The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-03-23

hose who would have desired TO include ifslshl WI
Winthrop had introduced 10 the Ssnaie bill including
fysight as part of the home valuation. That OH war
referred, on his motion. to Mr. Hunters commitiee-
When Mr. Hunter reported his bill, in The same de
bate on the same day. Mr. Winthrop said
"Imsy be allowed al o say that the amendment wnieh
e.pseed thsy would report had ilhe or no hope una
they would be willing acoede al once 10 ue P1pl
home valuation which contained IN tho o,'k''a o
nd although believe that his principle wonld De very
great provement ia revenue system ana e :,
20 be adopted ysem OF universal a" enf"s t,ns -
sin TO be maintained, am yet ready TO make stil
necessity and submit the posiponement Of mar P'op
10 a more suspicious and convenient season, Ia oa
words sir am ia favor OF securing whatever improve
men may be found practicable IA our revenue y.inn
under existing circumstances, and al The present session
instead of sking the substantial good which may oe WIN.
in grasp by any vain struggle TO accomplish so0"'"h
The amend ent- which the committee ha3e framed 70
remedy the effects Of ha ndcl aeeS, e,,snTon Of he
senate other day, and which has teceny oeen con
rmed by he supreme Coua OF ,he m me soscon
and am therefore Tor aaopnng .nsn Of
they reported, without Insisting upon the PROVISIONS
the bin as originally introduced
81 cannot help adding however, in single word, tina,
in my humble Judgment the great work OF remeay"s "s
evils OF our present system will stl remain 10 Dc
performed"
Here precisely the construction is gwen 10 me Dill
by Mr. Winthrop and with this explanation passed Inc
Senate unanimously. Mr.. Hunter. who introduced H.
and majority othe Senate who passed il, are known
to be opposed to including freight in assessing duties
vet different Interpretation is sought to be gwen TO
their act-and this too when they adopted the same Ian
euage in this respect which had received settled con-
structlon excluding freight, from 1912 to 1851
g. The same construction was given in the House,
which had rejected the home valuation. and all increase
of duties in any form. Such, also, was the known
opinion Of the Committee Of Ways and Means OF the
House, and of Mr.. Bayly their chairman. Yet Mr.
Bayly from this committee, reported this very bill, and
il passed the House nearly unanimously. Mr. Bayly
has spoken for himself in the following letter:
RICHMOND, March ID. 1851.
:" To the Editors of the Enquirer:
"GESrIEMEN My attention has just been called to your
G s and a"o 10 the one which o%
it. from The Hartford Times, under the caption important
Increase OF the Tariff
The article from the Times full of errors, is
much your article as based upon lis statements and
Dot ne in detail, which regret, as lind
the law referred 10 l. much misunderstood Bui may say
that makes no change whatever IN The tar1 o. ioio
construed and Administered, from the period OF It's enact
down the late decision OF the Supreme Court by
Mr. Pols's Gen Taylor, and the present m,n'straon
AS you correctly remark the first paragraph OF your art
ce the bill raihrs and the circulars and
,sesabsaes' the tariff of 49, as understodby rs trainers
1t pance OF the Supreme Court which puts
construction upon the tariff OF 1916 Ia conllict win he
construction which has prevailed at toe treasury does
that and does except to authorize the appoint
ment Of appraisers al large The appointment Of then
necessary produce tina, uniformity In the du,ie'
levied the ports which required by the constltu
Mr.. Walker earnestly recommended the bill IN all oil
lis provisions 1t necessary TO continue the iarh Of
49, which has been emineniy successful as he had CON
sued a nd administered II.
ofhe Times law rally smnggled through
Congress No bill carefully considered II was
in the Senate long anybody chose TO discuss
it, and pa ssed body opposition The char
as % 'o IN the Honse of The
ntreIfv tax
BILE yet upon my motion, and alter brie
statement from me, was passed. scarcely with dissent
In great haste have the honor be, respectful
- '''' 9TH. II. BAYLY."
| Here the two chairnen who introduced the bill both
declare s object TO be, 10 gsre the force Of lao TO Mr.
Walk ers circulars and Congress do by unaaiato u,
the Senate, and nearly unanimous vote in the
House. than which a higher compliment could not be
paid by Congress 10 any official act
Mr. Walker, it thus appears gave the same consruc-
ton Messrs Hunter and Bayy to this BILL and learn
estly recommended it. Indeed, we know that Mr..
Walker gave the construction to this act, simply
reatming his circular by decaratoy enactment, and
SO stated both TO the friends and foes OF higher tariff
T. To include freight from the foreign port TO our
own would be fragrant violation of the constitution.
That instrument declares in section that All duties,
imposs and excuses shall be uniform throughout the
United States" And in section il declares that " No
preference shall be given by any regulation OF commerce
or revenue 10 the ports OF Stale over those OF
another" Now, to include the freight from the ioreign
port 10 each OF our own in assessing the duty would
violate both these clauses Of the constitution As TO the
first all duties must be uniform throughout the United
States Now, LET us take the Of coal We will ray
ton OF coal in Nova Scotia two dollars, and that
the freight to Boston is dollar per ton, TO Baltimore
two dollars TO New Orleans four, and TO San Francisco
twelve dollars the duty the Ton of coal would be a
Boston ninety cents, a, Baltimore 81 30, at New Orean,
81 3d. and at San Francisco 81 90 1t plain that such
duties are not uniform throughout the United States
nav it is clear that they encounter the very objection
to want of uniformity, which existed under the old
confcderacy, and wa, remeded by the constitution.
Again: it is evident that such duties, by making the
give preference" by regulation of commerce OF
eveaue" the port OF Boston the ports Of Baltimore
New Orleans and San Francisco. II will be conceded
that an act placing dferen, duty coal imported into
various ports OF The Union would be unconstitutional
We, this is what done by adding the freight the val.
uation II is an inracton of the constitution, eva
sion accomplishing the result Of higher and differ
en-, duties by other words and in the language Of the
Supreme Court of the United States ian evasion OF the
lconstution is violation of the constitution" Now
such construction Of POSSIBILITY be given 10
any law TO render il unconstitutional