Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

APRIL 29, 1830.]

Maysville Road Bill.

[H. OF R.

ordinary meaning, and resort to precedents. But, unfor- This subject comes more nearly home to me, and to the tunately, and very strangely, precedents never seem to be people I represent; and I am about to resort to high auof any use, but for operating against some long establish- thority-the very highest, in the estimation of some-even ed rule of action, under which a thousand previous acts the sovereign power, in their estimation; but not quite so are not permitted to have as much force as one new act in high, in my opinion, as that. No, sir; not quite the soveopposition to that rule. I know not how many precedents reign power, but yet very high and respectable authority. in favor of the practical use of the word establish to count. I mean the Supreme Court. In the case of Gibbons "8. But we know, from the foundation of the Government Ogden, the Chief Justice, in delivering the opinion of the until within a few years, establishing a post road meant court, after some preliminary observations, says: "We the designation by law of some road already made as a are now arrived at the inquiry—what is this power? It is mail route. This has, in many thousand cases, which the power to regulate, that is, to prescribe the rule by ought to have the force of precedent, been the evident which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all meaning of the acts of the Government establishing post others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exer roads. And I give a strong illustration in the case of the cised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations celebrated Cumberland road, which, if I am rightly in- other than are prescribed in the constitution." He con formed, was first made, or caused to be made, by Congress, tinues: "If, as has always been understood, the sovereign, and afterwards, by a separate and distinct act, made, or ty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is ple established, that is, designated by law a post road, and nary as to those objects, the power over commerce with the mail directed to be carried on it as a mail route, and foreign nations, and among the several States, is vested in so of any other road. Some seem to have a difficulty, be- Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single Governcause the same word establish is used in regard to post ment, having in its constitution the same restrictions on offices. But this will, upon a moment's reflection, be the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution shown to be only prescribing by law the official duties or of the United States." The word sovereignty, applied character of some individual appointed postmaster. Con- here to Congress, if understood as it frequently is, I do not gress, by establishing the office, neither makes the man, approve of. Congress is not the sovereign power of the nor the place where the duties are performed. In gene- country, but a mere agency, with powers plenary quoad hoc ral, it does not require a great deal of room, and most of over particular subjects; and in this sense the word should those who are willing to perform the duties have some be understood here. I perfectly agree with the opinion place to perform the duty in, or furnish it. The word es- of the court in the doctrine here laid down of the plenary tablish has been therefore properly interpreted by the acts nature and completeness of all the legitimate constitution of the Government from its commencement; and, if right- al powers of this Government. And sir, I, for one, would ly informed, I believe it is so used in that country (Eng- not diminish one iota, nor in the smallest degree take from land) from which we received our idea of post office sys- or diminish the powers either of the general or State autem. The more modern, and evidently erroneous inter-thorities; but, keeping each within its proper sphere, I' pretation, that establish means to make post roads and post would adopt the old adage of suum cuique tributo. But, offices, must be considered an interpolation. does not every one perceive that this doctrine, being sound and truly drawn, as I say it is, from one of the plainest parts of the constitution, is at once destructive of the claim of this Government to make internal improvements within the States ? The Chief Justice proceeds, after some other remarks: "The appellant, conceding these postulates, except the last, contends that full power to regulate a particular subject implies the whole power and leaves no residuum; that a grant of the whole is incompatible with the existence of a right in another to any part of it." On the margin we have the following condensation of the context to which it is connected; "The power to regulate commerce, so far as it extends, is exclusively vested in Congress, and no part of it can be exercised by a State." Now sir, what is the commerce, the If Congress can, at its discretion, pronounce upon the ob- regulation of which has been given to Congress? It is jects which concern the general welfare, and apply, ad li- commerce" with foreign nations, among the several States, bitum, the money of the public to their accomplishment, and with the Indian tribes." This is the commerce to be what is to prevent their exercise of any power whatever, regulated, constituting one subject whole and entire, totus which it may please them to say is for the general welfare, teres atque rotundus. The power of Congress over it is is a national object? They may select any end or object, commensurate with the subject: it is full and complete, and use any amount of means to arrive at or accomplish and consequently exclusive, as I say all the appropriate the purpose. The people intended this to be a Goveru- powers of Congress are. It follows from the very nature ment of limited powers; but if, really, Congress is left to of things, that, if the power is plenary, it is necessarily exits own discretion as to the objects, with unlimited use of clusive, and cannot of necessity be concurrent, or particithe means, the Government becomes as sovereign and im- pant, or conjointly with another. I have once before adperial as the autocracy of Russia or Turkey. I ask, what vanced the doctrine here, and I think truly, that, properly is the difference between unlimited power, and an unlimit- speaking, there are no concurrent powers between the ed use of the means to accomplish whatever objects the General and State Legislatures or Governments. Even discretion of the Government may select or point out? the power of taxation, which seems to be so considered by What is power but the use of the means to accomplish some, I find no difficulty with. There are powers to be any thing Means in use are power de facto, real, practi- exercised by both very similar, but this may be remarked eal power. in regard to other Governments. Take, for instance, the The power to regulate commerce is one of the main subject of taxation: it is not only similar in its mode of apsources from which the power to make internal improve-plication and exercise in this country and Great Britain, ments within the jurisdictional limits of the States, by mak-but it is a known fact, that some of the very identical aring roads and canals, improving, or, I suppose, making ticles which yield a tax in England, afterwards also yield harbors, breakwaters, improving rivers, &c., is claimed. la tax here; but would any one undertake to say, there

