The North-Carolinian., 1851-02-15

ato:y enactments. and finally destroy ths
fraternal feeling which can alone hold til
States together. Although they saw ti;
there was manifest necessity. that til
States should possess this power. yet the
likewise tOresaw that discriininatin
against the productions of each. was ratt
er too delicate a prerogative to be lodged j
common ''brotherhood.' without TN
ever-watchful supervision of the common
parent. Hence the clause in question
and hence the reasons for those ii:uitation
and restrictions.
The States saw it in the same light. ant
readily assented to it. By contining III,
States to the amount necessary to execute
their inspection laws, no hard thought.
could or would arise, and by requiring the
consent of Congress, IF ever it becomes
necessary for legislative action to protec,
their ''domestic industry.') that cunsent
would not be withheld: for here. too. the
motive being obvious. the consequences
would rather be imputed to necessity than
choice; but IN both instances the nett pro.
duce, after deductins the expenses incident
to the hrst. would go ''nto the Federal
lreasury.' This. too, was a further re-
strcton to its abuse, andi was a silent
admonlt'on to the Legislatures. that even
IN the exercise OF the taxing power, bear
ing upon ''lmportations'' that it should
never be made to discriminate against the
peculiar industry of the States, without
obvious necessity, of which necessity. in
this particular instance. the clause in uues-
ton made Congress the Judge.
Ihey knew that Notwithstanding this
restriction, that under the taxing power
belonging to the States, that in some mo.
mentary excitement the same spirit might
be ndulged in laying duties upon .sim-
ports" which would give rise to the same
retaliation, and end in the same discord.
Hence they add to the latter part of the
clause, that all such laws shall be
subject to the revision and control Of
Congress-that is. laws Of that kind, of
the like kind Or Species; such as have an
essential identity or common kindred, to
the Constitutional prohibition
Now what is the common affinity which
we are endeavoring to point out? First
that the power shall not be imposed upon
''impor,s and exports.'' Second. that if
done, 1t shall be restricted to the excep-
ton expressed, and confined to the excen-
ton implied, both from the concurrent
history Of the times, as well as inferred
fro" the words ''subject to the revision and
Of Congress.
Let 1t not here be said tnat we are sur
rendering. uI Hbifuna, the taxing power of
ne State; no such thing; we are only af-
nrming that 1t has bounds to its exercises
hat legislative discretion is circumscribed
II It's hitherto boundless range, BY the
very spirit ot the clause stated \Nhy
should Congress wish to .srevise:' or soon
rol, 1t they did not fear its improper ex.
reese! a revision and central OF Con-
,ress-for what? Obviously that Congress
night sce--iirst, that the '.inspection
avs were not made pretence for the
IMPOSITION OF the duty. Second, ,'that even
hough 1t be imposed for the protection of
he State manufactures, that they might
ee that 1t was done bona fde. In other
lords, we bold that although the power Of
aXatlon with one or two Constitutio nal
IS plenary; yet that State.
through her Legislature, has no right to
impose discriminating tax Or duty, when
Is obvious that her aim is to cripple the |
production, and not to obtain revenue.
nd still less to advance the productive in
ustry of her people.
so careful were they to guard against
very probable cause Of collision or ansry +
'eilns, that they even say .'nor shall any
essel, bound tn or from one State. be-
oilsed to enter, clear or pay duties in
lother.''
Why this restriction upon State taxa
on absolutely denying to the Legislature,
lder any circumstances, the imposition
any duty upon vessel coming from one
tate to another? unquestionably for the
irpose OF unfettcrins the general com
cree at the nation. as we'll as the inter. {
edlatc or particular exchanges of the +
ates. Why busy themselves with the
'ssels from one port TO another, carrying
J the internal domestic exchanges? For
e again reason that the same spirit OF 6
vairy. OF jealousy, Of real or supposed IN c
ry, Woui! lead to such abuse as would ,
productive of retaliation and discord,
ID thus disturb the peace and harmony of
e whole. O
Now we know full well that State has !
right to tax merchandise, and that she t
S right to tax all those '.who peddle in b
y county goods not of the growth or y
anufacture of this State," and that North a
lroIina has already exercised this right
llch has likewise been affirmed by de-
'ion OF the Supreme Court of the State. '
either are we ignorant that cases have /
en- adjudicated in the Supreme Court of a
e United States, affirming the right of
States to tax merchandise afterit shall
We become incorporated With the COM Il
N mass Of the citizen's property. Il
'lllls we do not deny. when the tax Is {,
posed IN good faith for revenue. For
en- the tax SO loses that identity or COM