« PreviousContinue »
FREE TRADE CONVENTION.
upon the table.
nication, addressed to him by Mr. James Ronaldson, of which having been read by him to the Convention, it the city of Philadelphia, relating to the price of iron at was, on motion of Mr. Jones, of Georgia, two different periods, which letter, on motion, was laid Resolved, that the said Address be laid upon the
table, and that 300 copies be printed for the use of the Mr. MITCHELL, of South Carolina, offered the follow members. ing resolution:
Mr. PRESTON, of South Carolina, moved, that when Resolved, that the Federal Committee do inquire this Convention adjourn, it be to meet again at 10 into the expediency of recommending the abolition ot o'clock to-morrow morning; which was agreed to, and, specific and minimum duties, and the substitution of the on motion, ad valorem duty on an all imports.
The Conyention adjourned. Which resolution was, on motion of Mr. Mitchell, referred to the General Committee.
Fifth Duy.—Thursday, Oct. 6th, 1831. Mr. Jones, of Georgia, offered the following resolu At 10 o'clock, the President took the chair, when tion:
the minutes of the preceding day were read. Resolved, That this Convention accepts, with thank Mr. Joux I. DONALDSON, a Delegate from Maryland, ful acknowledgment, the copies of Mr. Cambreleng's appeared and took his seat. Report on Commerce and Navigation, presented by The PRESIDENT stated, that one of the members of John I. Mumfor:), for the use of the Convention. the General Committee had informed him, that the Ad
Mr. STEVENS, of New York, moved to amend the dress to the People of the United States, reported yessame by striking out the name of Mr. Cambreleng, so terday, would not be ready until 12 o'clock, and he subas to make it read "Report of the Committee on Com- mitted to the Convention, the expediency of a recess merce and Navigation;" which was not agreed to, and until that hour. then the resolution was adopted.
Mr. POINDEITER, of Mississippi, offered the following The Secretary stated that there were lying upon his resolution: table an invitation from the Franklin Institute to each Resolved, That it be recommended to the Convention, member of this Convention, to attend its annual exhi. that a committee of six be appointed, and requested to bition of monnufactures.
attend in the city of New York, and express to the Con. Mr. Preston, of South Carolina, offered the follow- vention there to be assembled on the 26th of the preing resolution:
sent month, in the name of this Convention, a sincere Resolved, That a Committee be appointed by the desire to meet, in the spirit of conciliation, such ComPresident to wait upon the General Committee, now in mittee as they may appoint to confer on the modifications session, for the purpose of ascertaining at what time which ought to be made in the existing Tariff of duties, they will be ready to report.
on goods, wares and merchandize impurted into the Which resolution was agreed to, and
United States, so as to render the same, as far as may Mr. Passtor, and Mr. Roane, of Virginia, were ap- be, equal in its operation, and satisfactory to the people pointed that Committee.
of the United States; and submit the result of such con. In a short time, Mr. Preston, from the Committee last ferance to the permanent Committee, appointed by the appointed, reported: That they had waited upon the preceding resolution. General Committee, and received from the Chairman Which resolution was laid on the table. information that the Committee would be ready to re Mr. MITCHELL, of South Carolina, laid before the port in a few minutes, or to ask further time.
Convention a printed paper, addressed “To the Mem. Mr. BASSETT, of Virginia, offered the following reso- bers of the Anti-Tariff Convention af Philadelphia," lution:
dated at Charleston, s. c. on the 24th of September, Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to confer 1831, and signed by Benjamin Faneuil Hunt, Delegate with the Pennsylvania Delegation, in reference to the from St James, Santee; which was ordered to be read. raising of a fund to pay the expenses incident to the The secretary proceeded to the reading of the same, meeting of this Convention.
and after some progress therein, it was moved, by The resolution was agreed to, and the fullowing gen. Mr. PRESTON, of South Carolina, that the further tlenen were appointed:
reading be dispensed with, and that the document be Mr. Bassett, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Carpenter, Mr, A. laid on the table. P. Butler, Mr. Jones, of Georgia.
