The state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1883-1893, 1888-03-23

property except for public purposes and
upon adequate compensation. When cor
poratiOns require the use of private prop
erty it is necessary to confer on them by
law the power to condemn it, but this can
only be done if the puIp pose and objects of
the corporation are PUBLIC. Taxes are a
condemnation of the property and effects
of citizen. If they be not for public pur
poses the exaction of them is the simplest
despotism. So, likewise, it is to collect
| them when the government does not need
the money. But when they are imposed
avowedly for the benefit of private indi
viduals, it ceases to be taxation and be-
comes simply robbery. The Supreme
Court has not hesitated to say so.
The only question therefore, which re
| mains to be considered is whether or not
protection has a private purpose to sub
serve or public one. What is the first
effect of protective tariff, and on viIom
does it operate This is the proper test Of
its constitutionality. The law viii: rot
judge it by its remote and possible Results,
1t is not lawful to kill man IN cold b! od
although his taking off might be a benefit
to his family and his neighbors; the act Is
murder. Well, the direct effect of such .;
tariff is to raise the price of all foreign
goods on which it is levied, and of Ill
similar goods owned by private citizens
1t operates upon all as to taxation, bu on
y part as to benefits; all pay out, but
only few receive back. Therefore when
it is levied for protection and not for
enue-that is, to enrich the individual aud
not the public treasury-if that be rot II
private purpose it is hard to conceive
how language can describe such pnr-
pose as contra distinguished from a Iub
lie one. II one man only received the ben
eft, every one would naturally admit it
was private; so if only hundred or
thousand Well, where will you draw the
line What number of beneticiares will
make an unconstitutional law cOnstltu-
tiOnal? Does it depend on numbers at all,
or on the grant of power in the instru-
ment itself Ordinarially, one would say
that according to Democratic usage it
| would become "a public purpose if shown
that it benefited d clear majority of the
people, but this would be equally mad
missble. If the majority had the lawful
power to tax the minority for the.individ-
ual benefit of the former, no meaner rob
berry, no despotism more outrageous could
be conceived. The true test of constitn-
tlonality is not to be determined by the
benefits conferred, but by the rights de-
stroyed by the law. If a tariff law out
RACES the rights of single citizen by tax
ing him for the personal, individual ben
eft of another citizen, 1t Is violation of
the Constitution; and so, and for still
stronger reasons, it would be if he were
taxed for the personal enrichment of every
citizen of the sixty millions. 1t is true
that even revenue tariff yields protec
tion to home manufactures PRO TANTO;
but that is an accident which does not
vitiate the law, the intention of which is
to raise revenue. 1t cannot be avoided,
and nobody wishes it avoided. Our an
ceStOrS had this in mind when they fran
ed our Constitution; they had it in mind
when they enacted our first revenue law
declaring that the NECESSITIES OF govern
ment would in this way aid in the encour
agement of manufactures They never
dreamed of building them up and sup
porting them by laying taxes for that eX-
press purpose without regard to the needs
of the public treasury. That idea is the
bastard progeny of modern greed, and
can trace its descent to none of the great
fathers-not even Alexander Hamilton.
1t may be safely assumed that the pow
er to lay and collect tariff duties was con
ferred on the general government only to
| raise money; that the money thus raised
can only be used for public purposes, viz:
to pay the DEBTS. provide for COMMON DE-
FENSE and GENERAL WELFARE of the United
States; that the individual enrichment of
the citizens, not being the same thing as
''as the general welfare of the United
States, is a private and not a public pur
| pose not embraced in the power. There
| fore it is not lawful by the constitution or
agreeable to liberty and justice to either
lay or LAY and collect taxes for his
benefit only or chiefly, either by paying
him the money when collected or by Civ
| ing him the power to collect it for himself
So much for the constitutonaiity of
''protection for projections sake or tax
| ton for PRIVATE purposes.
| ZEBULON B. VANCE