Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1855-09-21
q ENQUIRER.
ERIDAY MORNING, sEPTEMBER 81.
SPECIALIZATION on TIE NORTH.

result will DC, no human tongue can p'e""
be at the next session Of Congress- OH ~
OF a delegate from Kansas: for 1t IS oy III "e"'' -, -,
proi,able tina, the aboli;!onis's III ""' ''''"' 'l
hold , ..nor.,. election and send a delegate oi ''e'
o., o. .,,.es. rho sea, Of the lawful delegate. In
~, IN. f,c. tina. the a5oli;;oai.t will have q !tet-
,ol majority 10 back his GAINS, The rcsuI' must d.
Least. appear doubtful. .
We arc possibly. therefore, on tie brink OF 'hr
great and fna! struggle VITA t'ce-s"il'sm' ana IL 60
hoorcs us 70 prepare as men sh"uiA' WI" MA. o'
called On 70 choose between slavery ana reV"'u''o"'
Therefore, it is, that we declare our readiness 20 sac'''
fee, 4. necessary. cherished opinions to promote mar
-nonv. Whenever the South, or Virginia. shail 'hc,-
cafe her course, we shall pursue 1t win hear' anu
buu1. bu, until that coarse be determined. we deem
:, on- iu.v 10 discu., IN a free and friendly way with
our S,u;hcrn com2atricts, all matters of common IN
,ar,s.. In the discharge Of ;hi. duty, we can T."
,core- forbear 20 consider the question oil retaliation
on the North by commercial restrictions. II he's
been discussed already by III. iress OF this State ana
will, in all probability, be brouCh. forward IT the
mex. Legislature. 1; is. therefore, an inPo''"H' i'",
flea, ov.s,ioa, and should be calmly considered IN d..
it's bearings. $500,
yo Ar, free 10 con!a.. tia; We are 10: satisfied
with tie feasibility OF any plan OF commercial! re;a'
Ia,!a. We: proposed. The Constitution ct the ln',td
Ia.cs present. obstacles 20 s0ch retaliation ci:iicu!'
if >. impossible 70 surrancnt. II would be q very
del, Give instrumen. ii il did not for one OF lis pUn-
e:pa! objects yeas TO vest IN the Fedora! Government
the sole and exclusive right to regulate c"inrHerce de-
tween III. States. The Supreme CoHrt OF tho lni'e"
S;.!e., ir the case of Brown ,.. the State OF Mary!niin'
le Wheaton, 4l9, decided tia; the Constitution "t Inc
United S,nte. prohibits tho State legislatures IRON
requiring importer. 10 take on, licenses. In that case
a statute OF the State Of Maryland requiring wholesale
Importers of foreign goods to take out licenses anu 10
pay a tax was held 10 be unconstitutional anu VOID
And Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the cpih'
ion Of the coart, said: ut may be proper 10 odd that
We suppose the principles laid down IN this case, 10
apply equally to importa,ions from n sister State
One OF the principles decided is that "a right to Sell
in connected with the right to import as an insepara'
BILE Incident No law can therefore be passed, in-
terfsling with the sale of goods imported from a sister
State, nor can a tax be imposed OH such sale by the
importer. The taxing power Of tho States 's 50 far
abridged" says Judge Marshall, "ns to prohibit them
from touching imports or exports, except for in'pec-
ton" Why are they thus restrained ! Plainly be-
cause, in the general opinion, the interest ofall would
be best promoted by placing that whole subject IN
der the control Of Congress. Any change on the In
reduction and Incorporation OF the articles into and
with the mas, Of property in the country, must be
hostile to the power given to Congress to regulate
commerce.
Goods must. therefore, pass from the hands OF tho
importer aud be incorporated with the common mass
OF property in the State, before a tax can DC imposed
on them. And if they be then slng!ei out and
taxed for the purpose OF regulating eom""re"
and 70. for rerenue, we nre by 10 means GER
tain that, under the principles announced by
Judge Marshall, such tax would bs susiailci'-
L, would be in the teeth Of the Southern argument
asains, protective duties, that Congress has no right
70 impose duties for protection under pretence OF I'M
no.;ny duties for revenue. Such tax would be found
ed in deception: tho real object being 10 regulate
commerce., while the avowed object would DO 10
ru;.. revenue. We hold that in morals, in Constitu-
,ionsl law, and in municipal law, men have no right
10 10 indirectly wha, they ae ~rightfully prohibited
from doing directly. 1t is admitted that a statute
avowedlv regulating commerce between Massechu'
st,t. and Virginia, would be unconstitutional aud
void; !, is only adding fraud to avow any other Oh
ice: if the regulation Of commerce DO the real de-
sign.
