Washington sentinel., 1854-02-01

III the eottihSehcy VI SPAIN emanclpatlng the
slaves there. She should not blacken the his
tory OF Cuba into the chronicles ofSt. Domingo
and Jamaica. Good neighborhood require.
that she should not beyet, almost within sigh
OF our coast, wild and weltering anarchy, rife
only for rapne and devastation; and selfpre
| servation demands that she should not real
there wretched mimicry of government, pro-
pagating byeXcess and madness, and subsidized
| by tanaticsm To its consummation of blood and
| perhdy. In this contingency ! would tear the
island from the treacherous and palsied grasp
of Spain.
The elaborate and able discussion, Mr.. Chair
man, to which the letter of the Secretary OF
State in relation to koszta has been subjected,
renders it unnecessary for me to remark upon
it. The very eloquent and splendid speech of
my friend from Louisiana Mr.. PERKINS has
| hung the whole question in blaze of light.
| Mill tetigi! quad non osndrH. Though l do
not concur in all the principles he has enun-
ciated, yet would not obscurate the brightness
of his track.
Dismisslng, then, these topics from consid-
GRAFTON, invoke the attention of the committee
while briefly examine that portion of the Pre-
sidents message which relates to tonnage du.
ties. | shall discuss the subject under two
heads first, the consttutionality, and then the
of their oonstitutonality | propose to discuss
first, from the meaning of the clauses in the
Constitution bearing upon tonnage duties ;
secondly, from the history of their formation !;
and, thirdly, from their contemporaneous prac-
tical exposition. ...... n"
First, the clause in the Constitution bearing
directly upon the question reads thus " No
State shall, without the consent of Congress,
lay any duty of tonnage &c. (Ninth section,
first article ....
The history of the times pours light upon the
meaning of this clause.
The colonies, previously to the declaration of
independence, were dependent upon Great
Britain but independent of each other. In the
declaration Of l776 they declared not. only
their independence Of Great Britain, but their
sovereignty also. These they maintained
throughout the revolutionary conflict, and
these were recognised by Great Britain in the
treaty Of peace. To wage the war successfully,
they united under the :" old articles of confede-
ration" Under these articles each State pos
sessed the power to lay duties of tonnage. In
the process of time the present federal consti-
tuition was framed. Now, if the States possess
ing full powers to lay duties of tonnage pre-.
viously to the formation of the federal Constitu-
ton have lost those powers, they have lost
l..
lost the power? The Constitution, as l have
already quoted, says: "No State shall, ,eith-
out the consent Of Congress, lay any duty of
tonnage &c. The committee will perceive
that the right is not destroyed, but restrained
The power is not dead, but asleep. The States
in restricting the right, stipulated for its re-
resumption. The specific restriction is the
consent of Congress. If that consent be given,
the State or States to which it is given possess
| the right i'll its original integrity. The con-
sent of Congress does not create the right; it
merely enables State to resume it. Thus the
plain meaning Of the clause clothes State
with full power to lay duties of tonnage when
the consent of Congress has been obtained.
The message of the President recommends the
withdrawal of the restriction
The history of the formation of this clause
also illustrates its meaning. Under the old ar
ticles of confederation, "each State possessed
the power of regulating commerce, with the
exception that no State should enter into any
treaty, agreement, confederation, or alliance,
with any foreign power or other State without
the consent of Congress, or should lay imposts
or duties which may interfere with treaties en-
tered into between the United States and for
eign powers Even this was qualified by
proviso which prohibited Congress from max
prevented from laying such imposts and du-
ties as they might think proper to impose on
their own citizens, or from prohibiting the ex.
portation of any species of goods or commodi-
ties whatever The embarrassments and dan
gers which grew out of this power belonging
to each State, to regulate commerce, chiefly
gave birth to the present Constitution, and
were intended to be remedied by it. To pre-
vent the recurrence Of these dangers, the pow
er to regulate commerce was conferred upon
the federal Congress. The remedy, however,
was not intended to extend beyond the danger
While the trainers of the Constitution were put
ting the finishing hand to that instrument, the
question arose whether, in parting with the
right to regulate commerce, the States parted
with the right to lay duties of tonnage. To
shut out all doubt specific proposition was
submitted that " no State shall be restrained
from laying duties of tonnage for the purpose
Of clearing harbors and erecting lighthouses.
1t was contended by some that the right on
the part of Congress to regulate commerce did
not destroy the right of State to lay duties of
tonnage; others thought the right to REGULATE
commerce" was broad enough to embrace this
right also. 1t was apprehended, too, that it
might be the source of embarrassment through
conflicting regulations.
~ PiS'Sh1 aou''' thC po"ei Nhs SpeClucdlly
given; and to prevent danger the consent of
Congress was required, thereby making the
jurisdiction concurrent. 1t was given, too, in
special connexon with clearing the Chesa.
peake harbor. The history of this clause in
the Constitution thus proves that the States
stipulated for the resumption of the right to
lay tonnage duties, and, also, that this is the
constitutional mode Of clearing harbors.
At the formation of the Constitution, we had
only the Atlantic coast but small portion of
our population had crossed the Allegheny
mountains, and Spain claimed the exclusive
right to navigate the Mississippi below the
thirty-frst parallel. Along our Atlantic coast
the only harbor needing repair or clearing out
was the Chesapeake To do this, the right to
lay duties of tonnage, with the consent Of Con-
gress, was retained by the States. 1T had
been intended that the federal government
should clear out harbors, would the States have
retained this right, subject only to the restric-
tion ahoya stated or would this clansa have