerce. There was none A
the States were expressly prohibited from the exel
else ofthe power, if Congress did not possess
then the power was abrogated There could ne
have been any design TO abrogate it, While tn
people were creating more perfect form of Gov
ernmen could it be imagined that they intended
instead of comforting the full power on the Gov
eminent, to limit and abridge ii Could it be in
tended to deprive the Government Of necessar
power, that was exercised by every other Govern
wen, IN Tho u,orIJ1 They inc led in the Cor