Mississippi Democrat. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1846-08-19
NO. SO


the first place, because, as far as they have
been able to ascertain, the States in The
exercise of the power of regulating COM
merce never extended II 20 the improves
ment or construction of harbors for CON-
merce, neither subsequent TO nor before
the Revolution, while colonies. They have
not been able u find n single instance of
the exercise of the power on their part
which would warrant the conclusion that
such harbors we're included in the power,
and, they may add as pertinent to the sub.
iect, very few cases in the Legislation Of tho
country from which we draw our origin
and language that counienances an extern
sion of the power, SO far as to embrace
them; and in the next. that the eirly acts
of Congress afford no evidence that il re-
garded harbors OF commerce TO be en-
bracod in it. The first appropriation they
have been able to find, even for harbors
for shelter, was made in 1922, more than
thirty years after the commencement u
the gov eminent; and that, at first, only au-
thorIsed 1.-The construction of two public
piers, Of sufficient dimensions to be shell
Ter to vessels from ice." They refer to
the break wafer near the mouth Of the
! Delaware. The next appropriation was
| in 1928, to survey the entrance of the har-
Dor of Presqle Isle, on Lake Erie, with
the view Of removing distractions at its
mouth In was not until 1927 that APP
propriations we're made professedly for the
Improvement OF harbors, and not until
1923, when n regular and expensive sys.
TEN was commenced Of constructing and
improving them as part OF the system Of
internal Improvement.
| But as strong ms these reasons are, there
is another still more so, drawn from the
nature of the power and early practice OF
the government, The power, as has been
stated, is restricted exclusively to the regu-
lation of the external commerce of tho
States with each other, as separate and
distinct communities; and cannot, as such,
act within the limits of tho States beyond
what is indispensable 10 this execution.
But 81 careful we're the trainers Of the con-
stilu,ion to guard against the abuse of pow
or, that they have not left II to inference
TO determine TO what extent II il indlspen-
sable for that purpose. They have, by a
else limits. Your committee refer TO that
already cited, which exempts vessels bound
to or from one State from being obliged TO
enter, clear, or pay duties in another; and
Thereby securing to that extent, and no
further, free ingress and egress of tho
vessels Of all the States within and from
the limits of each other. But, with that
exception, the harbors Of State are as
completely under the control Of the State,
and as subject 10 its laws and legislation,
as any other portion Of its territory; and
the vessels Of other States are as subject
to them as those belonging TO their own
citizens. Strictly speaking, then, the
} power to regulate commerce among the
States is a power wholly inter dlios; SO
much so, indeed, as to require this addi-
l ,lonal, or, as it may be fairly called, sup.
, Elemental power, to secure TO the vessels
. of other States the right TO enter, clear,
\ and be exempt from duty, both IN their in
d gress and egress. The conclusion would
d seem to follow. irresistibly, that power
: so strictly inter alios cannot be extended
: so as TO embrace the improvement or con-
n strucilon Of commercial harbors. Tho
d case Of harbors for shelter is different
Il They relate directly TO the safety OF COM
}. merce, in It's transit from State 70 State,
h and are in character and object the ZANE
!. as public piers, and come, as such, fairly
/ under the power to regulate commerce.--
,, The case is also different IN reference 10
n naval stations or harbors. They come un-
e der another power--that "to provide and
" maintain navy"
it But if additional evidence should be re-
is aured TO show that commercial harbors
> are not embraced by the power, another
y provision Of the constitution, and the prac-
J. tice Of the government under 1t, will tur'
}. nish conclusive proof. Your committee
e refer to that which provides that "no State
ID shall, without the consent OF Congress
ID Law any imposls or duties on imports OF
10 exports, except whit may be absolutely
necessary for execuingils inspection lawsi
or and the mel produce OF all duties and i'm
10 nos,. laid by any State on imports or ex
re por,s shall be for the use of the treasury
"a, nr The United States; and all such laws
n. shall be subject 10 the revision and con-
Ie troll of the Congress. No State shall
/, wi,hoot the consent of Congress, lay any
y duly on tonnage" We find in this pro
lie vision material difference between III,
!. mower reserved to the States to lay, with
g tbe consent of Congress, duties on import
D. and exports, on the one hand, and on ton
mage on the other. In the former 1t is ex
TO pressly provided that the proceeds shal
ID pas, into the treasury Of the United States
s. .h;lo in The other il is left without any
n such provision at the disposal Of The State
IN imposing them. There must DO a reasoi
re Tor The distinction; and il would be din