The appropriating power, the most convenient for all purposes, is not a new one. It is the opinion of Mr. Hamilton revived, I think, in 1823, or '4, because it was perhaps thought more to the purpose by some. In his report on manufactures, page fifty-fourth, Mr. Hamilton remarks: "It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, is within the sphere of the national councils, so far as regards an application for money."

H. OF R.]

Maysville Road Bill.

[APRIL 29, 1830.

ple of this State ought to have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof." I will trouble the House no longer.

Mr. MARTIN, avowing his disapprobation of the bill, but his unwillingness to take up the time of the House in an argument against it, moved to lay the bill on the table. This motion was decided in the negative by yeas and Days: For the motion

Against it

85 101

fore, that the two Governments are joint agencies? The two Governments exercise similar powers, each within its own sphere, but not as copartners, or concurrent agencies. Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c., to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." But the court says: "This does not interfere with the power of the States to tax for the support of their own Governments, for is the exercise of that power by the States an exercise of any portion of the power that is granted to the United Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, rose to address the House, States. In imposing taxes for State purposes, they are and said that he was aware of the danger to this bill, which not doing what Congress is empowered to do. Congress was incurred by occupying too much of the time of the is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are House in making speeches in its behalf; but he trusted within the exclusive province of the States. When gentlemen would pardon him, when they considered the then, each Government exercises the power of taxation, immediate and deep interest his constituents felt in the neither is exercising the power of the other." No, sir; success of the bill. He knew the state of exhaustion in but exercising distinct and separate, though similar pow- which the minds of the members were, after the protracters; and so of the power to regulate commerce, that is, ed debate; and that no gentleman, however transcendent the power, as properly defined by the court to make legal his talents might be, (he was aware of the very small prerules and regulations by which commerce with foreign na- tensions he could himself urge,) could expect from them a tions, among the several States, and with the Indian very patient hearing. Indeed, he felt it as the next duty tribes, is to be governed. I see before me many talented to fidelity to his constituents to observe perfect silence in lawyers-I would ask them whether the idea of two agen- the House, except in cases where he could not avoid decies, both with powers plenary quoad hoc over the same livering his sentiments as to the constitutional question in subject, is not a legal and political absurdity. And, sir, relation to the subject of internal improvements; it had is there a man here who will have the hardihood to say been so often and so thoroughly discussed, that it was imthat the States have not the right to make internal im- possible by argument to shed any new light upon it. He provements within their jurisdictional limits? And, if so, did not believe a single new idea could be advanced by does it not follow, from the very nature of the powers of any one. Instead of constitutional argument, he wished this Government, that Congress cannot? The thing is to substitute facts, examples, and legislative action. And Belf-evident. The truth is, that both Governments are he should feel happy, and consider himself fortunate, when agencies, with powers plenary in relation to each other, over a proposition was presented for the benefit of Maine, or the subjects appropriately and constitutionally to them Georgia, or of New York, if he could lend it any aid. For committed by the sovereign power of the country-the this was a great federal Union, one and indivisible; and he people. Neither Government is itself the sovereign should extend at all times, equal and exact justice to all power, they are both subordinate to the actual sovereignty, its parts, so far as his judgment and his attachment to all which is in the people. If the power to regulate, means would guide him. Wherever the salutary power of this the power to make commerce, or any of its parts or ad- Government was involved in the question, so long as it was juncts, we shall ultimately arrive at very strange results. regulated by discretion, he would vote for it. He never And if, under this power, we are to make roads, canals, could or would consent to put so rigid a construction on barbors, &c., we must go on, and, by the same rule, make the constitution, as to restrain the beneficial action of this wharves, piers, drays, wheelbarrows, and merchants' Government when applied to the judicious system of inwarehouses, as well as boats and large vessels to facilitate ternal improvements. Roads and canals were strong links commerce. Commerce, in ite narrowest signification, in the chain of affection which bound this Union together means an exchange of equivalents; but there are many as a band of brothers, and made our fellow-citizens rich, things and circumstances so closely and inseparably con- and happy, and independent. He knew that many honornected with it, that they become, as it were, parts of it, able gentlemen in that House, far more intelligent than he, or, at least, adjuncts, without which it could not get on, applied a strictness to all parts of the constitution which and they also become subjects for regulation; but regula- applied to those clauses only which guarded personal lition has been shown not to mean fabrication or construc- berty-the freedom of speech and the rights of conscience. tion. The Chief Justice says, speaking of the inspection He should vote just as freely for this road if it were in laws: "They form a portion of that immense mass of le- Georgia, as in his own State. He had always acted on these gislation which embraces every thing within the territory principles; and his constituents, with a full knowledge of of a State not surrendered to the General Government: that fact, had honored him with a seat in that and in the all which can be most advantageously exercised by the other House for twenty-three years. Thus he had lived, States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, and thus he hoped to die. He could truly say that it caused health laws of every description, as well as laws for regu- anguish in his very soul when he heard gentlemen on his lating the internal commerce of a State, and those which right hand and on his left get up and say, "this part of respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts the Union has been favored, and this part of the Union has of this mass. I believe, sir, this road we are upon now, been oppressed." He should be thankful to Providence is to be a turnpike road. if it were possible to distribute the taxes of this country with perfect and absolute equality-aye, to a cent, or to the millionth part of a cent. Then they might lie down, perhaps, on their pillow in peace, and not hear the same strain of complaint continually resounding in their ears. He hoped his friend from Georgia, should he bring forward any project for the benefit of his own State, would find him as good as his word, and always happy to lend him his aid. As to the gentlemen from Virginia, [Mr. HALL] he could assure him that he had no wish to take his money away from him.