Sh!rl wsof the South, and especial! of Virginia,
forget our accustomed fidelity 10 the Constitution
ana seek to evale ito ob!igstionsl Is not strict obe-
dience to it's behes.s our only source OF power! With
wha, face can we call upon others to respect an III
.;rumsnt which We ourselves violate! Does ne change
III" case for US to allege, that we were not tie hrst 70
disregard our Constitutional obligations. While II
i, our Constitution, are we not bound By il! This 10
no Gaze Of a violated treaty, where one violation may
y. mat, by another similar in character, but a ques-
:ion under u Coustitu:ioa which can only be thrown
OF By revelation. or amended in conformity with is
own provisions. Fidelity To tie Constitution i- tn"
only shield Of the South. Fling that away, and we
are a, the mercy Of an uapriuc;plod, iawlcss MAORI
". When we DO throw j; away, we must :hrow I'll
Northern rule. The latter wi;hou; the former will be
in,olersble, and when we permanently fail in recall
ing the Congressional majority 70 a sense OF Consf'-
tu..onal obligation that MINORITY must cease TO RUE US
A proper appreciation Of Constitutional restrictions
j. .yidcncc Of the highest civilization anu OF tho
greatest prG.-G.s in TIC science OF government. Inc
want o: il indicate, either savage ignorance or & cor
,uat intelligence ell! more fatal. We p"ssess this
appreciation in AL eminent degree. and lei Us PIE
serve it rs our mos; cherished sentiment.
We are entirely a: q loes TO know how the Consti-
tat.oEll iiiii cuI,ics OF this proposed recitation can be
eu,moua:ed. How can We rctal;a:e on the
Of Massachusetts n.thou; regulating 1t! How can We
proh!b!r il. o. interfere with the consumption CT her
products br our people wiihoat imposing "a charge
or their introduction and Incorporation into the mass
O: our property" and thus coming in direct conflict
with m. Supreme Court, or without IN at;cnp, 10
,nclk round this difficulty equally Intellectual and !ess
hono.a5lcl
lIu; admit that ,heee difficulties may be avoided,
j.. !; practicable to exclude the products of Mnssnchu.
sets, or ans single Sta:eI so far as we cnn SEQ ii 8
not. for nothing would De easier than 10 in'crpos"
q third party and to bring them in rs the property of
citizens of New York or Philadelphia. a merchan
in Richmond wishing 20 buy 4 lot OF cotton cloths
manufactured a, Lowell wouid request his New iofk
correspondent, 20 make the purchase for him.
III, DO intended to exclude all the products oil
Massachusetts, without reference to ownership, then
the exclusion will apply 10 citizens OF other s'ates'
who NAV have purchased them, and thus ono OBJECT
Of the measure, the infection Of punishment only on
the mos, nngran; delinquent, will fail. 1t will be
moreover exceedingly difficult il not entirely imprac-
ticabie to discover or to pursue the products OF Mas
sachusct,s after they shall have mingled with the
mnss OF our property, aad sc, not before can no touch
them or impede their consumption.
Tho exclusion, if ef-c,el, would serve only to irri
tate, unless cspol'red in by 4 considerable portion
Of the South. The whole world furnish markets to
Massachusetts,, and can it be supposed that she
would seriously feel the loss Of one sixth of,he South.
.rn population as cus,oners' Such warfare will he
mere scratching, utterly unworthy Of tho cause and
Of our own manhood. /, will be like the wre.c hed,y
sbor,ive attempt made bneeu years ago to .ubiec;
New York vessels to an unusually rigorous in.pcc.
ton. A statute was passed aud afterwards silently
dropped as q thing to be ashamed Of. 1t served n,