Which was agreed to. Mr. GALLATIN, from the General Committee, stated On motion of Mr. Parsons, of Alabama, it was then that that committee was not yet ready to report, but Resolved, I hat there be a recess of the Convention would be ready to do so at 4 o'clock this afternoon, and until 1 o'clock. accordingly asked further time; when it was, on motion, A communication was read from Mr. John Sarchet,
Resolved, That further time be granted, and that there of Philadelphia, practical Blacksmith, containing some be a recess of this Convention un:il 4 o'clock, P. M. information on the subject of the price of iron, in an
Mr. Price, of Pennsylvania, stated that he had been swer to the statement made in Mr. Ronaldson's letter, requested by the Managers of the Pennsylvania Hospi- which was yesterday laid before the Convention. tal, to invite the individual members of this Convention Mr. MITCHELL, of South Carolina, moved that the said to visit the said institution, at any time it may suit their letter be printed. convenience.
Mr. A.P. BUTLER, of South Carolina, proposed to add
these words, in " conjunction with the letter of Mr. 4 o'clock, P. M. The President announced the names Ronaldson,” which amendment was adopted by Mr. of the following gentlemcn, as having been invited by Mitchell as a modification; and the question having been him to take seats within the bar of Convention.
put, the resolution was not agreed to. The Consul General of Sweden.
Mr. POINDEXTER moved to adjourn, but subsequently The Charge d'Affairs, of Denmark,
withdrew the motion, for the purpose of submitting the The Hon. Judge Baldwin, of the Supreme Court of following resolutions: the United State.
Resolved, That 10 o'olock, A. M. daily be the standThe Hon. Judge Morgan, of Philadelphia.
ing hour for the meeting of this Convention, until othGen. Preston of Virginia.
erwise directed. The Hon. Warren R. Davis, Representative in Con Mr. Jones, of Georgia, moved that the Convention gress, from South Carolina.
adjourn; and on the question being put, it was not The Hon. Mr. Johnston, a Senator from Louisiana. agreed to.
Mr. BERRIEN, from the General Committee, reported Mr. MILLER, of South Carolina, moved that the Con. the draft of an Address to the People of the U, States; I vention resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole,
upon the address to the people of the United States; from church, and again repeated the objection of his which was agreed to.
sister-in-law, and in the course of the conversation The President appointed Mr. Sedgwick, of Massa- which ensued, told her not to write to him or expect chusetts, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, but him any more; she complained of his treatment, and Mr. Sedgwick not being at that moment present, received the cavalier reply, that " she could do just as
Mr. Banks, of Virginia, was appointed, and the she pleased." He came once afterwards and remon. President left the Chair.
strated with her for going to law, observing that it After a short period, the President resumed the would be a disgrace; to which she replied, that it would Chair when Mr. Banks reported that the Committee be no greater disgrace than to be slurred by the neighof the Whole bad had under consideration the Address bours, as she now was. He said she was plenty young to the People of the United States, committed to the.m; enough to get somebody, and what one did not want, that they had made some progress in the same, and had another would be glad to get, and then took his leave; instructed their Chairman to ask leave to sit again. he never asked the parents' consent, wishing the mar
Upon the question of granting leave to sit again, it riage to be done ssily. The plaintiff is now in her was unanimously agreed to.
twenty first year, is a milliner, in the Northern Liber. The following names were announced by the Presi- ties, where the defendant, who is a comb maker, also dent during the day, of gentlemen invited by him lo take resides. seats within the bar of the Convention:
Several other witnesses were called by plaintiff, who Mr. Ingham, late Secretary of the Treasury, proved that they had often seen defendant at plaintiff's Mr. Saul Alley, of New York.
house. Mr. William D. Shepherd, of North Carolina.
The defendant declined examining any witnesses, Mr. John Hare Powell, of Philadelphia.
and the respective Counsel addressed the Jury, a full On motion of Mr. Berrien, of Georgia, the Convention review and recapitulation of the evidence being taken adjourned.
pro and con. [To be Continued.]
