New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-12-03
COLONIAL TARIFFS.
,rspoNpENT WHO THINKS 1T CON-
sr,rrT1oNAL TO PLACE AMER1-
CAN AND EUROPEAN MAN
uFAcTURERs ON AN
EQUAL FOOTING.

sl' = senator Frank Pavey has called attention
Rsus' Of Cross agt. Harrison. decided by the
n' S,s,es Supreme Court in 1854 and 20 its
raeu The question Of tariff duties in the
Nsi."s, Porto Rico and Hawaii
PhhVF.o ~ Cross agt. Harrison arose out OF the
lh :, the Territory ot California 10 the United
rs The Supreme Court held that from the
sS, Of PRONUNCIATION OF the treaty Of cession
oar-,.ral constitution and general laws OF the
Dc states became instantly applicable in the
tn'. .-,,orv without any legislation by Congress.
~ ,or,icular under the uniformity clause Of
fr.-s,,tution that the tariff imposed by the laws
~. rnited States was Immediately applicable,
.,ourb FOR many months the new Territory
"a, state or included in any collection dis
p, y, p.vev has not attempted to discuss any rea-
= ,yine back Of the decision he cites. but has
s-.,nted himself with quoting the high authority
"1,ch he relies and drawing the natural infer
- nat what was law in the case OF California
f",or IN the case Of Porto Rico, Hawaii and
a Philippines
g., he permitted 10 say few words concern
-. roaScns living back OF the decision which
y. pevey cites and some conclusions TO be drawn
~.,,o,,e For II has been suggested that the de-
~. an question was "opportunst" in character.
- are 10 the exigencies OF the particular in
80 - and not founded broad principles OF con-
al
-1asnces Of time place policy OF the Admins
-, and immediate convenience.
FATALITY OF FEDERAL TAXATION.
:. ,.ems 10 the writer that nothing could be
10 from the truth. The primary cause of
:. revolution was assertion Of an unrestricted
-. 70 Impose taxes. equal or unequal. on the
5,ss When the original thirteen States found
,.sssary 10 establish a Federal Government
he 18Th % al,u Of
-, and the provisions restricting the taxing
were the subject Of careful scrutiny. The
,s.r. restriction Of the taxing power was appar-
~ -sgardcd as provision for the protection OF
-, ,-1eu OF even greater Importance than those
lords. sometimes called the Constitutional
pmmRChts which were incorporated in the first
- ,-endments From the days Of Hampden and
"a. .sip money nothing had been better under
,o,s BIZ Engllshmen and their American descend
,,s than that The power 10 tax is the power 10
s,.,roy" That all duties imposts and excuses
,,,.sd bv the new Government should be equal
-s,ouFhout the United States 1t seemed clear 10
~ uss Of the very essence OF equal rights. Our
,,,hsrs had no mind 10 reestablish the very evil
,.sv mad fought 10 overthrow. We sometimes
Eli 4, the War OF Independence; but independence
vas but an afterthought. Equal taxation and the
security for II Of no taxation without representa-
ton" was what that war was about. All agreed
ne q
dy,ies imposts and excuses shall be uniform
,hropgbo,t The United States; and the other
bmjtatioD on direct taxation. which provided Tor
What was thought more real equality than could
o,hsrvise be attained. became one OF the three
great compromises OF the Constitution
Nor can the wisdom Of such provisions be I'M
rugnad For a temporary benefit the support or
g policy tho English Crown and Parliament had
asserted the right impose taxes on the coiohleS
unrestricted by the ancient law. ana In consequence
England lost her greatest colonies. If We for
temporary policy or temporary expedient shou'.
assert that these great fundamental principles OF
,sa constitution 40 not apply throughout the
United States we may reach a like result no
temporary policy or supposed benefit viii justify
o,r abandoning these fundamental safeguards. AND
even II We could pass an amendment 10 the OoH-
stituton repeating the restriction 1t would De an
sct Of fooishness to destroy the right 10 equahty'
which is at once the first Of rights. the security
against oppression and the essence OF democracy.
