Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-09-22
WHAT SENATOR DOUGLAS PROPOSES.

/ But what does the Senator propose2 Not
that Congress should give its assent to a law
passed by State levyiRg tonnage duties, but
| that it should sanction an act to be passed BY
any State empowering '.the public authori-
ties of any city or town within its limits1 to
! levy such duties. Now, wLo are the authori-
/ ties of city or town. We can form some
conception as to who are the authorities of a
city; they are ordinarily the Mayor, Board
Of Aldermen and Common Council of such
city. But who are the authorities ofa town ?
Can any one tell? Perhaps the Senator con-
templates q levy by the high constable Of eaeh
town. should like to have him explain his
meaning. We have here q sing eulAr state of
things-the assent Of Congress to the assent of
State to the levy of tonnage duties by a
high constable, OF somebody-we know not
whO-called the authorities of town"
Perhaps the Hon. Senator contemplates a
multitude of local Congresses to be convened
at the various points of improvement.
should like to stand by and witness their
deliberations. Is the Hon. Senator quite
sure that they would stick to the point p
Might they nothraneh off TO the question Of
the Presidential election after the fashion o.
the National Congress ?"
In the next place, would observe that the
Senator provides for the execution of these
works bys combination of States, through
the instrumentality of compacts to be entered
int from time to time. Now, deny that
the constitution authorizes any such com
bination. The clause already referred to looks
only to an agreement or compact by one
State with another State, which isthe consent
of Congress" is to render binding. But moth
ing is said about compact between a number
of States more than two. Such cases are
purpOsely excluded, as dangerous to the peace
of the country; for if several are permitted
to combine for one purpose, though it be by
the approval Of Congress, they will soon unite
for other purposes without such approval. r.
Mr.. Smith proceeds to state at considerable
length and with great clearness and force
other objections to the proposition of Mr..
Douglas, showing that his scheme violates
the provision Of the Constitution as follows
q Nor shall vessels bound to and from one
State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay du-
ties in another; and also the fourth article of
the Ordinance of 1881, which provides that
"The navigable waters leading into the
Mississippi and St. Lawrence, or the carrying
places between the same, shall be common
highways, and forever free, as well to the in
habitants Of said Territory as 10 the citizens
of the United States, and those of any other
States that may be admitted into the confed-
eracy, WITHOUT ANY TAX, 1EPosT OR DUTY
THEREFOR"
Mr.. Smith further showed that the scheme
of Nh. Douglas is equally vioIative Of COM
pacts entered into between the United States
and the several States situated on the Missis-
sippi and the Lakes, when they were respect
ivelyaanitted into the Union chRracteriElpg
the project as worse than unconstitutional
ga gross breach Of faith.p
90 PRACTICAL WORKING OF THE SCHEME.
Mr.. Smith illustrated the e1cee DINGHY COM