For the plaintiff it was contended that the case was
fully made out, as laid in the declaration, that there Reported for the Pennsylvania Inquirer,
were two requisites to be established to entitle the
plaintiff to a verdict, viz:-1st, that there was a conBREACH OF PROMISE.
fract of marriage; 2dly, if there was such a contract, District Court, Nov. 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th, before Judge that it was broken by defendant. It was argued that Hallowell and a Special Jury.
these were fully made out, and that the plaintiff was Anne Rees vs. Jacob Rudy.
entitled to heavy damages for the injury sustained to This was an action brought to recover damages for her health, her reputation and to herself; that an exa breach of promise of marriage, and the circumstan- traordinary and aggravated case had been presented ces and commencement of the acquaintance of the against the defendant, without the slightest extenuation parties, as detailed in evidence, appeared as follows: or justification on the part of the defendant; it was al
Miss Catharine Rees, sister to the plaintiff, testified, so remarked that the defence was conducted in a novel that in August, 1829, while she and ber sister were tak style, as witnesses were in court, and yet none examining a walk out Fourth street, they were accosted by ed in defendant's behalf; that its extraordinary characthe defendant and another gentlem in, who joined ter was only equalled by the novel and unusual style of them; that the defendant inquired where they resided, wooing practised by the defendant. and on their reply, informed them that he was a near For the defendant, it was contended that the case neighbour; that they stopped at the College Garden, was not of the aggravated description represented by and got some refreshments, he remarking that there the plaintiff's counsel; that the defence did not require was no harm in is, as he was a neighbour; at this gar- the examination of any testimony, as had been at first den the other gentleman left them, when the defend. anticipated, the plaintiff's case being weak and not reant observed that the reason of his leaving them, was, quiring any defence; tbat the principal and only imthat he did not think it right to accompany them as he portant witness on the behalf of the plaintiff was her was a married man, adding, so was I once, but I buried sister, liable to a prejudice and bias, created by affection my wife, and always thought I would wait a year, but and the ties of nature, from which the purest could not (addressing the plaintiff,) I have fallen in love with protect themselves; that the case showed an almost unia you and changed my mind. When they arrived home ty of existence between the sisters; who were always he requested permission to visit them, which was grant. together, on every occasion alluded to; that the testi'ed; his visits became frequent and uninterrupted, he mony of the principal witness could not be correct; and the plaintiff going out to take a walk or ride on that however pure she be, yet it is the fallacy of opindifferent occasions; one evening he came in and handed ion to which all human nature is liable that persuades a a letter to plaintiff, saying he would make her a pres- belief of things, existing only in imagination, in which ent of it, and immediately he went out: on reading it, a witness has an interest, strong in passion and feeling; plaintiff exclaimed, “my God, what have I done, that that the whole affair was a foolish transaction, (as love any one should write so against me,” 'I was an anony- affairs generally are) approaching almost to childishmous letter, addressed to plaintiff, and signed" A well ness; that the damages (if any) should be merely comwisher,” stating the plaintiff to be of a very violent pensatory, and only to such amount as the plaintiff bad temper, totally unfit to succeed the wife he had lost; sustained injury, and that, as the case presented itself, this was accompanied by a note from defendant to no great injury accrued to the plaintiff, either to her plaintiff in German, the translation of which is as fol. , health, her reputation, or her future prospects. lows: “ This letter is plainly written, and convinces me His honour, Judge Hallowell, charged the Jury that of its truth; I have therefore changed my mind, and the case was fully made out by the plaintiff; that an endon't intend to come again.” Plaintiff wrote to de. gagement and promise of marriage, and subsequent fendant, who replied in writing; he afterwards came breach by the defendant, were clearly established, and again as usual, remarking that the neigborhood had the defendant should answer in damages, the measure tried hard to break the match, but he did not intend of which was the peculiar province of the Jury. they should glory in it; his visits were constant for some On Monday, the Jury returned with a verdict for length of time, iill one evening, when he told plain. plaintiff, with three hundred and fifty dollars damages. tiff that his sister in law objected to his marrying her, For plaintiff. -John M. Scott and S. Keemle, Esand therefore he could not do it. Plaintiff afterwards quires. wrote to defendant, who replied, telling her to meet For Defendant.-George M. Dallas and S. Rush, bim at church, which she did; be went liome with her Esquires.
REGISTER OF PENNSYLVANIA.
DEVOTED TO THE PRESERVATION OF EVERY KIND OF USEFUL INFORMATION RESPECTING THE STATE.
EDITED BY SAMUEL HAZARD.
VOL. VIII.-NO. 22. PHILADELPHIA, NOVEMBER 26, 1831. NO. 204.