And yet cannot agree with the practical conoIu-
koBs Mr.. Pavey draws from these principles That
ne decision IN Cross agt Harrison Is as good Ia"
h the cases Of Porto Rico. OF Hawai- ano OF the
P,lippines as il was In that Of California seems
rssrt nav one may 90 further and maintain that
4. the absence OF that decision the United states
fsren,e Court would feel itself compelled 10 a new
i like decision. and may well urge that any O.iAes
1.sion as 10 the application OF the ConsiltuLoil
-a"Saouf our territories would be not only con-
az 10 the provisions Of that instrument but also
1ssrce ~ The hroadest principles OF real democ-
- ~. fron Mr. Payeys conclusion that II Is
II oberUise possible 10 place imports from
&nsrica and from Europe on an equa"'y q" '"e
Znlappines I dissent
IuCAL IMPORT DUTIES CONSTITUTIONAL
l What is this taxing power to which such stern
1t-ts are imposed? tax is contribution ieNleu
lr the support and maintenance Of the Govern
4 rent and the taxing power be 1t by way OF aFe0'
\ taxation by duty by impost or by excise Is inc
vsxs, 10 levy such contributions for such purpose
Iisl Il the limitations on the taxing power pro-
vsss BIZ the Constitution are provisions securing
HlsAv OF contribution throughout the Uhlteo
States 70 the support and maintenance OF the gen
.tsl GVgs.nment and these provisions nave thele
i oe 10 ,slatiou 10 local taxation for the suppori
q o2 governments. Thus, these cons tIoi' 90
latoas have no effect on the taxing po"et,s ID "a
TIE ssrGa States for their own purposes WIZ" WIN
TIER respective borders: OF on the iocaI taNIi15
Ffsn ior their own support ana InAlhseHaHSTe %
Nea territorial governments estaDilsheo ~ ~
Ess over the different divisions into when t1e
I saa Government apporuons the tetII'TTI i ne.
Ais1g 70 the United States. Thus IN the Dissi AZ
4 ccgrbla and I'm the several territories local d.
u sc taxes have long been laid when DO not coulpIY
4 VI the constitutional inhbtions on the IMPOSE
\ = o. direct taxes by the Fedefa4 GoftI ny,
- local taxes FOL local purposes are ny WILL. i
restrictions provided Tor Federal taXatlol. ~ -
s-taoe IN this connection that the IanIei ,s,o "a
= Constitution dd not consider That the provision
1 Uniformity Of all duties, lmp1sts dIiu SAC4 80
tssh,td IMPOSITION OF local tariffs by local gov
r-sn,s. for toev made express provision for that
tsshsre as follows: NO state shall, Wlthout the
s-sni Of the Congress, lay any imposts or uI hso
1ports or exports. except what may uS 49,
-sg necessary for executing It's inspectoh Ia"S'
Ills clause contains two things TO which call
wa attention. viz:
,lH-The prohibition by its terms apples oIIy
alns ~' S'@'eS anu '''
,ssoat-Eyen Z State may levy Its, local import
'Asor duties provided IL obtains the cohsenI a., -.
=, congress this condition affordlng secuIIy
,ns any such taxes II inimical TO the interests
~ rest q the country -. 90
re- tso distinctions are related TO each otnSr, iot
s., eoNous that as every Territorial goVerl4Inen'
f..,s0 rs powers from the consent OF me IN IN
ts..h cannot impose such duty without the
-, q the Congress. ,s
i rs Cause just quoted obviously contemplate
vr' S5ssliy Of its being wise 10 levy loSat IN
II on. ~ n one State on goods imported Ippih
hss, ..e's Of the United States. Hitherto 10. pe
i hass - ease has arisen where such locaI uuSe
l tls ,sssnec 10 be wise But IL IS pOssiDIe Lias
such = .eeeasion has now arisen. The WISDOM %
] nersyy,Y Is not the question ! seek 70 ulScuss'
I solies 'sire 70 point out the constitutions PoS
l EaEsg aSE 70 the case OF the philippines, o.. UI
\ tIlsls u1- o. Porto Rico. no reason apparent
l eall tbs,H lhe local governments there SET W
,xl or ~. What name We will, TERRITORIAL co4o