I think this power has been misunderstood. The exercise of the power of this Government, in regard to internal improvements, has been evidently to me pushed beyond its proper bounds and authority. I am against extremes, modus est in rebus. I do not think Congress has the right to go into the States to exercise those municipal rights which the people reserved to themselves or their local legislatures. I will only trouble the House with one other evidence, which is directly to the point. This is from the declaration of rights of North Carolina, which is a part of the constitution of that State. "That all political power is vested and derived from the people only. That the peo

[Here Mr. HALL interposed, and explained.]

Mr. JOHNSON resumed. If my friend suspects that I

APRIL 29, 1830.]

Maysville Road Bill.

[H. OF R.

look for his vote when he thinks the constitution forbids it, the original thirteen; that she has been with you in seven he is greatly mistaken. I know the uprightness of his mo- troubles, and will not leave you in seventy times seven; betives. I spoke of the effect of them only; and as to the cause she presented no request when hundreds of millions effect, while he is willing to give me but a stone, I am will were spent (and well spent) upon the seaboard, in the ing to give him bread. I will go with him so far as I can erection of fortifications to defend your coast, and millions do it on principles of magnanimity and equality; in the more in protecting your commerce from foreign aggrescourse I pursue, my conscience is at rest. But let any pro- sion; I do not urge that Kentucky, although far inland, and position be brought forward which violates the rights of secure from all danger of invasion, joined boldly in the conscience, the freedom of speech, or the liberty of the cry, "do not give up the ship." No; I call on you to pass press, that gentleman will find me, I trust, among the fore- this bill, because the object in view is such a one as you most to defend the constitution, whether with body or ought to patronize. Surely this is as much a national obmind; and give it a construction which shall guard that ject as the railroad from Baltimore to the mountains, and liberty for which we have all struggled, and for which our as the Ohio and Chesapeake canal; yet I voted in favor of fathers nobly fought, and freely bled. Then my friend and that. I went home, and said to my constituents, this is a myself will be found, I hope, in giving the same construc- united country; we are all one family. I have voted thoution, although we may differ as to making roads and canals. sands away, not for you, my constituents, but for your But to the question. Is this road not a national work? I brethren in other parts of the Union. They needed the say, that if the Delaware and Chesapeake canal is national aid, and I knew you would never wish to withhold it from in its character, then this road is national; but if it can be them. Now, sir, I ask for my State, and I expect help in shown that this was a private concern only, in which the our time of need. It is not the only appropriation I intend nation had no interest, then I may give up this bill. So, I to ask for. My constituents are very deeply interested in say, if the Chesapeake and Ohio canal is a national work, other roads and highways passing directly through my disthis road is such. Does it follow, that because you are now trict. We have no incorporated companies yet; and the going to appropriate for sixty miles of a great connecting time has not arrived when their claim can be presented. avenue between several States, that that avenue loses its When that period arrives, the grant, in this case, will not nationality? Does it cease to be national because you can- at all interfere with the strong and irresistible claim they not make it all at one time? I say that the Dismal Swamp have upon your justice; and I shall not be wanting in my canal was a national work, and we granted our aid to it duty, and you will not be unjust or ungrateful. against the will of that ancient State which is the mother of Sir, we inhabit a fertile region-a fair and delightful Kentucky. Yes, sir; we made her take the boon, whether habitation for man; it is surrounded