ADDRESS OF THE
true character will either appear on their face, or may FRIENDS OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY,
be made to appear by stating the facts which fasten that
character upon them. And if the motives which are Assembled in Convention at New York, Oct. 26, 1831, supposed to have influenced Congress in their enact
ment, are not facts which may be properly inquired in
to to give them this character, the reason is, not that PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. Congress has executed an unlawful power, or veiled
an unlawful purpose under a general law, but that the FELLOW CITIZENS:
general power being given to Congress to pass such A numerous delegation from several states in the Union laws,the purpose of the law, like its occasion, its durahave convened in the city of New York, representing tion, or any other part of its character, is constitution. great national interests, which they are anxious, by the ally referred to the discretion of Congress. most efficient but peaceable means, to defend and sup. The present constitution has been in operation (with port. In addressing themselves to the people of the a sliccess not more gratifying to ourselves than surpris. United States, they invoke their candid attention to se. ing to the rest of the world) for forty-two years. Twenveral topics of great national importance, without as. ty-one different Congresses, regularly elected and ap. suming any authority ultimately to decide them; con- pointed by the people, and their agents, and the state scious that their reasonings and opinions can have, and legislatures, have successively assembled to enact laws ought to have, no other influence or force than belongs under its authority. Seven distinguished individuals to their truth and soundness,
have been called by the voice of the country to the A system of laws imposing duties for the encourage. chair of the Chief Magistracy, all holding, and some of ment and protection of domestic industry, upon the them on various occasions, having exercised the pow. faith of which a large portion of the people of this coun. er of giving a negative to such acts of Congress as, in try have invested their property, and given a new di- their opinion, transcended the just limits of legislative rection to their labor,and with a continuance of which are authority. During the same period a Supreme Judicial completely identified all their hopes of maintenance for Tribunal has existed, not less distinguished for purity themselves and their fanilies, has been recently denoun- and talent than for dignity and importance, whose ced as “distinguished by every characteristic which may high function it properly is to pronounce its solemn define a tyranny, the most odious.” The entire aboli- judgment on the constitutional extent of the power of tion of this system, vitally involving the interests of Congress whenever any exercise of their power is comFarmers, Mechanics, Manufacturers, Merchants, and all plained uf, and the case brought duly before it. Most the laboring classes, has been demanded in a tone that of these successive Congresses have passed laws similar offers no hope of condition or compromise. A submis- in character, in design, and in effect, to the acts now sion to such a demand, with or without the consent of complained of;and all of them have unequivocally sancthose who must be the victims, would be marked by tioned their principle. Ail these Chief Magistrates, in such scenes of ruin and despair, as no one, not blinded like manner, have, without doubt or hesitation, recog. by the strongest passions of our nature, could witness nised the existence of the power, and no question of without compunction.
its validity has been revised in the Judicial Tribunals. It We address ourselves, then, to the enlightened patri- is under this weight of authority, and this length of otism of our fellow citizens in every part of the Union; practice in its favor, and after the investment, upon the and we earnestly entreat them to accompany us in the faith of it, of a capital probably amounting to two hundexamination which we propose to make of arguments red and fifty millions of dollars, that a disposition has and statements recently put forth; appealing to their now sprung up to deny the power altogether, and to clear discernment of truth, their high sense of duty, and propose, if its exercise be persisted in, a resort to their calm moral courage, to avert the evils that now such means of redress as threaten the Union. seem to threaten the prosperity and peace of the coun We cannot but persuade ourselves that before the try.
American People abandon a system of laws, now of long of these topics, the first in order and the gravest in continuance, passed at different times, by the constitucharacter, respects the constitutional power of Con. ted authorities, with the full approbation of the whole gress to pass the laws which are the subject of com country; and especially, before they break up their Go. plaint.
vernment and return to a state of anarchy, on the As a constitutional question, the inquiry is not wheth- ground that such laws are unconstitutional, they will er the laws are wise or unwise, whether in their ope. give to that question a very careful and serious considrations they are always equal, or sometimes unequal, or eration. whether individuals may not think them so wide a de. Before proceeding to express the general views en. parture from a just administration of the powers of the tertained on this important subject, by the members of government, as to he, in an indefinite and loose sense, this convention, it is not altogether uninteresting to in. inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution. The quire how far admissions or concessions have been made true and real question is, do they exceed the power of by those who deny the existence of the power, notwith. the law giver, and do they, for that reason, fail to be standing the general and positive terms in which that obligatory
denial is expressed. We dissent from the notion that laws plainly unconsti It seems to us, indeed, that the plain object of the tutional may yet be so framed as to escape the animad. constitution, and the strong reason of the case bave driversion of the courts of law. If unconstitutional, their ven those wbo deny the power, eren upon their own VOL. VIII.
