The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-09-22

The country that this question has been raised Under
The provision OF the constitution various States have
passed laws asking the federal government to permit
them TO levy tonnage dates; and those laws first pass.
ed BY the States have been assenied by the federal
government But the broad proposition OF surrendering
The power upon the part OF the federal government lay
tonnage duties, and giving that power 10 the States is
new questionone that has been discussed here.
country.
There are certainly defects in the amendment Offered
oy the senator from Illinois, which necessarily nc
perhaps 10 he TACT that the question has not hereto
ioie oreh considered, and incident 10 the hurry with
which The honorable senator may have been obliged 10
prepare ihe amendment The from Michigan has
pointed oul TWO deiecls Every single law upon your
satue-book authorizing the laying of tonnage duties
an assent 10 some State act The States have always
taken the initiative; and when the federal government
have conceded that the State law shall go into effect
there has been limitation to the period at which il
should expire, know that Congress extended from time
to time the law allowing Maryan 10 levy tonnage du
ues But every one OF those laws upon the statute book
has limitation as TO the period at which it shall expire
Here you propose that the federal government shall
render TO the States the entire power OF levyng tonnage
duues doubt ysIy much whether, after having
efred that power upon the States, and the States sha
have exercised 1t, You will have the right to Withdraw
Il you would have the rightio Withdraw it, cannot
dersand Why in the anieeedenl legislation OF the gov.
eminent, IN every single law passed for the purpose,
there has been Limitation OF time at which the law shall
expire.
! Mr. DOUGLAS The senator will allow me to state
that great many laws have been extended from lime TO
time; but in several OF them there has been no lma.
| ton.
| Mr.. PRATT was not aware OF that
Mr. DOUGLAS Perhaps there may have been limi
taon in the Stale legislation but in the act OF Congress
| MIR. PRATT. | think the senator will find that my
statement is correct, that there is law upon the
book for this purpose, where the federal government has
not limited the time either by It's own express act BY
the Limitation contained in the act 10 which gave lis
sent, and where 1t has not reserved the power amend
| alter, or withdraw the privilege
i Hpr ia thai r,aIp al 10
as conceive, OF the utmost Importance. The constu-
non gives the right TO Congress to allow the States
levy tonnage dulles The proposition is to deprive OF
this right for feel extremely doubtful whether, after
that power shall have been conferred upon the States,
we take il back again II that be Soil there be
doubt about thal-we should provide Tor 1t in our egs-
| laon.
Mr.. DOUGLAS We do not want 10 take it back
/ Mr.. PRATT. The senator say be does not want TO
take II back again How can the senator know whether
this system will operate benefciay II is impossible ioT
any man 10 ray what It's operation will be- Let US look
at lis probable operation as 10 lis inequality Take the
duties laid upon foreign commerce. Every one will ad.
nit that there be difference between tonnage du.
~ and duly upon Imports In their practical results
what is the difference Is there any II additional
,afh duty TO the extent that II goes, far foreign
commerce is concerned. Il is authority gwen TO each
State TO lay additional tariff on iorelgn imporatnns
coming nto that Stale. Is not that utterly unfair,
cofding 10 this amendment The federal government is
the authority which, under constitution, derives the
| whole revenue from commerce. Ii has The authority
alone which can regulate commerce. Ii derives the
anlecedent constructions of The constitution TO open 10
clear out and make the ports into which this commerce
flows capable OF receiving IT, Now, you transfer to the
States, having ports necessary 10 be improved the
OF laying an additional iarh on snch impoTaiions
come into those particular States IL not apparent 10
every senator here that you give necessary preference
10 those States whose ports require no such Improve.
ments !
| 1t is a preliminary necessity that iaif should be
equal-lba there should be greater duties laid upon
my constituents than upon yours, upon the citizens oi
New York or oil any other State. But suppose this
TEN to be adopted 40 Tar as the foreign commerce OF the
country Is concerned: here Is Stale having her ports,
by Nature the aneceden improvement of the country,
IN such condition that IL is sary 10 make any
further improvement The foreign commerce, therefore,
which is carried into that State does not have TO pay
this additional tariff But that which is brought into my
Stale must pay this additional duty Of len per cent s
an additional tanh duty, because no senator can draw
distinction between duty collected by assessing ton
| mage, and duty imposed upon the matter which that
tonnage brings To the extent OF the duty itself, both
are the same Therefore, we OF the South, particularly
will be placed IN position OF nequay-in position OF
lnequ qualy TO the North in regard 10 our mpohaons.
Nature and the apeceden appropriations OF this govern
men have given them already sGtceni preponderance
over us and we are proposing by this leg saiion, IN ad
dton TO what Nature has done, and 10 addition 10 the
tecedent action OF The government to say that hereafter
the federal government will not consider TO be iis duty
10 improve any one OF the ports from which southern
produce goes abroad. The North do not want further
assistance. The effect of the additional duty will be- in
my opinion, TO nlure the South therefore, represent
ing one OF The southern States OF this Unon whose pos
have not been improved 10 require no subsequent
assistance the part of the federal government, AN OPP
posed TO this amendment l am opposed to system by
which my people 10 be taxed tor imporatons when
the people OF Boston not taxed for importaons into
their port.
With regard TO the inaccuracies OF the amendment-
with regard 10 its want o sufficient provsons-they
palpabe that the honorable senator himself sgnihed
disposition 10 withdraw It, Ooe defect suggested by
the senator from Michigan but il not carried out,
perhaps, TO bring II perfectly 20 the notice oil the
Senate The amendment provides that each State may
levy duty OF ten per centnot that II shall lay such
duty, but that maywith this proviso, however, that
may be necessary for the purpose How is that 10 be
ascerainedi Here half dozen ltue villages which
lay their duties OF ten per cent How is Il 10 be asce
ained what amount is thus received from these ten per
cent tonnage dutiesi There is provision that the
ports thus collecting the duues shall make report OF the
amount collected or how II is expended II is simply
provided that they may lay the duty not exceeding ten per
and that that duty OF ten per cent shall not exceed
the necessities OF the port II 10 be collected by au
thorllies whom you have no control whatever
There provision made that there shall be report
OF the amount received and expended and you cannot
tell, therefore, how Il Is disposed OF. ! think on look
ing into this matter the senator IRON Illinois viii al
once that his amendment needs maturing. think after
this discussion he will that he ought have made
some provision by which there should be ascertain
meat OF The amount received, and the necessities OF the
point at which II was feeived.
My great objection to the amendment, however is that
with which siared that there is difference IN refer
ence TO the foreign commerce OF this country between
tonnage duties and the direct levy OF your tariff End
their harbors order 10 permit the foreign commerce TO
cor at uith which