not with water, but she would or not. Has Virginia been injured by our ap- land, land in all directions, and to a vast extent. The pleapropriating money to finish the Dismal Swamp canal; just sant Ohio rolls along its borders, bearing on its bosom the as we are going to do to South Carolina; for the citizens of wealth of ten States. We wish to get at this great national South Carolina have petitioned Congress to aid them in a highway, that we may carry the products of our industry railroad; and a bill has been reported to give the money. to a market. The request is most reasonable, and you, I I hope we shall pass on that bill, and that we shall pass it, am confident, will not refuse it. If any State has been too. Aye, sir, and there is another bill, interesting to the more liberal in her course toward the general interest of South, I hope we shall pass. I mean the Indian bill. Yes, this Union, let her stand forth a monument of patriotism sir, I am prepared to vote millions upon millions to remove and public spirit. You have lent your aid to the Portland those venerable relics of nations, if they voluntarily choose canal, to the Dismal Swamp canal, to the Chesapeake and to go, to a region where they may remain at peace, unmo- Delaware canal. You have granted Ohio a million acres lested by the intrusions, and uncorrupted by the vices of their white neighbors. In this, too, I have the advantage of my friends to the South. Although their principles will not enable them to aid my native State to open a road, I feel free, and able, and willing to aid them in this great southern measure, as beneficial to the red man as it will be to our brethren of the South. Here, sir, is the request of the Legislature of my State that I will use my efforts to obtain the subscription of the Government to this road; she has directed her Senators and requested her Representatives to exert themselves for an object so important to the State. I ask you to grant us this little boon; it will set our Mr. STORRS, of New York, replied to some remarks whole State machinery in motion. The House is acquaint- of Mr. HALL, relative to the cost, productiveness, and aded with the causes which have produced the embarrass-vantages of the New York canals. ments under which we labor; they know that these embar- Mr. HALL said, in reply, that, as the remarks of the rassments have been incurred by exertions in the common gentleman were directed to the report emanating from the cause of our country. They deprive us of the means of Legislature of New York, and not in answer to what he carrying into effect the improvement of the State by great had said, he left the subject between them. and expensive works. Yet, sir, whenever similar aid was Mr. POLK next addressed the House, and renewed the asked by other States, I and my colleagues have stood for- argument advanced by him on a preceding day against the ward the constant supporters of their request. Kentucky bill. He was opposed altogether to this system of approhas ever been found voting for the construction of roads priations for sectional purposes. It was a more easy matand of canals, in which she had no direct interest, or local ter, it appeared, to vote profuse sums in the Congress of interest, except as a State, and component part of the the United States. He repeated that it was more easy to Union. Did her neighbor, Ohio, ask our aid in advancing vote ten thousand dollars in Congress, than ten dollars in a her internal prosperity, no petty spirit of rivalry, no mean State Legislature. What would be the result of this lavish and contemptible jealousy of the rising greatness of that mode of expending the public money-what its cause? State, induced Kentucky to withhold her influence and The country looked to the present Executive for the adop votes. The same remark will apply equally to Tennessee, tion of a system of economy and retrenchment; and how her neighbor on the south. And, in the last place, permit could this be effected, but by the most vigilant attention? me to remark, that I do not press this claim of Kentucky The practical operation of the system now prevalent, was on the ground of her being the oldest of the States, after directly the reverse. The engineers entrusted with the