ADDRESS OF THE TARIFF CONVENTION.
mistaken view of its source, into the necessity of making duties with the single object of encouraging certain deadmissions, which when made, leave no ground for their scriptions of domestic employment or industry; and it argument. They deny that Congress can rightfully lay remains for those who concede this, and yet deny the duties for the sole, or main purpose, of encouraging general power, to show how it is, thatcongress has power, manufactures; but they admit, at the same time, that in its discretion, to protect some classes of industry, and Congress may lay duties for revenue, and that, in lay- no power, in the same discretion, and by the same ing such duties, it may so arrange them as incidentally means, to protect others. But the admission goes still to give protection to manufactures. They admit, further. It not only furnishes an analogy for the case too, that Congress may lay (duties not designed for re- in argument, but meets and covers that identical case. venue, but designed io countervail the injurious regula- The laws so much opposed, and whose constitutional tions of foreign powers. Are not these concessions in- validity is so loudly denied, are themselves no other consistent with the main proposition? How can it be than so many acts passed to countervail the injurious longer denied that Congress may lay duties for protec. commercial regulations of foreign slates. tion, afted it is conceded that it may arrange duties with The United States have not been the first to reject that view? It cannot be true that the power was given the theory of free trade. They have not introduced infor revenue only, and that it ought to be strictly con to the world new modes of legislation. They have not fined to that object, and true, also, that in selecting originated a system of protection; far otherwise. At subjects of duties, regard may be had to a different ob- the very moment they had succeeded to throw off their ject.
colonial bondage,and had established their own indepen. An individual in society is consumer of a particu- dence, they found that their condition, so far as respect. lar foreign article; he finds it heavily taxed by duties, ed Commerce, Agriculture and Manufactures, was but while other articles, equally capable of producing re- partially bettered by the change, because they found venue, are untaxed. Does it make any difference to the ports of the leading states of Europe, shut up against him, whether the article necessary to him was seized their ships, and against their products. They offered on, as the main purpose of the law, with the sole ob- free trade to all nations; but the nations, with one acject of protection, or whether it was only incidentally se. cord, rejected their offer. The subjects of other states lected in order to favour the manufacturer, while the were protected, as against them, by the laws of other commodities consumed by his neighbors, though equal states; but they were protected agaist nobody. It is unly fit subjects for a tax for revenue, are passed over in deniably true, that this condition of things was one of this incidental arrangement? Will not every ingenious the very causes which led to the adoption of the present mind at once agree that if the power to lay duties was government. It is unquestionable, as matter of historic conferred on Congress for the sole purpose of revenue,it record, that one strong motive for forming and estabis a violation of its trust to mingle any other purpose with lishing the present constitution, was to organize a gothat, as much as it would be to substitute an entire new vernment that should possess the power of countervailpurpose for it? Congress cannot look with one glance to ing these foreign regulations by adequate measures, and revenue, and the other to protection, if the constitution thereby protecting the labour and industry of the peolimits its power to revenue alone. When it is thus said ple of the country. Countervailing laws were accorthat protection is a fit object to be regarded incidentally; dingly passed at the very first session of the first Conin laying duties, but that the general purpose must still gress; others have been passed at various times since; be revenue, who shall inform us how much, in the mo one and all, they partake of the same character, they tives of Congress, must be the main purpose of revenue, are all countervailing laws, rendered expedient and neand how much may be the incidental purpose of pro- cessary, by the policy pursued by other nations. The tection? How high may the incidental object rise, and Republic is now composed of thirteen millions of peothe law be yet constitutional; or at what point will it ple; all the principal products of eight or nine millions have approached so near the main, or the only object of of these thirteen millions are, at this moment, shut out the duty, as to render the law void? It may be answer from the great market of consumption abroad, either ed, possibly, that the admission goes no farther than by absolute prohibition or by high duties; and it is to this: that wben Congress has already resolved to lay du- meet this state of things, it is to countervail these for. ties, then it may, as a subsequent resolution, resolve to eign regulations, so injurious to us, it is to place our. lay them on such a selection of articles as shall best fa. selves on some footing of equality, it is to rescue the lavour manufactures.
