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

a. iIoSon lor thinking SO is, in
Toe hrst place, because, as far as thew have
oeen able to ascertain, the States in the
exercise OF the power of regulating com.
merce never extended it to the imnrove.
'heht or construction of harbors for com.
nerce' neither subsequent to nor before
me revolution, while colonies. Thew have
not Oeen able to find single instance of
! the sACTcIse or tue - p - VI
whlcn would warrant the conclusion that
SUCH harbors were included in the power.
ano' they may add as pertinent to the sub.
Ject, very few cases in the Legislation of the
country from which we draw our origin
and language that countenances an exten.
SION OF Inc power, so far as to embrace
tnem; and In the next, that the early acts
OF Congress afford no evidence that if re-
garded harbors of commerce to be en-
braced in It. The first appropriation thew
have been able to find, even for harbors
for shelter, was made in 1922, more than
thirty years after the commencement Of
| The government; and that, at first, only au-
thorIsed "the construction of two public
piers, of sufficient dimensions to be shell
ter TO vessels from ice." They refer TO
the break-water near the mouth of the
Delaware. The next appropriation was
in 1923, to survey the entrance of the har-
Dor OF Presque Isle, on Lake Erie, with
the view of removing distractions at its
mouth. In was not until 1927 that ap.
| preparations were made professedy for the
improvement of harbors, and not until
1928, when regular and expensive sys-
tenn was commenced of constructing and
improving them as part of the system Of
internal Improvement.
But as strong as 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-
| latlon of the external commerce of the
States with each other, as separate and
distinct communities; and cannot, as such,
act within the limits of the States beyond
what is indispensable 10 this execution.
| But 81 careful were the trainers Of the con-
stItulon TO guard against the abuse of pow
er, that they have not left it to inference
to determine to what extent it is indispen.
sable for that purpose. They have, by
provision of the instrument, fixed the pre-.
else limits. Your committee refer 10 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 the
vessels of all the States within and from
the limits of each other. But, with that
exception, the harbors of State are az
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 power wholly inter dltoS; so
much so, indeed, as to require this addi-
tonal, or, as it may be fairly called, sup
Elemental power, to secure to the vessels
of other States the right 10 enter, clear,
and be exempt from duty, both in their in
gress and egress. The conclusion would
seem to follow. irresstibly, that power
so strictly inter dlloS cannot be extended
so as to embrace the improvement or con-
structIon of commercial harbors. The
case of harbors for shelter is different
They relate directly to the safety OF COM
merce. in It's transit from State to State,
and are in character and object the same
as public piers, and come, as such, fairly
under the power to regulate commerce.
The case is also different in reference TO
naval stations or harbors. They come un-
|. der another power-that s'to provide and
: maintain navy.
But if additional evidence should be re.
J CURED TO show that commercial harbors
are not embraced by the power, another
: provision of the constitution, and the prac-
: tice of the government under it, will fur
nish conclusive proof. Your committee
} refer to that which provides that ''no State
shall, without the consent of Congress,
lay any imposts or duties on imports or
exports, except what may be absolutely
necessary for executing lis inspection laws;
r and the net produce of all duties and i'm
| posts laid by any State on imports or ex-
. ports shall be for the use of the treasury
1, of the United States; and all such laws
shall he subject to the revision and con-
, troll of the Congress. No State shall
without the consent of Congress, lay any
: duty on tonnage" We find IN this pro-
!, vision a material difference between the
power reserved to the States to lay, with
!, the consent of Congress, duties on imports
and exports, on the one hand, and on tom
naoe on The other. In the former 1t IS e4.
} pressly provided that the proceeds . snall
! oass into the treasury of the United States'
vb;la in the other it is left without any
snch nrovision at the disposal of the State
4 ;o,noS,no them. There must be a reason
3 for the distinction; and it would be dim
a cult to assign any other than tnat Is VIC.