VOL. VI.-106.

of land. You have given to Illinois, to Indiana, to all the new States. The donation to the Louisville and Portland canal was not a Kentucky boon; it was a gift to ten States of this Union, all equally interested in the navigation of the Ohio river. This road is the first object which Kentucky has presented to you. It is a great and important thoroughfare; not a road in the Union (except those between the great seaports) more travelled, and none of the same extent, by which you can more promote the public good. Under these circumstances, I trust you will not reject our bill.

H. OF R.]

The Tariff.

[APRIL 29, 1830. Burveys would not report adverse to a project, the adoption and protection, I will now proceed to offer some contion of which benefited themselves. The road in question siderations to the committee, which, I trust, they will find received the sanction of the State Legislature in January not unworthy of their grave and solemn consideration. I last; so recently, he begged it to be observed, as January last; and yet an application was made to Congress for peeuniary aid towards its completion. Where [he asked] was this system to stop? He conceived the whole of these applications to be most pernicious in their tendencies, and unconstitutional in principle.

Mr. TUCKER reprobated the system upon which this bill, and numerous others of a similar nature, were founded. In his judgment, all such appropriations, besides being unjust and unconstitutional, were pregnant with the most disastrous consequences.

Mr. POWERS opposed the measure. He deemed it objectionable in every constitutional point of view. He spoke of the various ingenious arguments urged in favor of this project, and of others of a similar nature. The Buffalo Road bill had been objected to, because it was too long; and this one might be so objected to, because it was too short. This circumstance reminded him of the lady (and ladies were sometimes fond of complaining) whose husband was stated to find the bread occasionally burnt, and occasionally mere dough. The road had been called national in its object, because it led from one point of the Union to another. Now, he asked whether every road throughout the United States might not be said, by a parity of reasoning, to be a national road; for all of them led from one point of the country to another. This argument, therefore, was utterly fallacious. He concluded by an earnest deprecation of the passage of the bill.

shall pass over, with a bare allusion to them, many of the topics which have been heretofore urged on this floor, to show the inexpediency of the system we are considering. The inevitable tendency of this system to destroy foreign commerce, and consequently our commercial marine and naval power, has been so repeatedly urged, and, on a very recent occasion, with such conclusive proofs and triumphant argument, by my friend from New York. [Mr. CANBRELENG] that I will not attempt to add anything to what he has said on the subject. Neither, sir, do I propose to go into an investigation of those abstract principles of political economy to which we have so often and so vainly appealed, for the purpose of convincing the majority of the inexpediency and injustice of the course they have been pursuing. That it is equally unwise and unjust to attempt to direct the course of national industry by Government restrictions-that individual sagacity and interest will infallibly find out and pursue those employments that are most profitable-are positions in which the enlightened writers on the science of political economy, in every part of the world, almost unanimously concur. Yes, sir, it is a singular and striking proof of the soundness of the doctrines for which we are contending, that, for the last half century, almost all the philosophers and political economists of Great Britain and Frauce, in the midst of commer cial restrictions imposed by their own Governments, have boldly maintained the folly and injustice of those restric tions. Theirs is the disinterested testimony of enlightened minds, seeking only for truth, and having no motive to pervert it. But I pass that over. Nor shall I now enter into

Mr. CARSON objected to the bill. He was opposed to a system which went to make the Government of the Union a stockholder, from sordid views of interest, in pub-any argument (as I have done in former discussions of this lic companies incorporated by a State.

Mr. CROCKETT said that he did not rise to make a speech upon the subject. Indeed, he was convinced in his own mind, that, if they were to speak for five days upon it, not a single vote would be changed. Every one, he thought, had already made up their minds with respect to it. He should therefore call for the previous question. The call was seconded by a vote of yeas 101; nays not

counted.

The main question, on the passage of the bill, was then put, and decided in the affirmative by the following vote: yeas, 102 Days, 86.

So the bill was passed, and sent to the Senate for con

currence.

THE TARIFF LAWS.