But would not such a subsequent bour of the American people from an inferiority, a subresolution be wholly aside from the exercise of a mere jection, at once dishonorable and burdensome, at once revenue power? . Would it not be a clear imposition of degrading to its character, while it increases its toils, duties for protection? And might it not lead, practical. that those very laws were originally passed, have all ly, to the same consequences, since, under this admitted along continued, and now exist. They are, therefore, power of selection and arrangement, the whole burden countervailing laws and no other, in every just sense of of the government might be laid with a direct view to these terms. protection merely.
Having made these remarks on what is conceded by The other admission, that is, that Congress may lay those who deny the power of Congress to protect manduties to countervail the commercial relations of other ufactures, and on the effect of that concession, we prostates, seems to us still more decisive. This concedes, ceed to present the view which this meeting entertains at once, that the power to lay duties is not a mere re on the general constitutional question. venue power; for here is one admitted case, in By the constitution, Congress has power, “40 lay and which it may properly he exercised, which has no rela- collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.
It has pow. tion to revenue. Yet this is no particular or specified er also “o regulate commerce with foreign nations.” power. The constitution no more points out this as be The power
to lay duties is accompanied by one exing a proper object, than it points out protection. If it press qualification or limitation, which is, that all dube provided for at all, it is because it is embraced in the ties shall be uniform throughout the United States." general words of the grant. It is there,or it is no where. The power to regulate commerce has its limitation also, Laws laying duties to countervail the regulations of wbich is, that no regulation of commerce sball give other states, are regulations of trade. They are not on. preference to the ports of one state over those of anothly like laws of protection, but they are, emphatically, er; and there is another limitation, which may apply themselves laws of protection. They have usually no oth- to both clauses, namely, that no esport duty shall ever er end or design, than to protect the manufacturers or be laid. other interests of our own citizens, from the effect of Here, then, is a grant of power in broad and general unequal competition or monopoly on the part of other terms, but with certain specific limitations, carefully nations. Congress, then, upon this admission, may lay I expressed. But neither of these limitations applies, in
ADDRESS OF THE TARIFF CONVENTION.
any manner, to that exercise of the power which is now founded in national policy, and that it is essential to naunder consideration. Neither of them, nor any other tional defence and national independence, we adınit it, clause or word in the whole constitution, manifests the but we answer in the first place, that Congress could slighest intention to restrain the words so far as to pro- not exercise a power not granted, merely because it hibit Congress from laying duties for protection. The might be useful or necessary; and, in the second place, attempt is nothing less than to add a restriction which the we say that the same remark is true of the policy of constitution has omitted. Who has authority to add protecting manufactures. That policy, also, is essential this? If other restrictions had been intended, they to national independence. Iron, hemp, and clothing would have been expressed. When the business of for sailors and soldiers are not less indispensable to na. limitation was before the convention, what was omitted tional defence than ships and seamen. Not only in the was as much an exercise of intention as what was ex. general use of language, then, does the power of laying pressed. It stated all the restraints on Congress which duties and regulating trade extend to the protection, by it intended, and to impose others now, would be, not to the use of such means, of domestic manufactures, but interpret the constitution, but to change it; not to con- such has been the constant interpretation of the constistrue the existing instrument, but to make another. tution itself.
