North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1852, 1851-02-19
For the North Carolfna Standard.
TO the Legislature of North Carolina

merchandise OF the growth, manufacture OF Proou
of the non-slaveholding States " which shall be
brought into this State why would Luther Martin
and other Delegates from Maryland, so strongly nave
protested against the former part OF the End clause oil
the 10th section! -,
Recolect that his objection was, that this clause
prohibited the States from extending any pro-
lection to their own manufactures. His very IAN
guaue was, that they might have the power 10 lay
tax duty to discourage the importatl' OF par
ticuar articles into State :" and eVsn that was de-
MED and " all that could gef," says Mr. Martin,
was that the power might be exercised with and
only with the consent of Congress-.
Now, we argue that if power, for as laudabe a
purpose as that commended for, withheld, with
out the qualifications actually imposed, that those
very restrictions have narrowed down the limits of
your legislative discretion, and actually restrict you
from the imposition of any tax whose object is to
prevent free and untramelled interchange of the eX-
changeable commodities of the respective States.
We say that such duty as has been proposed by
the joint select committee upon slavery would be a
discriminating tax, and would therefore be at Varl-
with the st clause of the end section of the Attn
article of the federal Constitution, which says that
the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the
privileges and inmunities of citizens OF the several
States"
Now let US see if this is not denied by tile duty
proposed; let is if there not both privileges
and mmunities extended to the one and denied to
the other.
Two merchants, the one from New York, and the
other from Charleston, import directly cargo OF Brit
Ism I6nCn lnlO PoltSS ouI
finding overstock they re-shiP those very goods
and consgn them to house in Wilmington. On
their arrival, the goods of that New York mere liant
are subject the tax, while those of the Charleston
merchant are allowed to be sold free of duty.
The proposition before you goes to this extent tor
it says growth, manufacture product of non-slave-
holding States, and the goods, though neither grown
manufactured the products of their States that
is, of its commerce, which is the same thing Is not
this express violation ;of the clause referred 10
[ a well
extended to the and withheld from the other, then
know not the meaning of those plain constitution
al words. Even though confined to the growth
or manufacture, the result would follow. These
then for doubling its constltutIonalty
Is it, then, - bona fde' your intention to provide
for the execution of your inspection laws! If it be-
then only 1.-THE of the 10 per cent is required and
the Yankees, whose tender sensbiites indeed IN
their breaches pockets, would laug h TO scorn such
childish play.
1t is true that you may obtain the same end by
different means, and thus avoid any Intracon OF the
letter; but then will not such be violation OF the
spirit, and does it not become you to have proper
regard for both
Recoect that it is for violation of this very in
strument that you so loudly and so justly COM
plains and do not be guilty of even seeming inrac-
ton yourselves, although it be done with the admit
ted praiseworthy motive in view.
By the proposed, and to the extent you propose
you derange the entire mercantile interests OF your
State; you drive that worthy class, either into new
business, which their business hdOltS quallly
them, you compel them to submit to loss. GU
do worse than this, you cripple your banks; and,
still, you institute in the merchants store the
real blue bucket Yankee pedlar, whose very breath
infess the moral atmosphere wherever he goes.
But it is said that State cannot secede, because
that Withdrawing from the Union involves common
loss to the whole. Now let for moment
the extent to which this argument goes. 1t converts
a confederacy, entered into for certain well defined
and specific objects into government of unlimited
WI he Of whole. considered
whole consulted, regardless of the interests
of the parts 1t strikes the very root of State
eregnty and substitutes in its stead the people,,
and we, the States. What possible limitation of
power would such government have =
Admit, to the fullest extent, that secession would
seriously affect the prosperity of the remaining States,
nay, that II would be runous to by-far the greater
part, what does this admission involve Not the
right but the proprety of taking such step. If the
Princip be admitted that State has right TO with
draw under any circumstances, the very admission
involves and draws after it another admission, that
whatsoever majority in Congress proper to do,
that irresponsible majority has the right to do; and
that nothing is left you but the right of revolution.
What kind of government would that be !!
government of limited powers, and yet when those
powers transcribed redess short of revolu- :
tion But secession is not revolution in the true i'm
port of that terms it is any thing but revolution All
revolutions of which history gives any account sought
change in the organic law. No with secession
she seeks no change in the Constitution, she is salts
fed with 1t as 1t is she has already her organic
law, her own Executive, Legislative and Judicial de-
partments in Short every thing calculated to be pre-
motive of the welfare of her people and if the gen.
eral governu.en to become extinct tomorrow,
lar as her political organism is concerned, her people
would be as happy and as merry as the lark.
What produced the revolution in England in 1888!
Nothing but the abuses which grew out of the alb
dication of the King and the establishment of the
house of Orange upon the throne.
What caused the American Revolution1 Nothing
but the abuses of the British parliament. Now be-
cause 1t is admitted that it is the usurpation of unau-
horized power by the Congress of the United States
that causes SECESSION it is commended that sec, sson
IS revolution than which nothing is more illogical
is true that the Revolution of 1885, was caused by
abuses OF the British parliament; it is likewise true
that the American Revolution was produced in the
same way, and that " secession" grows out of the
abuses OF Congress- but it does not follow therefore,
that secession is revolution.
There a marked difference in the cases rsfpr
ed 10, both in 1858 well I776 in each there was
legitimate tie subsisting, which constituted them
one nation, people, which nothing short of reroh
and physical force could break. Not so with us: we
are only one people for defence and attack and for
whatever involves national honor but for every thino
else, we are separate and distinct and as sovereipn
ties are only bound together by compact or agreement
no longer obligatory than the compact has been oh
served. |
But it.has been sad Sc if the reserved RIGHTS of tho
States confer upon them the mode and measure of
redress whenever they shall consider themselves ao
greVe1' ,nat makes the reserved rights paramount
to the federal Constitution ITSELF and establishes
principle at war with all written inst ruments-tbat
more is understood than expressed
Are not IS reserved rights" paramount to the Con.
stItntion If they be not, then indeed have we read
mat instrument to but little effect. What means this
language! The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution. nor prohibited by il to the
States, are reSerued to the States IF thew