The House then again went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. POLK in the chair, on the bill "altering the several acts laying duties on imports," and the amendment proposed thereto by Mr. McDUFFIE.

eubject) to prove to gentlemen from other parts of the Union, that the interest of a majority of their own constituents would be better promoted by reducing the duties they have been so anxious to increase. I will barely state, that I do most sincerely and conscientiously believe that, even in those parts of the Union for whose exclusive advantage the existing high duties have been imposed, the interests of nine men are sacrificed where that of one is promoted by them. Nothing can be more clearly demonstrated, in my opinion, than that, even in Massachusetts, and Vermont, and Pennsylvania, the great mass of the community, the small farmers, and the persons engaged in handicraft employments, are subjected to unjust and injurious burdens, to promote the interests of a comparatively small number of large capitalists. But, sir, it is now too late to urge this view of the subject; and perhaps it would not be very becoming in me to attempt to school gentlemen from other parts of the Union in what relates to the peculiar interests of their own constituents. I shall, therefore, take. it for granted that the existing system of commercial restrictions has been established by the majority of Congress, from a deliberate conviction that it is calculated to promote the interests of their constituents, and that there is no probability that the opinion of that majority Mr. McDUFFIE said that he entirely concurred with will undergo a change. Now, sir, however much I may the chairman of the Committee on Manufactures as to the be disposed to question the rights and the powers of the expediency of providing for the faithful collection of the majority in some other respects, I agree that they have revenue; but, differing very widely with that gentleman the undoubted and exclusive right to determine for themas to the best practical mode of effecting the object, he selves what will best promote their own interests. How begged leave to submit the amendment which he had pre-far they have a right to decide upon the interests and rights pared for that purpose. I propose [said Mr. McD.] to of others, is quite another question. I shall assume, then, secure a strict and honest observance of the revenue laws, as the basis of the remarks I intend to offer, that the sysnot by arbitrary penalties imposed at the discretion of the tem of prohibitory duties, which aims at the ultimate excluofficers of the customs, but by rendering the laws themselves so just, and moderate, and equitable, that the great temptation to evade them, which is now held out by the high rate of the duties, will be, in a great measure, removed. As the amendment I have offered obviously opens for discussion the policy of the entire system of prohibi

Mr. McDUFFIE resumed, and spoke nearly two hours în continuation of his argument.

[The following is a full report of the remarks of Mr. McD.]

sion of all those articles of foreign merchandise which the southern States have an interest in importing, is the fixed and unalterable policy of Congress. I sincerely deplore the fact; but I should be guilty of exciting false and delasive hopes in my constituents, if I did not declare it. Sir, no man who will reflect upon the progress of this system

[blocks in formation]

for the last twelve years, cau indulge the slightest hope that it will ever be abandoned by those who have imposed it upon us. From year to year the duties have been increased and the system extended, and, at each successive enlargement of the circle of monopoly, the majority in Congress has uniformly increased. So far from perceiving any indications of a reaction here, it seems obvious to me that the more odious, and oppressive, and intolerable the system is rendered to the people of that portion of the Union whose rights it grossly violates, and whose interests it is calculated to destroy, the more determined and obstinate are the majority in adhering to it, and extending its operation. Placing the question then upon the footing on which it is placed by the advocates of this system-coneeding to them the right and the capacity to judge of their own interests yielding the point, as I am compelled to do, that the prohibitory system does really promote what they regard as their true interests, I shall proceed to demonstrate, as I think I can most conclusively, that the interest of the majority thus to be promoted consists in the absolute annihilation of the rights and interests of the minority.

In this state of facts, a very grave and momentous question irresistibly forces itself upon the consideration of this body: how far it is the right of the majority to destroy the separate and peculiar interests of the minority; and how far the minority are under any constitutional or moral oblition to submit to so monstrous an outrage.

Sir, I am well convinced that the people of the United States have not realized, even in a partial degree, the nature and extent of the oppression under which the people of the Southern states are laboring. I shall proceed, therefore, to inquire, in the first place, what is the operation of our system of impost duties upon the various portions of the Union, regarding it merely as a system of

revenue,

Has it any pretensions to be regarded as a just and equal system of taxation? Is not the fact undeniable, that almost the whole burden of federal taxation is thrown upon those branches of productive industry which furnish the exchanges of our foreign commerce, while all the other branches of domestic production are free from taxation, and a large portion of them derive considerable bounties, indirectly, from the very burdens imposed upon those productions which constitute the staples of foreign commerce? If I have not entirely mistaken the true operation of the revenue laws of the United States, there never was a more unequal and unjust system of taxation devised by any Government, of ancient or modern times.