The words of the grant being general, to lay duties We think, indeed, that when a general power is giand to regulate commerce, their meaning is to be ascer. ven to Congress by the Constitution of the United tained by reference to the common use and import of States, in plain and unambiguous words, their acts are language. No unusual signification is to be given to the constitutional and valid, if they are within the scope terms, either to restrain or enlarge their import, Con of the granted power; and that, in considering the vagress,in its discretion, is to lay duties and to regulate trade lidity of the law, the motives of the legislature can nefor all the objects and purposes, for which duties are ver be investigated. Having granted the power, with ordinarily laid, and trade ordinarily regulated. If such such limits expressed as were thought proper, its exer. a thing was never before heard of' as laying duties and cise, within those limits, is left to, the discretion of regulating trade with a view to encourage manufactures, Congress. then it might be said that the Convention did not con What is the true character of the opposite doctrine? template such an exercise of the power by Congress. It is, that the constitutionality of the law depends, But it was perfectly known to the convention, and to not on its provisions and enactments, but on the motives the people of this country, that one leading object with of those who passed it. Is not such a notion new? How all governments, in laying duties and regulating trade, are we to ascertain the motives of a legislature! By was, and for a long time had been, the encouragement private inquiry; by public examination; by conjecture? of manufacturers. This was emphatically true of En. The law may be passed on mixed motives: some memgland, whose language the convention spoke, and (bers voting for revenue; some for protection; or one whose legal and legislative phraseology was iheirs also. house may act with one view, and the other house with Every leading state of Europe was, at ihat moment, re- another. What will be the character of such a law? gulating its commerce for a purpose of this nature. According to this new theory, if the motives be conSuch a purpose, indeed, had been long sought to be stitutional then the act is: if the motives be unconstituaccomplished by some of the states themselves, by their tional, than the act is unconstitutional also. It follows, own regulations of trade. Massachusetts, Virginia, therefore, that a law passed by one Congress may be and New York had attempted it, and we believe other constitutional, which, if passed by another, though in states had done the same. How ineffectual all their the same words, would be unconstitutional. Besides, attempts were, for want of union and a general system, on this theory, a law may be unconstitutional for its omis. Was soon seen, and felt, by the whole country; but tbey sions as well as its enactments; because in laying duties, shew to what ends, and to what uses the power to re- articles may be omitted as well as articles inserted, from gulate trade was understood to extend. But not only a design to favour manufactures. in other nations, and in the states, before the adoption We may pursue this inquiry a step further. of the present constitution, as we shall have occasion to In order to ascertain whether an act were passed pri. show bereafier, but in the United States since, and in marily for revenue, the construing power must be authe administration of this very constitution, regulations thorized to inquire whether the revenue be necessary. of trade bave been made, in almost innumerable instan- For if it be conceded that Congress has a constitutional ces, with no view to revenue, but with a sole and ex. power to raise an indefinite amount of revenue, such a clusive regard to protection.
concession will cover any system of impost that may evIf our understanding of the Constitution, be not accord. er be adopted. The right to raise more revenue than ing to its true meaning, that instrument has been the expenses of government requires implies, the exer. grossly violated from the beginning. What are all the cise of a power to tax under circumstances in which the registry acts; what the bounties on the fisheries, but so raising of revenue cannot be a primary purpose, but in many avowed efforts to protect American Industry, in which a purpose to protect industry, or, in other words, der the power of regulating trade? On what foundation what has been called the incidental object, may be rendoes the whole system of the coasting trade stand? The dered, in effect, the principal object of the tax, alAmerican ship-builder, and ship-owner has enjoyed, though veiled under the revenue power. For these from the first, and we think properly, not only protec. reasons we say it follows as an inevitable consequence, tion in that trade, but the monopoly of it. He shuts under this view of the source of the protective power, out all foreign competition, and be does so on the ground that the constitutionality of any system of imposts, prothat the public good is promoted by giving him this ad. fessing to be directed to revenue, must depend upon vantage. We think he is right in asking this, and the the fact, whether that revenue be necessary to the gogovernment right in granting it. Yet this is not free trade: vernment or not. it is preference; it is protection;and protection of a manu The statement of such a consequence is sufficient to facture under the power to regulate trade. The laws show what endless difficulties must embarrass the opegiving this protection to the manufacture, and the use rations of the government in defining the limits of this of ships, may be wise, and laws protecting other man incidental protection, which has been alledged to be ufactures may be unwise. But the first cannot be con- the only protection that the constitution allows, and of stitutional, and the latter not constitutional. If there be itself affords, what we conceive to be, an unanswerable power for one, there is power for both. Both are drawn argument against referring the right to protect industry from the same grant, both operate by the same general exclusively to that clause of the constitution which aumeans, and both regard the same object, the protection, thorizes Congress to lay imposts, for the purposes of re. namely, of American labor and capital, against foreign venue. competition. If it be said that ihe navigation act is To determine whether any proposed amount of re