Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-05-01

charge i therefore an iinpost uuly Oh iinpoits,
anJ prohibited 20 the States ny the second clause
Of thr tenth section Of the first article.
This objection as well as others which have
previously noticed, is in direct conflict with de-
cisons heretofore made by this court. The
point was directly presented IN the case Of
Milne ". The City OF New York. ii Pel, lO2,
and was there deliberately considered, and ths
court decided that passengers cearI. were Dol
imports. This decision is perfectly III accord
ance with the defnltion of the word previously
given in the case of Brown vs.. Maryland, IL
Wheaton, 4l9. Indeed ii not only accofds
with this definition, bu, with the long establish
ed and well Sc tied meaning oi the word For
think II nay be safely affirmed that both III
England and IN this Country the words imports
and importation IN statutes, 10 statistlca taoies,
IN official reports and IN public debates, have
uniformly been applied 10 articles Of property
ard never TO passengers voluntarily coming 10
the county III ships; and III the debates oil the
convention itself The words are constantly So
used The members OF the convention unques-
tlonaby used the words they inserted in the
Constitution IN the same sense in which they
used them in their debates. II was their object
10 be understood and not TO mislead. and they
words in new or unusual sense. And there IS
no reason to suppose That they did not use The
word "imports," where they inserted II in the
Constitution, in the sense IN which i had been
familiary used for ages, and in which Il wa
daily used by themselves. II this court IS al
liberty TO give old words new meanings, where
We find them in the Constitution, there IS nc
power which may not by this mode Of construc
ton be Conferred on the general government
and denied to the States.
But II The piain,lf uld succeed in maintain
Ing that passengers were imports, aud maj inc
money demanded was a duy On imports he
would al The sane tme prove that u belongs !,
The United States and rot t. hun, and consequent
ly ,ha. ne IS moi entitled 10 recover II. The ~
section OF The Isl article pfuhios Stale ron
laying any duly on Imports or exports e&cep
what may be absolutely necessary Tor the eXccu'
lion OF lis Inspection laws. Whaleyer Is necrs
sary Tor lEdt purpose may therefore be lad oy me
state without The previous consent Il Consrrs,.-
II passengers are imports, then Their coniilup
may BE- examined and inspected b. an office, 81
the state like ANY oiher import, lcf The purpose
oil asceEiainng whether ney may not when and-
ed bring disease or pauperism INTO The SAFE. roi
II the Stale is bound 10 permit them 10 land, rs
lhISSuo JCh illC llSHt W huO" ~ iHN1S
danger, that they may endravOr arrest i, or I,
escape from II. They lave, therefore, under ine
clause Of he constitution above INT ntioned, the
power IL lay duiy on this import, as II IS cali
ed, 10 pay Inc necessary expenses Of The inspcc-
ton. IL i, however, SAID that more than sum
cient 10 pay he necessary expenses OF the lnsprc-
lion was collected, and that The duty was lad al
50 for other purposes. This is rue. But il does
no! follow thai he parry who paid the money IS
entitled 10 recover il back from The State. On The
contrary, il IS expressly provided IN me clause
above mentioned that ihr nett produce OF all du'
lies and impusls laid by any Stale On imports or
exports, shall BE- !uf The use OF the treasury oil the
United States. II, therefore, these passengers
ware Imports WITHIN Inc meaning OF inns Clause
OF the constitution and The money ~ question a
duty on imports, then the melt produce or sur
plus, alter paying the necessary expenses oil IN,
spec ion, belongs 10 the treasury oil The Uni'ed
Stales. Iae pain'ilf has no right to II, AMI can
not maintain suit Tor II. l. is appropriated,
og the express words OF thc Constitution 10 the
Enued states, and ih-y and they alone, would
nave figni 10 claim II liom the SaIe, me a.
gument, however, tia! passengers are imports IS
in my Judgment, mos evidently withouI any rea.
sonabe iouGiallon.
The only emaining topic which seems 10 re-
Qul!e examination, IS the objection mat me
money demanded is a tax on the captain OF he
vessel and therefore regulation Of commerce
This arsumenl, think, sG!licienily answered
by what ! have already SAID as 10 me real ano
tue character Of the transaction and the rela
tive powers OF Tie Union and M STATES. bui
nroceet 10 inquire whether il the law oil Massa
rhusetls be tax, it's not legitimate exercise
nj us taxing power, putting ash Tor The pres
on, The other considerations herrlnbrfOre meh-
,,on.d. and which | think amply sufficient tt
maintain lis validity.
