North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1852, 1851-02-08
For the North Carolina Standard.
To the Legislature of North Carolina.

NO. b.
GENTLEMEN: In our last we ventured. with proper I
Difference trust, to question the constitutionaity
of the Gd v1lOren1 tax, impost duty, which you
propose-particuarly Discriminating as ii does. and
with the qualifications, contingent conditions an
nexed.
we have commenced writing upon this subject, our
views have materially changed. both its consti-
nationality, as we'll as 10 its expediency But as we
belong to that school of politicians whose dgments
are the result OF their understanding, never
fear proclaim the apprehensions of the one, well
follow implicitly the sober dictates of the other
though we should even cross the path of those in
whose wake we have often followed.
1t would be perfectly useless for US, we writ
ing our own signature, to make any profession
off, State rights; ;" neither shall attempt any
- disclaimer" when venture to speak OF State
obligations.
The language of all ought to be-that the States have
rights which shall be respectedthe States have duties
which should be performed. In adopting this Ian
guage, for the purpose of conveying the sentiment
do not wish to be understood even as Initiating
that the duty of obedience was less obligatory than
the duty to enforce obedience; by no MEANS on the
contrary, known duty cannot be postponed, but the
exercise of perfect right, for sufficient reasons,
may be.
But let proceed to the task before US. "No
State shall, without the of Congress, lay any
imposs, duties on imports exports, except what
may be absolutely necessary for executing its nspec
ton laws; and the nett proceeds of all duties and
imposts laid by any State imports exports shall
be for the of the Treasury of the United States;
and all such laws shall be subject the revision and
control of Congress-
These are the very words of the Federal Constitu-
ton, and they have both deep as well as hidden
meaning, and would be entirely inexpcable without
to the other parts of that instrument, as
well to the concurrent history of the day.
| Here too, and without wishing to tread on forbid
den ground (for if we know ourselves, we hold all
| party beneath this momentous question,) are
we forced to make an alluslon to protective lar
Interior object but merely to the rubbish from
our path, and TO defend the position which we now
take.
The Convention which formed the Federal Consti-
tution having refused to conde to the Congress of
the United States the power protect the domestic
industry" of the country, by any other than IS rev.
Tariff, it became obvious to the States that I'M
less this power resided somewhere. that cases would
arise actually requiring it, and if it be found
neither in the government in the States, that their
condition. so far from being improved by the Union,
would, as to this, be Preudced and seriously injured
Tor We all KNOW that before the adoption OF the Fed
! eral Constitution, some of them did exercise it.
The Convention on the other hand knew, that if
they left the power in the States, without the proper
limitations to its abuse, that imposts duties upon
imports by the States, might from improper spirit
be imposed, which would be met with retaliatory
enactments and finally destroy that fraternal feeling
which alone hold the States together. Although
they that there manifest necessity, that the
States should possess this power, yet they likewise
foresaw that discriminating against the productions
of each, rather too delicate prerogative to be
lodged in common " brotherhood without the
! watchful supervision of the common parent. Hence
the clause in question: and hence the for those
| limitations and restrictions.
The States it in the light, and readily
assen:ed to it. By combining the States to the amount
necessary to execute their inspection laws, hard
thoughts could would arise, and by requiring the
consent of Congress, Gf ever it becomes necessary
for legislative action to protect their domestic in
dnstry,") that consent would not be withheld /; for
horn hao- 49,
woI Id rather be imputed to necessity than choice !;
but in both instances the nett produce, AFTER deducting
the expenses incident to the first, would 60 into the
Federal Treasury" This, too was further restric-
ton to its abuse, and silent admonton to the
Legislatures that even in the exercise of the taxing
power, bearing upon Corporations - 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 question made Congress the Judge.
! They knew that notwithstanding this restriction,
that under the taxing power bel onging to the Staes
that in some momentary excitement the spi-
rit might be INDUCED in laying duties upon g i'm
ports, which would give rise to the retaation
and end in the discord Hence they add to the
latter part of the ella use, that all such laws shall be
subject to the revision and control OF Congress-tat
is laws of that kind of the like kind OF species such
as have essential identity kindred to the
/ Constitutional prohibition as...
Now. what is the COMMON affinity which are
endeavorng to point out First. that the power shall
not be imposed upon imports and exporis Second,
that if done it shall be restricted to the exception
expressed, and confined the exception implied,
both from the concurrent history of the times as well
as inferred from the words " subject the revision
and control of Congress- .'..
Let it not here be said that surrendering, Gd
h6item the taxing power of the State such thing
we are only affirming that it has bounds to its
else; that legislative discretion is circumscrbed in
its hitherto boundess range by the very spirit of the
clause stated Why should Congress wish to 6 re-
wise - CONTROL if they did fear its improper
exercise? A revision and control of Congress-for
i what! Obviously that Congress might see-frst
that the g inspection laws " made pretence
for the imposition of the duty. Second, that even
though be imposed for the protection of the State
manufactures, that they might that it done
bona tide. In other words, hold that although the
power of taxation with two Constitutional
imations) is plenary yet that State, through her
Legislature, has no right to impose discriminating
tax or duty, when it is obvious that her aim is
cripple the " production, and obtain revenue
and still less to advance the productive industry of
her people.
So careful were they to guard against every proba-
Bile cause of collision or angry feeling, that they
even say, nor shall any vessel, bound to or from
one State be obliged to enter, clear pay duties in
another a.-.
Why this restriction upon State taxation absolute
ly denying to the Legislature under any circumstan
cess, the imposition of any duty upon vessel
ing from one State to another? Unquestionably for
the purpose of interfering the general of
the nation, as well as the intermediate particular
exchanges of the States. Why busy themselves
with the vessels from port another, carrying
on the internal domestic exchanges2 For the again
reason, that the same spirit of rivalry, of jealousy,
of real supposed injury, would lead such abuse
as would be productive of retaliation and dscord,
and thus disturb the peace and harmony of the whole.
No.