Sunbury American and Shamokin journal. [volume] (Sunbury, Northumberland Co., Pa.) 1840-1848, 1846-04-11

proposed tax on coal. Mr.. H. shows the gross
impropriety of the tax, as we'll as the uneonstitu
tionality. We make the following extract:
First 1t would be illegal: Because it would
be to certain extent at least in direct violation
of the Constitution of the United States.
Secondly 1t would be impohic: Because it
imposes a burden upon comparatively new, yet
important and growing trade that asks for, re-
ceives protection from the General Government
Because, it sets the precedent for system of
retalatory duties and regulations between the
different States that must operate most oppres-
sively OIL the citizens of this Commonwealth,
and which would tend to dismemberment of
our Union.
Thirdly. It would be unjust Because it
would be an unequal and oppressive tax taxing
the same article fwice.
Because at least Jour:ffihs of those directly
employed in the anthracite coal trade, have re.
ceived no direct benefit from our State Improve.
ments, nor was our public debt created with
views to their particular interest.
Because in the only instance in which State
improvement has been made, with view TO aid
the anthracite coal trade, the State derives am
PIE revenue from such improvement and better
one in proportion TO the expenditure than any
other improvement made by the State.
Would not tonnage tax on anthracite coal be
substantially an impost duty so much Of it as
is exported from the State Would not the con.
sumers in other States who used this coal pay
this tax, and would not, therefore, Pennsy ylvana
by this regulation, affect the price of an article
of trade between this State and others, and thus
indirectly tax the citizens of other States with.
ont their consent and without representation
] will not enter into an argument here for the
purpose of showing the unconstitutionaity of
this measure, but will content myself with call
ing your attention to the following authorities,
which seem to me 10 be conclusive.
SxcrioS s, Article Q of constitution of the
Unit ed States provides that Congress, shall have
power TO regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the Sererai States
SECTION 9th, Article 5th, no tax or duties
shall be laid articles exported from any State.
SECTION 10th, Article I'd, mo State shall with.
out the consent of Congress lay any imbost or
duties on imports exports, except what may
be necessary for executing its inspection laws,
and the net produce of all dntes and imports laid
by any STATE shall be for the use of the Treasury
ofMe United States and all such laws shall be
subject to the revision and the control of Con.
gress. No State shall without the consent of
Congress lay any duty on tonnage, Sc
The reasons for the adoption of some of the
above quoted provisions in the Constitution Of
the U. S, will be readily understood from the
following quotations from the Federalist:
The opportunities which some States would
have of rendering others tributary TO them by
commercial regulations, would be impatiently
submitted 10 by the tributary States The re.
lative situation Of New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut would afford an example ,of this
kind. New York from the necessities ofrevenue
must lay duties on he- importations, a great par,
of these duties must be paid by the inhabitants
OF two other States in the capacity of consumers
of what We import.
Would Connecticu, and New Jersey long submit,
10 be tdredby Nto York for her eteitlsire benefit
Should we be long permitted to remain in the
quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of metropolis
| from the possession of which we derived an ad.
vantage, so odious 10 our neighJors, and in their
| opinions so oppressive? These
are questions that temerty alone will answer in
the affirmative ve.-See Federalist, page sc, No :
But in imposing this tax would not Pennsyl
vania establish the precedent! am aware o
no similar tax in other states. The supposed
precedent of New York taxing salt has been yer,
| frequently referred TO New York does not taI
SAT-? The State of New York owns the fee il
the salt springs and lands adjacent thereto in he
western Reserve" in which her salt is manu-
featured and for the use these springs she char
ges her tenants rent per bushel on the salt man
uiactured from the salt springs belonging Il
the State BY her constitution Of 1890 the Leg
islature of New York is prohibited from grantin.
or conveying away the ownership of the state il
the salt springs OF the "Western Reserve" n,
salt springs in New York are owned by individu
ais. For the salt manufactured on Long Islam,
from sea water no tar or rent ispaid"
a. The Washington correspondent OF tn,
Philadelphia Ledger says;
II is believed now that the qualified notice o
neither Mr. Colquitt nor Mr.. Crittenden will
pass the Senate or that, if either should be a
dopted, the House of Representatives will refns,
TO concur, and adhere to the resolution whicl
has already passed that body. The Senate, it i
the prevailing impression, will be obliged uti
mately TO take the House resolution.
As anumber of Senators have expressed thei
intention TO address the Senate on the Orego,