Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-08-06


We extract the following sound arguments from a
late article in the % Union":
The great object of the constitution to prevent
this illicit intercourse between construction, and a
lust Of power-"n capitation other direct tar
shall be laid, unless an proportion to an enumeration
no tar shall be laid articles erporedno preference
shall be giren by any regulation Of
nue., to ports Of State Orer those OF another -
The object of these restrictions to deprive Con-
gress Of the power of exercising local personal
partiaIties. Now protecting duties operate, in fact,
as direct, capiation tax, for tie benefit of one
occupation imposed upon all Others by legal necessi
ty. The value of agricultural staples must long de-
pend upon our exchanges with foreign nations They
are consumers of our breadsus cotton, tobacco, fish.
and numerous other articles. Lately we have be-
come exporters of cheese and ice to Great Britain
Consumers neither exist now, nor can be speedily
created at home BESIDES these foreigners utterly
unable to pay in specie for the products We can
spare and if they could the specie would depreciate
TO the paper money unless we could export It, not to
buy more specie, but articles OF consumption. A
prohibition, therefore, complete, partial, of the
articles of consumption, in which agriculturalists
must receive payment, is in substance, double tax
upon exports 1t lessons their value and enhances
the price of the few articles Of consumption they can
produce at home. "No preference shall be giuen By
any regulation Of commerce rerenue to ports Of one
State orer those of another" In all these prohib-
Congress power of regulating the wealth or pros
perty Of particular States or occupations carefully
enforced. Ports is here put for people Inanimate
things can have rights, and enjoy preferen-
ces. tax paid by agricultural to manufacturing
States if the bounty be sufficiently high to enable the
manufacturing class to meet foreign competition, will
operate as favor to particular ports of the State
where the manufacturers reside These restrictive
clauses of the constitution, compared with the limited
powers bestowed, demonstrate an adherence of the
idea that the federal government should have power
of bestowing preferences Of any kind upon States,
districts or occupations.
The wise men who framed our system, knew,
moreover, that the freedom of property and Industry
from the indefinite despotism of society was the best
security against those unjust laws by which social
liberty is so often injured, and that desposm of ma
jorities by which it had been often destroyed. And
it is this wise and just principle which denies even
to the sovereignty of the people the right to take the
private property of individuals because the conven-
tiona act by which that species of sovereignty
created conceded right to tar for national purposes,
but withheld right tax for individual aggrandize-
nent. Now does any one believe, that if it had been
proposed in forming the constitution to have invested
Congress with power (over and above that of exac-
ting contributions for public use) of projecting the
manufactures Of the country at the expense of any
of the other great interests it would not have been
spurned with Indignation! And yet the same effect
is produced by system of legislation and construc-
ton at with every principle of justice and
mon sense. They contend, moreover, that, as the
power of protecting manufactures not expressly
prohibited by the constitution it may and ought be
exercised Let us examine for moment this fallacy
Let US suppose the constitution had said that the gov
eminent should have the power of taking away the
life of one man for the benefit of another would this
have been free government! But being silent upon
this point, can the government exercise the power be-
cause it has not been expressly prohibited And
htfffo
the enjoyment of life! 1t was this paramount right
which made it unnecessary to stipuate in const
tutions against the killing for the benefit of
another Now the right of each man to the benefit
of his labor, by which only life be preserved
is much natural right as the right to life ITSELF
there any more need to stipulate against ac-
tual social compacts for its safety than for the safety
of life ITSELF 1t is nothing less than an evsaon Of
the right to live to take away the products of labor
BY which men live, and to give them to other men.