Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1844-08-01
SPEECH OF MR.. RHETr,
SOUTH CAROLINA.

M TIE House Of Representatives, .JHGY Z. 1914
On the bill introduced by the committee
of Ways and Means, providing for modi-
fication of the existing tariff.
Mr.. CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Yer
mont, Mr.. MARSH, in discussing the prin-
ciples of the bill before you, treated with ridi-
cule and contempt all objections arising from the
constitution. Constitutional scruples, he said,
were exceedingly innocent in their effects
No one had ever entered penitentiaries, mad
houses, or had died, from their. influences. He
had never perceived that the constitution was
an impeachment to any policy; but whatever
men desired in legislation, they always found
to be constitutional Such opinions are I'M
doubtediy in perfect congeniality with the pol
icy of those with whom he acts. The consti-
tuition is, indeed, with them, nothing. 1t does
not raise-it never has raised, any obstacle to
their schemes CT appropriation and plumber;
and, SO far as they are concerned, it is simply
an instrument of power, to be used with sin
gle eye to their selfish and sectional aggran-
dizement. But has it not occurred to the gen
tleman, that if his view of the practical admin
istration of the government be correct, we are
living under despotism? The constitution is
nothing but a series of limitations On pow
er. If these limitations are no limitations
in practice, then the government is with
out limitations on its powers. And what
is a government, without limitations on its
powers, but despotisn? Despotism is IN
restrained power-nothing else. So thus, by
the open boast and acknowledgment of the ad-
vocates of protective tariff, this government
is a despotism, the constitution exists in vain,
and the tariff question before you involves
simple strife OF power between those who are
to receive, through the taxes, and those who
are to pay them. This is precisely the result
which those who are opposed to the protective
policy always predicted would be produced,
through its peraicious tendencies. The strain
ed differences and constructions, by which alone
its constitutionality could be supported, when
applied to other subjects of the constitution,
would be fatal to any limitations ON its powers,
and would, therefore, justify any violation
which the avarice or ambition Of a majority
might require. Our argument is now proved
in the pro1igate sneers and declarations of the
gentleman from Vermont, as it had long since
been proved by the whole scope Of the northern
policy he advocates. With the absence of all
Unconstitutional scruples," the constitution is
gone; and with it goes all liberty. Can he tell
when and where, with our race, any strife for
liberty ever arose without Constitutional scru-
ples2'' What brought the first Charles to
the block? What led to the revolution of
1858? What occasioned our own revolution,
but constitutional scruples" In his own
State, at Bennington, at Saratoga, at York
town, on every battle field, wet with the blood
Of our revolutionary fathers-what made their
cause and their glory2 Constitutional scru-
res' to unconstitutional taxation-the very
subject matter now at issue in this debate
The British Parliament claimed to- be omnip-
otent over the colonies, in laying duties on their
imports-as Congress now claims to be omnp-
otent, over the States. Our fathers saw that
such pretension put their property at the
mercy of a majority in Parliament, as we now
see that the same pretension puts our proper
ty at the mercy Of a majority in Congress-
They took up the Constitutional scruple. .
They fought for it; by thousands they died for
it; and, that they may not have fought and
died in vain, they framed the constitution I'M
der which we live, carefully limiting the pow
ers of the government it establishes to few
specified objects, that neither their liberties
nor property might be endangered by its ad-
ADMINISTRATION. The purse and the sword, ar
mics and navies, they gave; but these were for
p4our foreign foes The only security they Or
dained for its internal administration in intep-
rity and truthfulness, was the oath the consti-
tuition prescribes shall be taken by all who ad-
minister it. The gentleman from Vermont
has taken this oath, yet he has never seen or
known the influence of constitutional scrupes.
Let him sheer and make merry in the profit
gacy of his corrupt policy; but We will still
hold up the constitution as long as it endures,
even in name. 1t is not oppression merely
that we resist, but unconstitutional oppression.
Ills not the millions exacted from us, but the
rioht violated in their exaction, that we OPP
nose. 1t is for the great principles liberty con
stitutional liberty-not money merely, we con-
tend. And even when demonstrating the in
Justice of the prot ective policy, we aim at pro-
wing its unconstitutionality; because we go for
our rights, not for revolution. The constitu-
t;on being made by all the States, for the COM
mon protection and benefit Of all, cannot sane
ton oppressive privileges, or legislative robbie
~ ~ for the benefit of a part Our 'constitu-
t;onal scruples" forbid such policy, and de-
mand its overthrow.
But gentlemen have endeavored to show that