Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-12-10


zepship and Is exclusively under Stat'
Jurisdiction. The United States can con
fer no such privilege within a stare
Volume H.. page s54.
| His treatment of the Federal power
| over commerce cannot be better stated
than in his own words: THE commerce
| power is contained In these words: IL
regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the several States, and WIFI
the Indian tribes Blackstone speaks OF
the English power over commerce In TINS
language: The power over all the COAST
over navigable rivers and Ravens, the
power of erecting beacons. lighthouses
and sea marks. and OF regulating impor'
tations and expectations. and prohibiting
the incoming and outgoing OF persons
are all parts of the royal prerogative.
The exercise Of this great prerogative
was. from time to time, attempted before
the Revolution OF 1855 by laying duties
upon imports. II was argued tnat as
the King, In regulating trade, might ex-
clude IT. he could lay tax or duty on It's
admission. Mr.. Hallam gives an inte-
resting account of the struggle In MS
| Constitutional History. In the reign OIL
James l.. a case arose in which the issue
was made upon the Royal prerogative.
| When the Articles of Confederation were
| adopted. the power TO regulate COM
merce was reserved TO each State. ex-
cept that Congress had powe: to make
commercial treaties and to regulate trace
with the Indians. The authors OF the
Federalist Indicate the dreadful condl-
ton in which this left the States of the
confederation. Each State competed with
| every other for advantages In traue
with foreign countries, and the inimicai
regulations Of commerce by European
countries, and especially by Great
Britain made a general public senti-
ment I'm favor of uniform regulations or
! commerce.
ION February 3. ISL. Congress asked
the States for power to levy a duty on
| imports TO pay the public debt, but re-
| jected a proposal made for power over
commerce. On the 18th Of April. l7sS,
| Congress again asked to be invested with
the power. to levy duties for revenue
| only. Virginia, I'm December, 1888. looking
to the British Orders in Council,
which restricted all our trade to British
bottoms, proposed TO give Congress
power to counterfeit this system by re-
taliatory regulations. on the Goth of
April, 1884, q very limited power to this
end was proposed for fifteen years. In
all this there was no suggestion OF a
power to lay duties, but only regulations
as TO vessels engaged I'm the carrying
trade. These movements show more
favor to the grant of the commercial
than Of the taxing power, and that the
two were never conjoined. but were al
ways distinct. This distinction between
the commerce power and the revenue
power is asserted with great force in the
resolutions of the Continental Congress,
October IA, INA.
Nm ha Of MARYLAND
am Virginia, sister States upon the Po-
tomac and Chesapeake. and friendly
rivals for the trade which passed TO and
fro from the ocean through Capes
Charles and Henry, met at Mount Vernon
10 agree upon a common system Of
regulations for their mutual interests.
The two States made compact regu-
lating the commerce between them. and
I'm the matters which united and divided
them 1t IS instructive TO see what were
regarded by these two States as regu-
lations Of commerce. Provision was
made for lighthouses, buOys etc, at
points agreed upon by each. and stlpula-
tons made by each for respecting the
commercial regulations Of the other, and
tor the navigation of their several
waters by the vessels of the other 1t
was this compact which suggested a
convention to regulate American com
merce and the commerce of all the
States. For. why should not, It was rea-
soned, all the States concur in COM
mon regulations for the foreign trade OF
each and all, as well as TO the interstate
trade"
1t is the opinion of two recent writer's
on the famous commerce clause Of the
Constitution prentice and Egan on 1.-THE
Commerce Clause Of the Federal Con-
1888, that il is a remarkable instance Of
a national power which was compare
lively unimportant for eighty years. but
In the last thirty years has been so de-
veloped that it is now. perhaps. the most
important and conspicuous power pos
sessed by the General Government.
No one who is familiar with Mr.. Tuck
ers work would venture TO make such a
statement. The new instrumentalities OF
commerce have caused the aid OF the
courts 20 be more frequently invoked
in the Interpretation Of the clause. but
1t is historically certain that its impor-
lance was more fully realized in the
eighteenth than it has been in the nine
teenth century
The power OF the government TO coin
money and emit bills Of credit, and its
eltect, was never more clearly stated.
Says Mr.. Tucker: Except for the pro-
hibltion on the States as 10 legal tender,
1t Is obvious that the power OF Congress
10 coin money would have left the States
free 10 make something else than coin
a legal tender in the payment of debts.
But when the Constitution gave 10 Con
gress the power to coin and denied it TO
the States, and, Also denied to them the
right 10 make anything but gold and sill
yer coin tender, il made coin n
legal tender. and gave TO Congress no
where the power to make anything but
coin legal tender. II does not grant this
power TO Congress, and prohibit il TO the
States; and the prohibition on the States
against making anything but gold and
silver tender affirmatiyely makes gold
and silver coin legal tender. This be-
ing so, the inference Of power in Con-
gress TO change the legal tender estab-
lished by the Constitution is out of the
question, unless we are to presume the
grant to Congress of the power because
ii is prohibited to the States.
The debate on the striking out OF the |
clause, TO emit bills Of credit shows the |
bitter antagonism of the members Of the |
convention TO any kind Of paper. Federal !
or State, as a legal tender in the pay
ment Of debts. This feeling was as strong |
against paper issues by Congress as |
against paper issues by the States. Both |
We're regarded as fragrant violations OF |
the rights Of citizens in respect 10 their |
contracts. Ii is absurd 10 hold that this |
invasion OF the integrity OF private con-
tracts, by making them sOlvable in the |
paper issues OF the government, Is any |
more mischievous. or harmful, when |
sanctioned by one government than when |
done by another They prohibited IL TO !
the States because. unless prohibited, it
was reserved to them They not only |
did not grant it to Congress, but struck |
out the words, TO emit bills. TO exclude |
the possibility OF an inference Of such |
power in Congress; SO that they effected /