By that instrument, (it will be recollected,) the apportionment was to be among the states according to the value of all land within each state, granted or surveyed for any person, and the buildings and improvements thereon, to be estimated in such mode, as congress should prescribe. The whole proceedings to accomplish such an estimate were so operose and inconvenient, that congress, in April, 1783, recommended, as a substitute for the article, an apportionment, founded. on the basis of population, adding to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants, including those bound to service for a term of years, three fifths of all other persons, &c. in each state; which is precisely the rule adopted in the constitution.

§ 493. Those, who are accustomed to contemplate the circumstances, which produce and constitute national wealth, must be satisfied, that there is no common standard, by which the degrees of it can be ascertained. Neither the value of lands, nor the numbers of the people, which have been successively proposed, as the rule of state contributions, has any pretension to being deemed a just representative of that wealth. If we compare the wealth of the Netherlands with that of Russia or Germany, or even of France, and at the same time compare the total value of the lands, and the aggregate population of the contracted territory of the former, with the total value of the lands, and the aggregate population of the immense regions of either of the latter kingdoms, it will be at once discovered, that there is no comparison between the proportions of these two subjects, and that of the relative wealth of those nations. If a like parallel be run between the American states, it will furnish a similar result. Let Virginia be contrasted with Mas

sachusetts, Pennsylvania with Connecticut, Maryland with Virginia, Rhode-Island with Ohio, and the disproportion will be at once perceived. The wealth of neither will be found to be, in proportion to numbers, or the value of lands.

494. The truth is, that the wealth of nations depends upon an infinite variety of causes. Situation, soil, climate; the nature of the productions; the nature of the government; the genius of the citizens; the degree of information they possess; the state of commerce, of arts, and industry; the manners and habits of the people; these, and many other circumstances, too complex, minute, and adventitious to admit of a particular enumeration, occasion differences, hardly conceivable, in the relative opulence and riches of different countries. The consequence is, that there can be no common measure of national wealth; and, of course, no general rule, by which the ability of a state to pay taxes can be determined. The estimate, however fairly or deliberately made, is open to many errors and inequalities, which become the fruitful source of discontents, controversies, and heart-burnings. These are sufficient, in themselves, to shake the foundations of any national government, when no common artificial rule is adopted to settle permanently the apportionment; and every thing is left open for debate, as often as a direct tax is to be imposed. Even in those states, where direct taxes are constantly resorted to, every new valuation or apportionment is found, practically, to be attended with great inconvenience, and excitements. In short, it may be affirmed without fear of contradiction, that some artificial rule of apportionment of a fixed nature is indispensable to the public repose; and considering the

peculiar situation of the American states, and especially of the slave and agricultural states, it is difficult to find any rule of greater equality or justice, than that, which the constitution has adopted.

66

§ 495. The next clause in the constitution is: "No "tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given by any reg"ulation of commerce, or revenue, to the ports of one "state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to, or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or 66 pay duties in another."

§496. The obvious object of these provisions is, to prevent any possibility of applying the power to lay taxes, or regulate commerce, injuriously to the interests of any one state, so as to favour or aid another. If congress were allowed to lay a duty on exports from any one state it might unreasonably injure, or even destroy, the staple productions, or common articles of that state. The inequality of such a tax would be extreme. In some of the states, the whole of their means result from agricultural exports. In others, a great portion is derived from other sources; from external fisheries; from freights; and from the profits of commerce in its largest extent. The burthen of such a tax would, of course, be very unequally distributed. The power to intermeddle with the subject of exports is, therefore, wholly taken away. On the other hand, preferences might be given to the ports of one state by regulations, either of commerce or revenue, which might confer on them local facilities or privileges in regard to commerce, or revenue. And such preferences might be equally fatal, if indirectly given under the milder form of requiring an entry, clearance, or payment of duties in the ports of any

state, other than the ports of the state, to or from which the vessel was bound. The last clause, thercfore, does not prohibit congress from requiring an entry or clearance, or payment of duties at the custom-house, on importations in any port of a state, to or from which the vessel is bound; but it cuts off the right to require such acts to be done in other states, to which the vessel is not bound. In other words, it cuts off the power to require that circuity of voyage, which, under the British colonial system, was employed to interrupt the American commerce before the revolution. No American vessel could then trade with Europe, unless through a circuitous voyage to and from a British port.

66

§ 497. The next clause contains a prohibition on the states for the like objects and purposes. "No "state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any 'imposts, or duties on imports or exports, except "what may be absolutely necessary for executing its "inspection laws; and the nett produce of all duties "and imposts laid by any state on imports and exports "shall be for the use of the treasury of the United "States; and all such laws shall be subject to the "revision and control of congress. No state shall, "without the consent of congress, lay any tonnage

66

duty." If there is wisdom and sound policy in restraining the United States from exercising the power of taxation unequally in the states, there is, at least, equal wisdom and policy in restraining the states themselves from the exercise of the same power injuriously to the interests of each other. A petty warfare of regulation is thus prevented, which would rouse resentments, and create dissensions, to the ruin of the harmony and amity of the states. The power to enforce their inspection laws is still retained, subject to

the revision and control of congress; so, that sufficient provision is made for the convenient arrangement of their domestic and internal trade, whenever it is not injurious to the general interests.

§ 498. Inspection laws are not, strictly speaking, regulations of commerce, though they may have a remote and considerable influence on commerce. The object of inspection laws is to improve the quality of articles produced by the labour of a country; to fit them for exportation, or for domestic use. These laws act upon the subject, before it becomes an article of commerce, foreign or domestic, and prepare it for the purpose. They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embraces every thing in the territory of a state not surrendered to the general government. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, and health laws, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state, and others, which respect roads, fences, &c. are component parts of state legislation, resulting from the residuary powers of state sovereignty. No direct power over these is given to congress, and consequently they remain subject to state legislation, though they may be controlled by congress, when they interfere with their acknowledged powers. The power to lay duties and imposts on imports and exports, and to lay a tonnage duty, are doubtless properly considered a part of the taxing power; but they may also be applied, as a regulation of commerce.

§ 499. Until a recent period, no difficulty occurred in regard to the prohibitions of this clause. Congress, with a just liberality, gave full effect to the inspection laws of the states, and required them to be observed by the revenue officers of the United States. In the vear 1821, the state of Maryland passed an act requir