Columbus Democrat., 1851-01-25
Tl. L. = q 3. 81. 80.

/ A"@ 4 Aa4uAt AeaT or ne Hi1e Ganeruuflia
The power to'ag and eollsct taxes, is aaaltributs
Of SOFsEsinEly which has MOI been parted viii b.
the usseTa States Of thisconis8eey, except ih eer-
tain vel defined eases, specified in the constitution
Of the United States. The restriction, upon the
taGiag powers Of the States, was regarded BY the
fathers Of the constitution as Necessary Tor the peace
and prosperity Of the several States; and at the
same time to enable the federal government to pro-
vide the means Tor Is support
Power is delegated 10 The federal government " 10
lay and collect duties, taEes iHpons and ereises"
[Ar. l, sec. 8 and the 10Th section declares that
no State shall, U.th0w he consent gf Congress- lay
any impostH or duties on imports or exports, except
for the purpose Of szscGiing its inspection laws"
1t will seen that the taxing power Of the States,
except Is to imports and erpsrfs,' is unaffected,
either by the specific grant of the eighth section, or
the restriction contained in the tenth section
When the constitution was before the States for
ratification, the objection was made by its ene-
mics. that the gran. in the eighth section was an
exclusion Of the power Of the States to levy taxes
for the purposes Of revenue" But the objection was
ably met by Mr.. fIaIpIkon, vhO demonstrated that
there was no constitutional repugnancy in the iua
exercise Of the taxing power by the States; and that
the restriction In the tenth section, while it was
negation Of the authority Of the States to impose
taxes on imports and .erports, was an a6irmanes
Of their. authority to impose them upon all othe,S
articles.
aufs ia af A.a.. Co..
and the Federal government in the exercise Of this
jurisdiction by the States, would arise from the diff
Guilty which might occur in determining 10 all cases
what were imports and ezports, as the terms are
used in the constitution.
Thus it has been decided in Brown vs. the State
Of Maryland, IL Wheat 4l9,l that an act was
void which required the importers Of goods from
foreign nation to pay tax for license TO sell them
by the bale or package The opinion was by Chief
Justice Marshall, who added " that although il was
not easy to say precisely how far the restriction en-
croached upon the general power Of a State to tar
persons or property within her jurisdiction, vet, that
the restriction upon fair construction ceased when.
ever the goods imported became mixed with, or in
corporated into the general mass Of property of the
State. "
In an article published in to-day paper from "One
Of the Sovereigns this point is eaboratey presen
ted and the authorities referred to.
We have no doubt that the people of this State
will be unanimous In the desire to see the egisa.
ture Of this and other Southern States, exercise
the taxing power with the view of retaliating upon
such Of the Northern States, as fail to regard in
good faith, the adjustment as final settlement OF the
slavery question.
This settlement was opposed by tho abotionists,
II is not to be expected that opposition embra cling
within its objects the dissolution Of the Union will
quietly submit TO the laws the constitu ton Of the
country. Let that opposition be met by every con-
sttutonal mode in the power Of the Southern s'as""
They are our avuwed enemies we sho"iu treat
them as such. In doing 81, we Will discriminate |
between those States which sustain the adjustment |
and in sustaining that render abolitionsm inefficient
and powerless; and those States whose people and
egslatures,oppo the adjustmentand continue their
assaults upon the institutions Of the South.
Apoicy Of this sort judciously prosecuted, would
encourage our friends, and stimulate them to re-
double their exerons it would also show TO our
enemies that we were determined to reach their
consciences and judgment through their pockets.