The Kansas herald of freedom. [volume] (Wakarusa, Kan. Territory) 1854-1860, 1855-10-27
General 1pteiiigeqce.
Retaliation ON the North.

RotduaIiOu On tnS CCItn'
We are so profoundly sensible of the
.cessity of union among ourselves in
E approaching collision with the free
u majority in the House of Representa-
res, that we are prepared to sacrifice,
scly and eheerfully, our individual
onions to promote this end. When
lis collision win take place, or what its
suit will be, no human tongue can pre-
Eet. It may be at the next session of
|ongress, on the admission of dele
be from Kansas; ; for it is by no means
sprebable that the Abolitionists in that
:.rritory will hold a separate election and
! nd delegate of their own to contest
seat Of the lawful delegate. In view
the fact that the Abolitionists viii have
freesoil majority to back his claims,
. result must, at least, appear doubt
We are possibly, therefore, on the
ink Of the great and final struggle
Fith freesoilism, and it behooyes US to
l'epare as men should, who may be call
on to choose between slavery and rev.
|ution. Therefore, it is, that we de-
are our readiness to sacrifice, If nec-
Hssary, cherished opinions to promote
amony. Whenever the South, or
rginia, shall indicate her course, we
aaall pnrsua 1t with heart and hand, but
enl that course be determined, we deem
a cur duty to discuss, in a free and
sendly way with our southern compat-
rs, all matters of common interest
the discharge of this duty, we can
longer forbear to consider the ques-
n of retaliation on the North by COM
Eercial restrictions. 1t has been dis
assed already by the press of this State,
! d will, in all probability, be brought
rward in the next Legislature. 1t is,
3srefoie, an important practical ques-
pa, and should be calmly considered IN
its bearings.
We are free to confess that we are not
Etisfed with the feasibility of any plan
commercial retaliation yet proposed.
3ae Constitution of the United States
esents obsticles to such retaliation diff
ult, if not impossible to surmount.-
would be very defective instrument
1t did not; foE.one.. ofa princfFls
sEects was to vest in the Federal Govs
=nment the sole and exclusive right to
ESulate commerce between the States.
he Supreme Court of the United States,
the case of Brown VS.. the State OF
Eayland, 12 Wheaton, 419, decided
sat the Constitution of the United
ates prohibits the State Legislatures
om requiring importers to take out
|renses. In that case a statute OF the
Fate Of Maryland requiring wholesale
Ehporters of foreign goods to take out
lenses and to pay tax was held to be
constitutional and void. And Chief
|astiee Marshall. in delivering the opin-
faof the court, said: so 1t may be prop
to add that we suppose the principles
Fd down in this case, to apply equally
iAportations from sister State"
One of the principles decided is that
: right to sell is connected with the
sht to import as an inseparable Incl
ent." No law can be passed, interfer-
IS with the sale of goods imported
ON sister State, nor can tax be i'm
sed on such sale by the importer
Pc taxing poaer OF the States g is so
abridged - says Judge Marshall, "as
prohibit them from touching imports
s exports, except for inspection" Why
e they thus restrained? Plainly be-
I:ase. in the general opinion, the interest
all would be best promoted by plac-
ss that whole subject under the con-
Sol Of Congress. ANY change in the
production and incorporation of the
5tlcles into and with the mass of prop
1 y in the country, must be hostile to
E power given to Congress to regulate
#mmerce.
foods must, therefore, pass from the
%nds of the importer and be incorpo
led with the common mass of property
the State, before a tax can be imposed
i them. And if they be then singled