The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-21

this OIL 1t Is answered that the constitution s an
abiding command. and that nineteen violations Of
II VIII not justify twentieth, and that, moreover
such bills OF this character have been passed here
tofore were not seriously opposed or fully considered
with regard to constitutional questions The
Portland relief bill was passed without debate, and
seemingly without consideration. The Chicago re-
lief bill was reported by the Senate Committee on
Finance but was not considered by the Judiciary
Committee and 1t Is said to be fair to presume that
the sympathy of Senators Tor the sufferers in that
unparalleled Calamity contributed more to the
passage OF the bill than the deliberate Judgment Of
the Senate upon the constitutional question. The
OF the subject, and the fact that calamity by IRE
cannot be distinguished from one produced
% outside on The
ordinary course OF things, and the fact that
II Congress attempts to insure against one 1t must
sderaton OF the subject, and makes 1t necessary
TO determine the principles to be applied In all
such cases II in view OF all these considerations,
your committee upon what ground Congress could
refuse relief to individual sufferers. How many
ence Of Congress Must there be q thousand or
i've hundred, or one hundred, or fifty or nveS Where
nne 70 ne Must not Congress become
great insurance company for forty millions of
AitcI hfHtAuk tudC CHS VII CduuOJ Oc TcKdtucu ~
substantially drawback OF duties, for the reasons
that the bill relates merely to articles to be used In
this country, and that drawbacks ike duties, must
be uniform throughout the country, the committee
.Il it be said that bill is in erect mere appro-
gress has the power Of appropriated limited only
by the TACT; that the appropriation must be made
to pay its debts and provide for the common de-
fence and general welfare OF the United states
the answer is plain-the bill does not provide for
paying any debt or for anything necessary to the
| priation for the general welfare. 1t is 9
ESSENTIALLY A LOCAL NEAsURE.n 4ssl
| They quote from 'St0ry's Commentaries on the
| Constitution" to show that power to lay taxes
for the common defence and general welfare is not
IN common Mons. sense general power but limited . to
quires mo argument to show that the power OF ap-
proprietion Is No broader than that OF taxation,
| merely local purpose as contra istinguished
from o national one, It cannot appropriate money
for such local purpose" ~ VI
consisting Of Senators Edmunds and Wright In
the course Of their dissenting report say :-'If Il
fare will be promoted by the free Importation O
/ goods to be used for particular purpose in par
ticuar place not because 1t is q particular place
or in particular State, but because the object tC
| which they are to be devoted happens by accident
to be one to be efectuated In some one State Of
place. there can be said to be No preference to tina
State or place as SUCH although the same goods
and for the same purpose could not be used on tina
occasion in any other state or place. Its real spir
! uniformity or create preference between States
parts but 1t Is TO accomplish the general welfare
I by aiding particular object or special enter
prise, which must OF necessity be located some
where and not everywhere In the country. While
! as we have seen, therefore, such law does mo-
violate alrt8f 3aaI,i f4i Y4i s.tt Ns
THE LETTER OF THE CONSTITUTION
1t Is equally clear that 1t does not violate III
spirit, which, we have seen, was to prevent til,
oppression OF particular State for the benefit o
the others, and not to prevent Congress, when thu
general welfare required it, from allowing all tho
citizens OF the country to bring In goods In aid o
some special object which happened to be attain
able by their use in particular place. Tn
minority cite many acts OF Congress relating tt
import duties In conformity with the foregoing con
struction OF the constitution, the essential idef
| being that the test of uniformity Is answered by
the application Of the rule to the particular thing
| upon which -tJbls .I.r. t..
THE DUTY ON IMPORTS
Is laid In the given named In the law without
looking to the fact that its ultimate use or destna
ton may happen to be one which, indirectly or in.
| cidentally, works benefit to particular town or
particular State. The minority say the report Of
the majority treats the bill In question as II 1t were
bill declaring that all goods used in Boston should
have drawback, which is not the case, and. there
| fore, the argument directed against such propo
sition has no application to the present bin.