Weekly miners' express. (DuBuque, Iowa) 184?-1849, 1848-12-26
NO. II.

No 11s
amount Of the interest, and render aug.
mented taxes necessary. The operation
and necessary effec, Of the whole system
were, to encourage large and extravagant
and thereby increase the
public patronage, and maintain rich and
expensive government, at the expense Of
a taxed and impoverished people.
1t is manifest that this scheme Of en-
larged taxation and expenditures, had il
continued to prevail, must soon have con-
verted the government Of the Union-in-
tended by its founders to be plain, cheap
and simple confederation Of States, united
together for common protection, and char.
ged with few specific duties relating
chiefly to our foreign affairs; into con-
so!idated empire, depriving the States Of
their reserved rights and the people Of
their just power and control in the adj
ministration Of their government. In
this manner, the whole form and charac.
ter Of the government would be changed
not by an amendment Of the constitulica.
but by resorting to an unwarrantable and
unauthorized construction Of that instru.
ment.
The indirect mode Of levying the tax
es by duty on imports prevented the
mass of the people from readily perceiy-
ing the amount they pay, and has ena-
bled the few who are thus enriched and
who seek to WELD the political power Of
tho country, to deceive and delude them.
We're the taxes direct levy upon the
people, as is the case in the States, this
could not occur. s..
The whole system was resisted from its T.
inception by many ofour ablest statesmen
and some Of whom doubted its constitu-
tionality and expedency, while others
believed it was, in all its branches, fla
grant and dangerous inrraction Of the
constitution.
That National Bank; Protective
Tariff, levied, not TO raise revenue
needed, but for protection merely; Inter-
mol Improvements, and the Distribution
Of tho proceeds Of the sales Of public lands,
are measures without the warrant Of the
constitution, would upon the maturest
consideration, seem 10 be clear. II is re-
markabIe that no one of these measures,
involving such momcntuous consequences
are authorized by any express grant Of
power in the constitution. No one Of
| them is incident to, as being necessary
and proper for tho execution Of the speci
tic powers granted by the constitution
The authority under which it has been
attempted 10 justify each Of them, is deri-
we'd from differences and construction Of
the constitution, which its letter and ito
whole object and design do not warrant.
Is it to be conceived that such immense
powers would have been left by the franz
ers of the constitution to mere infe renee
and doubtful construction, had it been in
tended to confer them or the federal gov
eminent? 1t is but reasonable to con-
Guide that i wo,,la -t.-.'~ --haen done by
plain dno10lequivocal grants. THIS was
not done but the whole structure Of which
the ''American system" consisted, was
reared on no other or better foundation
than forced Interpretation and differences
of power which its authors assume nigh.
be deduced by construction from the con.
stitution.
But it has been urged that the Na:ion-
al Bank (Which, SO constituted, is so es-
sential q branch of this confirmed system
Of u:easures) was not new measure aud
that its consttutionality had been sane
toned in 1871, and had the official sigma
ture Of President Washington. A few
facts will show the just light to which
this precedent should be entitled, as bear
ing upon the question Of its constitution
atty.
Great divisions Of opinion upon the sub
ject existed in Congress. It is we'll
known that President Washington enter
tanned serious doubts both as to the con.
stitutionalily and exped;ency Of the mea.
sure; aud while the bill was before him
for his official approval or disapproval, 50
great we.e these doubts that he required
:',he opinion in writing" Of the members
of his cabinet to aid him in arriving al
decision. His cabinet gave their opinion
and were divided upon the subiect-Gen.
Hamilton in favor, and Mr.. Jefferson and
Mr.. Randolph being opposed to the con-
stitutionality and expediency. 1t is we'll
known, also, that President Washington
retained the bill from Monday, the l4th,
when it was presented to him, until Fri
day, the Gath Of February, being the last
moment permitted him by the constitu-
ton, when he finally yielded TO give his
reluctant assent and gave it his signature.
II is certain that as late as the Esd Of
February-being the 9th day after the
bill was presented to him--he had arriv-
ed a; no satisfactory conclusion, for on
that day he addressed note % General
Hamilton, in which he says that ..,his
bill was presented to me by the joint COM
mittee OF Congress, at l2 o'clock on Nor
day, 18th instant," and no requested
his opinion to what precise period BY le-
gal Interpretation Of the constitution could
the President retain il in his possession.