Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-06-07

Britain; "For cutting off our trade with all quar-.


made its own tariff of duties and regulations Of
trade, and this produced inextricabe confusion 1t
was the attempt to produce uniformity on this
subject which produced the first meeting at An
napolis, which resulted in the subsequent meeting
at Philadelphia that formed the Constitution. It is
indeed true that the want of power in Congress,
under the articles of confederation to Law and COL
lect taxes by its own power, was matter deeply
calling for correction and that corrected in the
Constitution, by that grant of power "to lay and
collect tores, duties" &c. But the want of power in
Congress to make all necessary laws to regulate
our trade, go as to be uniform for all the States was
quite as much realized. This was corrected by
granting to Congress, in the Constitution, the pow
er "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and
among the States, and with the Indian tribes"
Trade may, in a great measure, be regulated by
the form in which tariff of duties is formed, and
in this way the two powers may be exercised in
the same act but it is not truetbat such is the on
ly power which Congress has over the subject or
that such is its only mode of exercising that pow
er. Congress has power over the subject of COM
MERGE, and this it may do in any form, in its own
discretion. 1t has done this by granting bourties
to fisheries. Was that raising revenue? Congress
has always, by law, excluded foreigners from par
ticpating in the carrying trade from port to an.
other in this country. This has always been er-
ciusirely preserved to our own ships and foreign
competition has been prohibited. Was this laying
a duty for revenue? So too, insist the power of
Congress to regulate commerce extends to the sub
Ject matter of commerce, much as to the mode of
conducting it If Congress has the power to pro-
hbh any article from importation, it may discourage
1t or prohibit it by heavy burden Of duty, as well
as by express direction. Congress has the same
power over the regulation of foreign commerce as
it has that with the Indian tribes and in that
they have at times, prohibited the sale of distilled
spirits.
We have good illustration of the potter Of Con-
gress over the subject MATTER of trade or commerce
in relation to slaves. Immediately following the
enumeration OF the powers of Congress, in the 9Th
sec LIST art. of the Constitution, in the LIST clause
of the 9th sec, it is provided, that "the migration
or Importation OF such persons any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit shall not
be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1908;
but tax or duty may be imposed on such importa-
tons, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."
Now this Is no grant of power. 1t is a limitation
of power, restricting Congress from prohibiting the
importation of slaves before 1903, and further res
tricting the duty to ten dollars each. The slave
holding States then did, and still do regard slaves
as objects of property objects of trade commerce.
Hence, having granted to Congress the power to
regulate commerce, they then understood that Con-
gress had entire power, even to prohibit any article
of commerce, and hence inserted that section
to prevent the exercise of such power over slaves
until 1905 and also to restrict the laying any pro-
hibitory duty until that time
Let it be here understood, that the slaveholding
States In relation to their principal article of per-
sonal property, and without which their lands would,
they say, be of little value, in relation to tn cir
labor, and of course to its fruit in relation to their
sIaues, they now possess AMI enjoy larger measure
of protection than any other part of the country
The importation Of slaves is forbidden only by act
of Congress, and Congress has power to repeal such
law at any time, and let in the Importation of slaves
from Havana, BRAZIL or elsewhere and what would
be its effect, the Southern gentlemen best tell
u.s. l have no doubt it would diminish the value
of that property onehalf in two years, and we
should buy cotton and sugar less then at present.
Men who are thus situated, who thus live in glass
houses, ought hardly to cry out that Congress pos
sesses no pocer, under the grant of power to reg
ulate commerce-to protect or prohibit any article
of Importation; but can only lay duty, such as
will let in the article and most revenue. If
so, then our laws against importing slaves are I'M
constitutional.
| wish it further understood, that am now speak.
ing merely on the subject of the constitutional
po,cer OF Congress; and insist that to its pow
er over the subject of commerce, Congress has no
limitation but its own discretion. But now say
that, in the present exercise of that discretion,
consider no prohibitory laws are necessary to en-
courage and sustain our manufactures. 1t is only
necessary to lay such duties as will raise revenue
required for the Treasury; but in so doing dis
elimination for protection is necessary.
But it is suggested that the present bill raises the
duty on wool. That is untrue and deceptive The
present duty, by the act of 1872 is all wool, ex-
cept that costing seven cents under per pound at
the place Of exportation thirty per cent, and three
cents per pound. This, on wool costing less than
thirty cents, would be over forty per cent The
proposed bill takes of three cents per pound. Inre-
atlon to coarse wool costing at the place of eXpor-
tation seven cents pound, under, the present du
ty is five per cent. Now, it is quite certain that
we raise no such wool as this here contemplated.
No wool grower, in America, raises wool which he
can afford at seven or ten cents per pound. What
few of coarse wooed sheep are raised in the south
ern part Of the country for the mutton, and whose
wool is worked into coarse cloths in families, they
need nor ask no protection. 1t has ever been a
policy, approved by most intelligent protection
lists, that it is best to let in this coarse WOOL which
we do not produce, on the easiest possible terms,
that our manufacturers may compete with the for
eigner in this branch, and furnish coarse woolens
on as good terms as the foreigner, who obtains his
coarse wool on the most favorable terms. But it
has been said that in fact fine wool is import
ed under this provision. 1t is difficult to see how
that is practicable, if the law is faithfully executed;
nor do believe that statement to be true, to any
considerable extent There are two facts which
lead me to think otherwise. The first is, that the
importation of that species of wool has greatly di-
minished under the present Tariff" and its price
has not improved, while at the same time all our
wool OF tolerable quality has much improved in
price. But what does the proposed bill offer? 1t
proposes to raise the duty on that wool ten per cent?
that is from five to fifteen per cent Not ten cents,
but ten per cent Now ten per cent or seven cents,
will be seven mills per pound. The whole provs-
ion of the bill is to add Sepen mills on each pound
of coarse wool imported which we do not raise, and
take off three cents per pound on such as we do
raise. This seems TO me miserable attempt to
pull icooL over our eyes on this subject II that
is wei
If it does compete with ours, it should be subject
to the same duty; but the proposed bill does nei-
Their. But again, this proposed bill raises the duty
on coarse WOOL but it reduces the duty on all and
every fabric of woollens. ltcompels our manuiac-
turer to import his stock dearer and yet it lets in
the foreign woollens cheaper than before. Indeed,
sir, can hardly trust myself to speak with free
dom of this bill for fear of dlscourtesy Its proyis-
ions betray either the most gross Ignorance with
the details and operation of Tariff or most in