Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1853-12-03
VERS AND HARBOR
ADEQUATE POWERS IN STATES.


ADEQUATE POWERS IN STATES.
We called attention, few days ago, to the
subject of State power, through tonnage duties,
TO improve harbors and rivers. We referred
our readers to the bill of Senator Douglas, in
troduced in August, 1852, and urged the con-
sideration of the question generally upon the
attention of the approaching Congress, as af
fording, in its solution, means by which
great good might be attained with entire con-
sistency with the straightest State rights doc
trines 1t Is no more than justice to the dis
tinguished senator who introduced the PROPOSE
ton, that we should add, it deserves the more
attention as coming from gentleman whose
position and the interests of whose constitn
ents make it q noble ground for compromise
between these who require such improvements.
and yet desire them constitutionally; and those
who, while they are not opposed to them, insist
upon their being made without violating the
rigid rules of State rights construction Com
ing from senator resident in city, whose pros
perity rests upon the commerce of the lakes.
we hall 1t as common ground upon which all
republicans can unite, in divorcing the federal
government from the corruptions of the inter
nal Improvement system, as well as in saving
1t from the wellgrounded charge of unconsti-
tutionaly constructing them; and, at the same
time, in advancing these great and growing in
terests, which are so intimately connected with
the development and prosperity of the country.
We recur to the subject again to vindicate
its consistency with the objects of the trainers
of the Constitution, and to defend it from the
charge brought against it by contemporary. of
virtually conceding the power of internal i'm.
provements to Congress. .s~ ....
The National hatelligencer, after quoting the
clause of the Constitution referring to the LAYING
of tonnage and other duties by the States, cites
the clause containing this inhibition:
No money shall be drawn from the treas.
ury but in consequence of appropriations made
by law
The Lateuigencer then proceeds: 1.-THE Italics
are our own "By the first of these provisions,
all moneys collected must be paid into the treas.
ury of the United States, for which. by the
second, they cannot be drawn but by an appro-
priation made by law
The error into which the Lnteuioeucer has
fallen, as we conceive, arises from not noting
the fact, that there is an essential and broad
difference between the power existent in the
States to lay duties on imports and exports, and
their power to lay duty upon tonnage. The
former must be paid into the federal treasury
the latter not. We quote the entire clause:
mo State SHALL without the consent of Con.
gress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or
exports, except what may be absolutely neces.
sary for executing its inspection laws: and the
nett produce Of all duties and imposts. laid b.,
any State on imports and exports, shall be for
the use Of the treasury Of the United States:
and all such laws shall be subject to the reuision
, and control of the Congress. No State shall
aotthom the consent Of Congress, lay any du y
Of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time
of peace &c.
Now, it seems clear to u.s." says the Iatelli.
gencer, that if these works of river and bar.
Dor Improvement be managed by the States,
such management is, under the Constitution a
management under the revision and control of
Congress, and by consequence the consent q
Congress; therefore, in fact a management &c
Congress- and by virtue of the consent Oh
power of Congress. This conclusion !. ~
voidable; and the article of the Union is 10 onr
mind clear concession of the power Of Con.
gress to make the improvements. The Sto,o.
may be used by Congress as agents in the exo
cution of that duty"
Now with praat dafaranoa
never in one short paragraph was condensed
such number of logical non sequit,trs as AN
pears in this just quoted.
The batelligencer assumes that the exercise n
power, under the clause above cited bv u,
States IS power dericed from Congress-. which
granting 10 the States, 1t may exercise tbronol
them, as its agents, or ,cithholding from He1,
AZ may exert by virtue Of its o,on Inherent no,,e,.
This IS grand error. The phraseoloov
confirmed by the history of the clause. nrovo,
directly the reverse. 1t does not pretend !,
grant po,cer 10 tie iSdtes-it inhi6its it. excen
subject TO restraints. In the absence Of N,
clause, the power in question would probabl,
have remained with the States without 70
straint-we say probably, with reference t.
what we shall hereafter indicate. The power
when exerted by the States, is not then n de
rivative, but pre-existent power. unlimited
except by the terms of the clause in question
But how is il limited and by what restrain.
ing influence ? we may be asked We answer
by that of Congress. It's consent is requisite 70