Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1851-02-15
This right is only con


in a few specified cases. This right is only con-
current
Chancellor Livingston was followed and ably
supported by Mr.. Hamilton, who was hmseh
member of the Federal Conyention-one OF Its most
efficient members, than whom, no man more fully
understood the meaning and intention OF the clause
in question. To procure its adoption by the State
that had honored him with her confidence, he ex-
Mains what the Federal Convention had designed
what mower was conferred on the New Govern
n,e,t what power was reserved to the States, on
tho subject Of taxation with regard to the Ju-
risdiction of the two Governments, SAID he,)
shall certainly admit that the Constitution ought
to be so formed as not to prevent the States from
nroyidinp for their own existence and MAINTAIN
that if is so formed-and that their power OF pro-
vidne for themselves, is sufficiently established.
This is conceded by one gentleman, and IN the next
breath the concession is retracted. lie says Con-
Dress has bit one erclusiye right in taxalon-that
Of imports. Certainly, then, these other powers
are only concurrent But to take off the force fthls
obvious conclusion, he Immediately says that the
laws of the United States are supreme; and that
where there is one supreme, there cannot be con-
current authority-And further, that where the
laws of the Union supreme those OF the States
must be Observation-Disclosures there cannot be two
superiors. This is curious sophistry. That two
supreme powers cannot act together, Is false They
are inconsistent only when they are aimed at each
other or at one indivisible object. The laws ofthe
United States are supreme as to all their proper
Constitutional ends.-The laws of the States are
supreme in the same way. These supreme laws
NAV act on different objects without clashing-or
they may operate on different parts of the same
common object, with perfect harmony ."-(See Ell
lots Debates, VOL 1, ps. SIS u 516.)
Again, on page 321, Mr.. Hamilton argues this
question most lucidly, as follows:
s'Sir with respect to the subject of revenue,
which was debated yesterday, it was asserted that
in all matters of taxation except in the article of
imposts the united and individual states had con-
current jurisdiction that the state governments
had an independent authority, to draw revenues
from every source but one. The truth Of these
positions will appear slight investigation. L
maintain that the word supreme imports no more
than this that the constitution, and laws made in
pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled defeat
ed by any other law. The acts of the Z. States,
therefore, will be absolutely obligatory, to all
the proper objects and powers of the general 60
vernment. The states, well as individuals, are
bound by these Lawsuit the laws of Congress
are restricted to certain sphere, and when they
depart from this sphere, they no longer supreme
or binding In the same manner the states have
certain Independent powers, in which their lars are
Supreme for example, in making and executing
laws concerning the punishment of certain crimes
such as murder, theft, &c. the states cannot be
controlled. With respect to certain other objects,
the power of the two governments are concurrent,
and yet supreme. | instanced, yesterday, tax
on any specific article. Both might lay the tax
both might collect it without clashing or interfe-
renee. If the individual should be unable to pay
BOTH the first seizure would hold the property
Here the laws not in the way of each other
they are independent and supreme. The case is
like that of two creditors each has distinct de-
lmand; the debtor is held equally for the payment
iof both. Their suits independent and, if the
debtor cannot pay BOTH he who takes the first STEP
secures his debt The individual is precisely in the
same situation, whether he pays such sum to one
or to two. No more will be required of him to sup
ply the public wants, than he has ability to afford
That the states have an undoubted right to Law
taxes in all cases in which they not prohibited
is a position founded on the obvious and important
principle in confederated governments, that what
ever is not expressly given to the federal head is
reserved to the members
Mr.. Jay concurred in the same view, on D. 338,
and Chancellor Livingston said on p. 341, ''The
truth is, the States and the United States are both
supreme AS to national objects, the latter is SUI
preme. As to internal and domestic objects, the
, former. can only conceive of joint tenures and
Joint jurisdiction without CONTROL
In the Virginia Convention, M. Madison take.
the same view of the powers of the Government
, and of the States.
Indeed, contemporaneous authority is abun-
dant, that further prosecution of the subject un
der this head would be an unnecessary trespass or
/ the attention of our readers-We therefore leave
it this week, with the promise that the subject viii
be resumed in our next-and examined as a iudcia
question: with references to authorities which have
been politely furnished by friend of the lega
profession.
Organization.
In casting about us for general and full organized
plan of operations have and are meeting dali,
with views and opnions,-not in regard to the grea
=