Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1861-03-30
pnocEEpxsesoFsrA TE CONVENTION.

But the Congress went ShorLy 70
work, and something else than eloquence was
required. Astute and quick perception were
necessary to carry out the political problems
Of the day-and practical results, were only to
be attained by that practical good sense, the
nurseling Of experience and observation-and
Adams very soon approached his colleague
with the remark, I'VE had as well stay where
we are" They understood this thing very
we'll. tSagacious, keen, intellectual, the North
ern men are capable of doing their work in the
best way and after the best manner, and lfear
they have, by silent acquiescence, done so in
this Instance to our Disadvantage
l confess to the fact that / did consider tue
provision a valuable one when voted !or IT.
But, sir, {subsequent refection3 ana consiaela-
ton pss greatly unsettled my opinion eoheeln.
;nr ;tT,na 7 Anal upon examination, the whole
case WAS decided as long ago as 1893, by the
Supreme Court
the United States ia decision was rendered oy
. the Sunreme Court of the United States, from
which I extract the following language:
1.-The great object of the Constitution was,
To give TO Congress q power to lay taxes ade-
ouatc to the eSigencies of government; but
they were to observe two rules in imposing
them. namely, the rule Of uniformity, when
they laid duties, itnposts or excuses; and the.
rule Of superintendent according to the Census,
when they laid a direct tax" "a general
power is given to Congress to lay and collect
taxes Of every kind or nature without any re-
%stra!nt, except only on exports; but two rules
are prescribed for their government, namely,
uniformity, and apportionment; three kinds ol
taxes. TO wit: duties, iinposts and excuses by
the first rule, and capitation or other direct
taxes, by the second rule"
THE Constitution evidently contemplates
no tQres as direct taxes, but only Suc6 US Con-
c-ess could lay in proportion to tue Census -
The rule Of apportioament is only to be adopt
ed in such cases where it can reasonably ap-
ply; and the subject taxed, must ever deter
NINE the application Of the rule" Patterson,
~iustice. said Il never entertained q doubt
that the principal, | will not say tine only ob.
iect that the trainers Of the Constitution con-
tenplated as falling within the rule of appor-
tionment, were a eepitati0n tar and q tar on
lana. Local considerations, and particular cir
cu,nstanceS and relative situations Of the States,
naturally lead to this view of the subject. The
provision acas made az Jaror Of the Southern
States. They possessed a large naan6e' o.
slores they had extensive tracts of territory,
thinlv settled, and not very productive. a
majority Of the States had but few slaves, and
several of them y limited territory, well settled
and in u high state of cultivation. The South
ern States, If no provision had been introduced
in the Constitution, would have been wholly
at the mercy of the other States. Congress,
in such case, might tax slaves, at discretion,
or arbitrarily, and land in every part Of the
Union after the same rate or measure, so much
4 head iE the first instance, aud so much an
acre in the second. To guard them agains,
imposition in these particulars, was the reason
of introducing the clause in the Constitution,
which directs that representatives and direct
taxes shall be apportioned among the States,
according to their respective numbers. lie
argued, further, that the rule Of apportSoa'
meat was not to be preferred to the rule Of
Uniformity; but the former was to be applied
only where the Constitution irnperatively re-
quires it to be applied, to Wit, 70 'capitation or
other direct taxes and where it would reason
a6lv apply. He considered it radically a wrong
rule, and asks, why should slaves, who are u
species OF property, be represented more than
any other property"
10 that opinion all the judges concurred, save
one, who gave no opinion.
Well, it has occurred to me that inasmuch
as the apoortionment is to be made according to
taxation and representation combined, We have
BY that clause subjected ourselves to a capita
ton tax upon the head of every slave, when it
should only apply to every three out of hve,
I think | am sustained in that position by this
decision.
,AsainJ sir, we find lin the case Of Lough,
borough VS.. BiakeS5 Wheaton, 317, the follow
ing language By Judge Marshall:
1t was under these clauses, to reconcile and
expound them, that the decisions Of the Su.
nreme count referred to, were made. Federal
taxation, lit IS shown, consists Of two classes Of
taxes:
lst Direct; supposed to bel capitatioa and
land tax alone. And, 4GI
TSL lie 6rSt are always to be dPPortioned
with Representatives among the several States,
according to their respective numbers Of de-
scr,bcd p~ersonsC; and among these are three.
ffihs of the Slaves 0and no direct tax can ever
be laid, unless in proportion to this census thus
described to be enumerated and,
90. The second, consisting of duties, ipposts
and excuses, are always to be 'tunyorm
throughout the United States;;" and,
Sd. Congress mg or may not tax the terri.
tories, as included under the first clause Of
section Sth, in the United States, but not
necessarily included among the 'seuerai
SCt"r'S Ill lllC dpp0l AL HuliCu ny ttIe
Sd clause Of section I'd; but if Congress, or
po"er derived from Congress, does tax the
territories as well as States, it must be done BY
one of the two rules above, Of apportionment
or uniformity. And,
or territories, are taxed by Congress or it's au-
thority, it must be done under the clauses ap.
portioning representatives aud capitation or
nthn- l;rank to vac ox.ac ,,Do1 snn l..--
capitation and direct taxes throughout the
United States.
Mr.. SrMMERs3N don't desire ut all to inter
rupt the argument at this point, or to occupy
the floor further than to call attention to the
fact, which my distinguished friend from
Charles City, GMr. TYLER,D will readily call to
mind, that the minority report submitted by
Mr.. SEDDoS, from the Committee of States,
which prepared business for the Convention
and of which Committee our excellent friend
Mr.. Seldom was the Virginia member, proposed
the Crittenden propositions With certain. amen
dations and additions, and among other modifi-
cations OF the Crittenden proposition, this
same feature is contained as proposed in the
minority report of our colleague. It, is an
nexcd to the 4th article Of the Crittenden pro-
position -
And in imposing direct taxes puS pnt to
the Constitution, Congress shall have no power
to impose on slaves, q higher rate Of tax than
on land, according to their just value"
Mr.. Sr4MERs.BWhen )that was submitted
By our colleague(as a substitute forthc report
of the Committee, the Virginia Commission
voted for it as a unit
merely call the attention OF my distin-
guished friend to the fact, that(it was consid.
eredlnot only by lis. but iby all the Southern
to the Crittenden project.j
Mr.. TrLEn.-I am perfectly aware Of the
facts stated by my honorable friend. They
are all correct. We concurred in the adoption
Of that section with that addendum. 4 frankly
confess the fact before the Convention, and