A réference to the treasury statements of the commerce of the United States will show that the whole amount of the domestic productions annually exported to foreign countries, taking an average of years, is something less than fifty-eight millions of dollars. Taking this to be the aggregate value of the domestic exports of the whole Union, it may be estimated that those portions of the southern and southwestern States which are engaged in the production of the great agricultural staples of cotton, tobacco and rice, constituting less than one-third part of the Union, export to the amount of thirty-seven millions of dollars; and those portions of the States just mentioned, which are engaged in the production of cotton and rice, constituting less than one-fifth part of the Union, export to the amount of thirty millions of dollars. Now, sir, it would be difficult to imagine a proposition in political economy more undeniable, than that the amount of imposts which belong to each respective portion of the Union, must be proportioned to their exports. It is wholly immaterial who are the carriers and importers of the merchandise received in exchange for domestic productions, or through what custom-house it happens to pass; it must still be regarded as constituting the commerce of that portion of the country, in exchange for the productions of

[H. of R.

which it is obtained; and every imposition of duties upon that commerce is a burden of taxation thrown upon the domestic industry by which it is sustained. If, therefore, you would know what stake any particular portion of the Union has in the foreign commerce of the country, you have only to ascertain what proportion the exports of domestic productions from that part of the Union bear to the whole amount of foreign merchandise imported for consumption. How, then, are the burdens imposed by this Government, regarding the impost duties as a mere system of revenue, distributed among the various States and sections of this Union? If I shall succeed in showing that the States engaged in the production of cotton, to bacco, and rice, are taxed by the Federal Government in proportion to the amount of their exports, it will follow that those States pay very nearly two thirds of the whole amount of the federal revenue. It will also follow that the States engaged in the production of cotton and rice alone, with a population of little more than two millions, pay more than one-half of that revenue. I am aware, sir, that these propositions are calculated to startle those who have not examined the subject attentively. Gentles men will think it scarcely possible that any population in the world could have existed, in tolerable comfort, under such a weight of taxes. I will proceed, then, to the proof of the proposition, that the exports of the planting States indicate the proportion of federal taxes paid by these States, taking fairly into view the entire operation of our fiscal system. And I beg that those gentlemen who are in favor of the existing policy, will examine my argument critically, and, if they can detect any fallacy in it, that they will expose it to this committee. My sincere desire is to arrive at the truth. If I am in error, it is my anxious wish that it may be clearly pointed out, as very important issues may probably hang upon it.

If the southern planters were to export their own productions in their own ships, and import, in the same way, the merchandise obtained in exchange for it, would any doubt exist that they actually paid into the treasury an amount of taxes proportioned to their exports? Exporting productions to the amount of thirty-seven millions of dollars, they would pay, assuming the average rate of the duties even at forty per cent., fourteen millions eight hundred thousand dollars, while the States producing cotton and rice would pay twelve millions. Now, as the import ing merchant is nothing more than the agent of the planter, the true operation of impost duties will be much more clearly perceived by dispensing with this agency. It tends to confuse the inquirer, by keeping out of view the real parties to the proceeding. The merchant certainly bears his own share of the burdens of federal taxation; but the burdens of the planter are in no degree diminished by that fact. I assume, then, that the planter is subjected to precisely the same burden, as a planter, that he would be if he had no factor or commercial agent, but exported his own produce himself, and imported what he obtained for it abroad. Why, then, is it denied that he is taxed in proportion to the amount of his exports? It is denied, upon the assumed ground that the producer pays no part of the tax, as a producer, but that the whole burden falls upon the consumer of the articles subjected to impost duties. Now, although, as I shall hereafter attempt to show, the condition of the planter would be very little better, even if it were true that the consumer paid the whole tax; yet I deem it important to refute the common error, that indirect taxes, laid upon production, fall ultimately and exclusively on consumption. I know, sir, that indirect taxes do not exclusively rest upon those classes from whom they are actually levied. But upon what principle of reason or common sense can it be maintained that no part of them rests there?

Such an idea never would have been indulged for a moment, but for the disguised form in which indirect taxation

« AnteriorContinuar »