New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-10-17

the colony Of New-York The assembly
-sAd complied with an act Of Parliament re-
Quiring certain provisions TO be made for the
troops in America IN every particular except
che articles OF salt pepper and vinegar" The
Farmer regrets what seems 70 him an impru-
dent action. But the punishment melted out in
reply strikes him as pernicious to American
Freedom. The exaction. he argues. was practi
oally taxation. II. with the repeal Of the Stamp
Act, the right Of the colonies TO tax themselves
fs 20 be considered valid, the colony OF New
York had a right 20 refuse to comply, and Par
usnent had no power 10 compel II Parliament
hacked the power OF coTnpulsion. II had no right
OF punishment The action was not taken by
the crown. through restraint put upon the Gov
ernor IN converting session, but by Parliament
as against '6isobedience to the authority Of the
British legislature" In other words this is an
assertion OF the supremacy Of Parliament over
rhe colonial legislatures IN the matter Of taxa
zion. and the imposition OF punishment only
differed IN degree and quality. and not in prin-
iciple and effect, from an exaction Of tax at
che point Of royal bayonets. The Farmer re-
xrets that the legislature OF Pennsylvania did
not express its sense Of the suspending act 10
fhe Kings minister. and pray for its repeal;
Tor the cause OF one colony is the cause Of all
The levying % duties by Parliament. as in
recent act touching paper, glass and other COM
lrnodities. is the subject Of the next letter The
change IN theory marked by the Stamp Act Is
examined carefully. The author points sud
den abandonment OF the position that Parlia-
lrnent could impose duties for the regulation Of
srade. 20 the position that 4 could impose duties
ffor defraying the cost OF defence by English
TROOPS. then for defraying further cost Of the
same nature. and finally simply for the raising
OF revenue This. the Farmer declares. is an
innovation and a dangerous and improper one
II differs from the Stamp Act merely as a Soc
ono edition OF a book with a new title page The
crown hao exercised the right OF limiting the
trade end manufactures Of the colonies. and OF
requiring a restriction to English markets. Fav-
ing thus confined the production Of its colonies
n could not properly take advantage OF s1lrla q
situation TO make money out OF It at their ex-
pense- IL was true that this act might be held
less grievous than the Stamp Act II would 10
easier 10 90 without paper and glass from any
but an inadequate native supply than to 20
without making any written records tha, shout,
have The validity OF law. But this conca-rss
the evasion Of the operation Of the act no, ,s
inherent Justice, and IN any case the choice he
tween the two was not great. To poin+ 49,.
situation OF a dependent State reduced 70 the
necessity OF taking fits supplies from its eov-
erning State. and then made the victim OF t,,s
governmental monopoly. the Farmer recites the
lamentable case OF the Carthaginlaus' treat
menf OF Sardinia when the Islands supply OF
corn was restricted 20 Carthage and then bur
dened with exorbltant duties This" he OBJ
serves. with a quaintness apparently deliber-
ste. may be called the most perfect kind Of
political necessity
Removed from every consideration Of the de-
tails OF the colonies grievances another letter.
couched in terms OF delightfully."- urbane and
temperate optimism. meets criticisms which
have come 10 the Farmer OF his former writings
IL the colonies are being Wroaged. why should
they submit2 Is IL any reason that Great Brit
ain is too strong 70 resist2 They make a sad
mistake who trust 10 tine 10 strengthen a right
cause. Time intrenches usurpations and renders