The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-07-13

the tariff on this floor, and in this country. The
one, which is denominaled the free-rade party who
advocate tarlH for alone, discriminating for
revenue alone, and not for protection or forany other
purpose, and who deny that Congress Possesses the
constitutional power 20 discriminate for the protec-
uon OF American industry in adjusting tariff.
The other party, who are for high and exorbi-
tsnt tariff, having protection for its obeo and ma
} king the subject OF revenue merely incidental.
What may have 10 say may not be very pleas
ing to either OF these parties. differ from both Of
these extremes. think they are both wrong
IN medic tuiiss.n's bo. approach this question
with feelings OF the utmost kindness to both ofthese
parties. | say to both-"come brethren, let us
reason together" beg the attention of both; let
US consider this question, have TO do all 9th
ers, In asprit OF compromise and concession. Let
us see AZ we cagno, mad some common ground on
which you can both stands Unless this question is
settled in this way it never will be settled o
ner satisfactory 10 the country. The people Of this
country will be satisfied with tariff based ex-
cusvely upon the doctrines of either the high proec-
tionsts the free traders. Both then must yield
something II both win act in this spirit il seems 10
me that there would exist difficulty in arranging
tariff which would give general satisfaction to the
country. ~ .. nr.a s...rr sr7
! No man is more opposed to the principles Of the
act OF lS42 than am, and no one would 90 more
readily for its modification, or amendment, or in
deed It's repeal, and the substitution Of new tariff
oil which would adopt more satisfactory system
1 of taxation.
look upon the act of ls42 as, in its operation,
highly unjust and oppressive TO the abong classes
every where, and 10 the southern and western sec
| lions OF the country particularly.
But differ from my friends Of the free-trade par
y-not IN their opposition 10 the act of 1872 for
will go heart and hand with them in repeating ts
unjust and oppressive PROVISIONS but in this-be-
cause that they, in endeavoring to relieve them
selves from the burdens of unjust taxation I'M
der the operation Of the of l842, are not only
disposed to give up, but do actually deny, the sxs
tence ofa power which candidly and honestly be-
lieve constutonally exists in this government and
which, in my opinion, is essential to its safety
| and independence as regards foreign nations
The constitution expressly confers upon Congress
the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties mposs,
and excuses" and the power "to regulate COM
! MERGE"
The power to regulate commerce. is to prescribe
| a rule by which commerce is TO be governed the
term commerce is not 10 be limited 10 traffic or the
buying and selling or interchange Of commodities
but comprehends both navigation and intercourse
TO limit the meaning OF the term commerce TO that
Of traffic merely, would restrict general term COM
pretending many objects to only one Of its signfca-
tons.
Then foreign commerce is regulated by prescri-
bling rules for carrying on the intercourse with for
eign nations.
Ii is under this Interpretation alone that we can
find the power to prescribe what shall constitute
American vessels, that they shall be nayigated by
American seamen.
regulate commerce for the purpose Of protecting
American industry Of any kind'-not simply of man
ufaetures, but also of agriculture commerce. and the
mechanic artsi "
No one can doubt but that the power to regulate
commerce or trade necessarily includes the power
to tax it, And the question then resolves itself into
this: whether the power to tax trade, which is in
volved in the power to regulate trade, be consti
tutionaly exercised by leyying duties, and imposing
prohibition, and restrictions, with the object Of en-
of lad,
As our constitution is not code Of definitions, we
must seek the meaning Of the phrase " to regulate
commerce" in the objects to which the power was
generally thought to be applicable at the time of its
formation. e.. .g. ..,
The power of regulating commerce has always
been exercised by all commercial nations with a
| view to the encouragement Of home industry. This
has been particularly the case with Great Britain
from which we derive our customs, laws, language
and our commercial vocabulary. ,....
The States understood and exercised this
power whist they retained the power over their for
egn commerce.
The want of this power was one of the greatest
defects in the confederation, and one of the
principal which led to the adoption of the
present constitution Indeed, such power neces-
sarily inherent in all independent soyereigntes, and
such exercise of 1t by Congress was expected
by the States when they transferred to the general
government the power of regulating our foreign
commerce.
If the frec-trade doctrine be true that revenue is
the sole object of the constitutional exercise of the
power to "lay imposts," and that the power ''to
regulate commerce" cannot he exercised for the pur
pose of encouraging and protecting home industry,
then this great nation would scarcely deserve the
name; it would be but weak infant among the
giant nations of the earth, unable to counterfeit their
monopolies and unequal commercial regulations
unable to foster at home the production of the sta |
pie articles of subsistence, or the productions neces-
sary for the national defence and national lndepend-
ence;-and American CATION itself, to foster and
protect which is important to the national security
and national Independence, as cradle to our naval |
defence, would have TO be abandoned to the mercies
of foreign competition and impostions, and speedily
meet with inevitable destruction. Without such a
power the government would be utterly incapable OF
self protection or sef.support, subservient TO the
policy Of foreign nations, and absolutely worthless
If Congress does not possess this power; 80 es-
senal to the sovereignty Of every nation; so neces-
sary to its self-protecton and independence, the
power is annihated tor the States certainly do not
possess it, and to this conclusion are the opponents
Of power brought-a conclusion so absurd that It 10
of itself full and sufficient answer to everything
which can be said upon the subject.
That it was the understanding OF the trainers of
the constitution, that Congress did possess this pow
er, and ought to exercise it, (of course judciously
and fairly, is proved by the use made of the powers
"to regulate commerce" and to clay inposts," for
that expressly declared object in the FIRST session Of
the very first Congress held under the constitution
very many Of whose members had been members
| Of the convention which framed the constitution,
and Of the State conventions by which it had been
nti6ed.
The preamble Of the act Of the 9TH July, 1889, is
in these words:
Whereas is necessary for the support Of the govern
for the discharge Of the debts Of the United States
and the and protection NJ manufactures, that
duties be laid goods and merchaRdises: BE IL
eaScfsd," &c.
At that day no man denied the power or the duty
here assertcd-not a voice was raised in Congress
or in the country against it. w.
A uniform and practical sanction has been
given TO this power from the commencement
OF the government to the present time in many
acts Of Congress upon infinite variety Of
subjects and in all the tariff bills which have
been passed, all Of which admit and sanction
Il, indeed il is fully admitted by the bill now under
consideration. ... .....
j This doctrine may appear strange to some gentle
men, MIR. Chairman, but cannot help that. 1t is
| my duty 10 give my own sentiments and opinions
\ fairly and frankly. This have done; and in doing