American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1845-03-25
tFor the American Republican. !

.MeSSrS. EditorS:-ln the discussion of this
act by correspondents of the Clipper and other
papers, an attempt has been made to render it
odlous by reference to revolutionary times,
and to the vehement opposition then excited by
an act of the British Parliament, which bore
the same name. This mode of discussion is SO
manIfestly unfair, that crave Il brief space in
your columns to notice it.
1t is unfair, because it appeals to feeling and
not to reason; and it is still more unfair and ut
terly fallacious, because it appeals to feeling
which has no legitimate bearing upon the ques-
ton, inasmuch as there is no analogy achateper
between the two cases assumed to be parallel
The opposition to the Stamp Act of the British
Parliament had no reference to the nature of
the tax, but to the power which attempted to
impose it. The doctrine of that day was, in
the language of Lord Camden, as quoted by
one of your correspondents "that taxation and
representation are inseparable," and that Anne
RIGA being unrepresented in the Legislature of
the Mother Country could not be taxed in any
,Cay by her. AS well might we object to an
impost duty because the people of Boston had
thrown overheard a cargo of tea rather than
pay duty upon it, as to a Stamp Tax because
our fathers resisted one imposed by foreign
power. Argue the lmpolicy, inexpediency and
unequal operation of the Stamp Tax, if you
will-argue its unconstitutionality, and test it
in the Courts-but do not make the resistance
by our foreiathers of a law enacted by British
Parliament in which they had no representation,
precedent for the resistance of an act of our
own government created by ourselves and i'm
medately responsible to the people through
the ballot box-above all make no profane APP
peals to the spirit of '16, in temper as remote
from the spirit of that day as is the love of fill
thy lacre from a selt-sacrticing patriotism
which would encounter any amount of suffer-
ing to maintain the honor and ultimate pros
perity of the country.
am not discussing the merits of the act in
question-it concerns not my present purpose,
whether it be just or unjust, expedient or mex
pedient, constitutional or unconstitutional
The latter question cannot be decided by you
or me, nor yet by our City Councils, profound
ly learned as they are admitted to be. There
are courts in the land which yet, thank God,
have power, and alone have power to decide
posed to the superior law of the constitution, it
is the law of the land, and must and will be
maintained as such. If its repeal be desired,
let it be discussed upon its merits, and not by
an appeal to feelings which have no legitimate
bearing upon upon the case.
If know anything of the spirit of '76, the
men of that day would have sacrificed any pc
cuniary interest TO protect the honor of the
Republic they were founding they would
have esteemed its faithful fulflment of con-
tracts and the honesty of its dealings with other
nations and with individuals, as much more
essential to the maintenance of that honor,
than any achievement upon the battlefield.
In the staggering tone of the age, it is a
common declaration that no question Of inter
est or erpcdieacy should be considered, when the
national honor is at stake. How much are we,
in imitation Of our ancestors, willing to sacri-
flee in order to maintain that which is more
honorable than the glory of arms, of wealth or
of extended territory-a reputation for common
honesty? Hancock.