Southern standard., 1851-03-08
State IHdeDendence,

We resume this subject to-day, continuing our
reference to Judicial decisions with the view of
persuading our readers to adopt policy, which
has been too long neglected in the South When
the idea was first suggested, it was denounced by
the friends of the North as unconstitutional 1t
was affirmed that the State could not bv legisla-
ton, discriminate in taxation within her own limits
so as to encourage the labor and industry of her
own citizens, against the products and manufac-
lures of other States that this would violate that
clause in the Constitution granting to Congress
the power to lay duties, taxes and imposts-and
also the clause prohibiting the States from laying
duties on imports. 1t was urged also that the
power to regulate commerce with foreign nations
and between the States, DC, granted to the Fed
eral Government was in its nature, exclusive, and
that the States could not therefore by any dscrim
nation in taxation, give to her own citizens any
advantageous encouragement over the citizens of
other States. To satisfy those who made those
objections, of their utter falacy and to convince
our readers not only of right, but of the duty
OF our State to adopt policy in itself correct, and
IN Its action and results calculated to secure us that
respect and equal justice from our sister States
which have been long denied us-we have
put ourselves to some trouble to exhibit the au-
thorities, both historical and Judicial, which bear
upon this question. Those heretofore cited we
deem ample for the purpose. We cite however,
some additional cases to-day, and are informed
that many of like character might be cited from
the State courts of the various States.
The last we shall cite from the Supreme
Court of the United States is to be found in How
ards U. s. Reports, V. 7, p. 983-known as ssthe
passenger cases, in which it is determined by
five Judges against four dissenting that The stat
utes of New York and Massachusetts,, imposing
taxes upon alien passengers, arriving in the ports
of those States, were contrary to the Constitution
and laws of the United States, and therefore null
and void. This case, though certainly at war
with previous decision of the same Court and
rendered worthless a precedent, by the power
full opinions and reasoning of Messrs. Taney,
Woodbury., Daniel and Nelson-composing really
the mental strength of the Court-fully sustains
the doctrine that after the passengers " have
come within the limits of the State, they are
subject to taxation and such other Legislation as
the State may impose upon citizens classes
We extract from the opinion of Chief Justice Ia
ney, the following conclusive argument
Undoubtedly the ship, although engaged in the
transportation of passengers vehicle of commerce,
-and within the power of regulation granted to the
general government and assent fully to the doctrine
upon that subject laid down in the case of Gibbons
Ogden But it has always been held that the power
to regulate commerce does not give to Congress the
power it, prohibit the States from taxing it
in their own ports, and within their jurisdiction
The authority of Congress to lay taxes upon it is de-
rived from the express grant of power, the eighth
section of the first article lay and collect taxes du-
ties, imposts and excises, and the inability of the
States to it arises from the express prohibition
contained in the tenth section of the same article
ss This the construction of the Constitution at
the people of the States adopted it, and which has been
affirmed in the clearest terms by the decisions of this
Court.
In the thirty second number of the Federast, be-
fore referred and several of the preceding numbers
the construction of the Constitution the taxing
power of the general government and of the States is
very fully examined and with all that clearness and
ability which every where mark the abors of its dis
tinguished authors; and in these numbers, and more
especially in the above mentioned the construc-
ton above stated is given to the Constitution and sup
ported by the most conclusive arguments 1t main
tans that right of taxation which the States had
previously enjoyed was surrendered unless expressly
prohibited that it impaired by any affirmative
grant of power to the general government that du-
ties ON imports part of the taxing power, ana
that the States would have had right after the adop-
ton of the Constitution, to lay duties on imports and
exports, if they had not been expressly prohibited
" The grant of the power to regulate commerce,
therefore, did not in the opinion of Mr. Hamilton, Mr.