Undoub.e lily The snip, although engaged IN
the transportation ol passengers, i vrhicie
commerce, and within the power ol regulation
Granted 10 The general government. Anu a.
sent fully 10 he GOCtrlGe upon that subject laI'
town in The case OF Gibbons W. Ogden But !
has ALWAYS been held mat The power 10 reeuia''
commerce does not give 10 Congress the po"ei
10 lax il, nor prohibit lhe States from taxing y
IN their own porls and within their own JufisdIc
lion The authority OF Congress IL lay taSe'
mon il is derived from the express grant .
n,vrr in The Sin section OF the 81 ART. 10 LAY
and collect taxes, Gutie>, impo>is ahd eAtisss
and the inab,iily OF the States 10 AK II, airs
from the express pIohibiiun cod.alncd H. th'
lOh section Of the same article.
This was the CONSTRUCTION ol me consti'ui "r
a, the lime OF is adoption--ihe cons ruclion ub
d,r wh,ch The people OF the States afoped u
and which has been affirmed IN the cleare>
terms by The decision al mis- Court.
In the 32i nnmber OF the Fedetalisl, heicfe re-
,erret d. and severdl OF Inc preceding numhefs
N. construction Of the Constitution "a 10 The ia \
IN, nower Of The Central Government and OF NJ
States. is very tully examined, ard win al ~"
cl.arn.ss and ability win h everywhere Ha'H lh'
l,hors Of us dIstinguIshe,. anthcrs. Ah' u
,ha.. numbers, and more especially ~ 'he ou'
ahove mentioned, The CONSTRUCTION d"o'c S'a''
= given Ia the Constitution ana supporter y
-. mos, conclusive arguments. IL mdihtalh'
maj M right u taxation when me oldses MAJ
20. '.:,,.,v erio ed was surrendered, unless cx
nre.sly prohibl,cc; that Il was not impaired ~
any affirmative grant Of power Ia me Geneid
Governments; that duties on imports were par
OF Inc taxing power; and that The States wun''
have right, alter the adoption VI Inc Cons'Hn
ton, 10 lay duties on Imports AID exports, u 'hey
had not been expressly prohibited The sra OF me
mower 10 regulate commerce therefore, d'd no! "
The opinion OF Mr.. Hamilton, Mr. Madison am
Mr.. JAY, prohibit ne States from laying ''npost'
and duties upon imports brought INTO lner owl
territories. Ii dhi mol apply 10 the right Of TAXA
lun in either sovereignty The Iaxlbs power De-
ing distinct and separate power from Inc rrsu
lall0n OF COIDfIleICc. fluu tS iiSH' - 'o~"'S'
in The States remaining over every sutJeci "ners
il before existed, with the exception only oil those
expressly prohibited.
This construction as given By the FedrraiIs
was recognized as the true one, anG alnfmei by
mis- conf in the case ui Gibbons vs.. Osden, y
Wheat. Dol. The passage upon IT'S 81 lec' IS
so clear and iorcible, thai quote he WORD" used
in the opinion OF the couTl which was delivered
nv Chief Justice Marshall: "ln a sepa ale clause
he says) The power 10 regulate commerce IS
eiven as entirely distinct from The ''shI 10 levy
taxes and imposts, and as being new power n"'
before conferred The conslnunon then consi-
d.rs those powers as substantive and DISTINCT ron
each Other, and SO places 'hem 10 me enumefa-
non i, contains. The power u imposing dutI-s
nm imporis is classed wiih The power 70 levy TAX
>. and that seems t. be its natural place. But
The power 10 levy taxes could never De Consider
Cd as abtideing The right OF the States on thai
subiecr and they might consequently have exer'
cised il BY levyng duties on imports or Exports
had The constitution contained no prohibition up.
an The subject This prohibition then IS an ex-
csplion rom the acknowledged power .! 'ht
states 10 levy axes, not from Inc questionable
mower 10 regulate commerce"
With such authorities 10 support me, SO clear
tv j, nd pxnlrIy stating The doctrine ii cannot bt