Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-01-04

necessity now exists for increased revenue" and
earnestly to the consideration of the
Legislature "the proprety of laying tax upon all
the products Of the non-slaveholdng States offered
. for sale within our territory" And he adds, :"
g would also recommend that such tax be i'm.
. posed upon foreign goods imported through non
. slaveholding States, as will offer efectual en-
. couragement to direct importation into our own
" "ports." Here are acts recommended for the
avowed double purpose of taxing the products Of
other States, and also the merchandise imported
from them.
In the Constitution, power is given to Congress
g to regulate commerce with foreign nations and
among the several States, and with the Indian
tribes" Now, it will be observed that the same
power is given TO Congress over commerce among
the several States as with foreign nations; and
such is the doctrine of the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court has said, in the case of Glib
bons v.Ogden, commerce among the several States
" means commerce interminged with the States,
/" which may pass the external boundary Of each,
!" and be introduced into the Interior" And, in the
case of the United States v. Coombs, the Court
says that the commercial power Of Congress " does
!" not stop at the mere boundary line Of State
nor is it confined to acts done on the water, or in
/" the necessary course of the navigation thereof.
/" It extends 70 such acts, done land, which in
"ferfere Wih, obstruct, preuent the exercise Of
!" the poUer to regulate commerce and navigation
!" with foreign nations and among the States"
If the power to tax property brought into a
State, whether from abroad or from sister State,
shall be exercised as clearly to show an inten-
ton by the State to regulate commerce. it would be
void. And the classification which the Governor
makes between goods imported by the slave States
and the free ones, would show clearly that the mea-
sure was designed to regulate commerce. No State
can tar the products Of any other State, AS SUCH,
,ithout coming IN conflict a0ith the Consultation.
Such products may be taxed in common with simi-
lar products within the State, but not as the Cover
nor proposes.
A Legislature of State may select the objects
of taxat ion but if those objects selected as
materially to affect commerce among the States or
from abroad, and especially laid with the expressed
purpose Of SO doing, the tax would be unconstitu-
tonal. If this principle could be carried out as
proposed by Governor FLOYD, it would sapersede
the regulation of commerce by Congress, to which
body the Constitution has exclusively confded the
power. A State cannot do that indirectly which
the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.
This maxim, the soundness of which cannot be
questioned, strongly applies to the case under con-
sideraton.
1t has been remarked by Chief Justice MARSHALL,
and other members of the Bench, as is indeed
known to every one acquainted with the history Of
his own country, that necessity for the exercise
Of general power TO regulate foreign commerce
and commerce among the States, conduced more
than any other consideration to the adoption of the
Constitution. Before this was done, some of the
States, with view to advance their respective local
interests, adopted commercial regulations hostile tc
other States, and this, it was seen could only be
prevented by giving the commercial power to the
Federal Government. But if the course indicated
by the Governor of Virginia should receive the
sanction of the Legislature, and be carried out il
would subvert the Constitution. We do not be-
leve that the great State of Virginia, SO distin.
guished for its loyalty to the General Government
in times past will, by sanctioning the recommends
ton Of its Governor, occupy SO unenviabe posi-
ton in the Confederacy, and in the estimation Of
public opinion.
The opinion of Chief Justice RuFF1N, of North
Carolina referred to in the Richmond Enquirer /"
of the oath of December, (reported in Dev. & Bat.
lst vol. p. l9) goes no further, we presume, than
that Of Chief Justice MARSHALL, which was, above
stated, that, after an import becomes mixed up with
other property of the State, it is subject taxation
To subject it to taxation, therefore, it must be
mired up with other property in the State. But
the Governor of Virginia proposes to lay duty Of
ten per cent on all property from abroad brought
into the State, whether the product of the free
States or brought into Virginia through the i,,stru
,nenfalifu of those States. This would be tax
upon the import, and would violate that part of the
Constitution which declares that no State " shall
lay any imposts or duties on imports" &c.
A proposition so directly opposed to the positive
provisions of the Constitution, as tax by
Southern States upon the products of the free
States, one would have thought, had we not this
evidence to the contrary, could hardly be proposed
by any one who had ever read that instrument and
will surely, now that attention has been called to
it, never receive counenance, from either Govern
ors, legislators or People, who profess any respect
for that fundamental law.
In conclusion of our survey Of the actual state of
the relations between the General Government and