EDITOR'S REMARKS.

fasten on the South the manufacturing monopoly called the "American System; " and had it not been for the persevering opposition of South Carolina, not merely by an appeal to facts and arguments altogether irresistable, but by fearlessly and devotedly throwing herself alone into the gulf of danger when coercion was insolently threatened, the South would have been doomed to linger on to the present time, with this canker worm preying on her vitals; and even the half measured compromise of Mr. Clay, would not have been proposed. It is our duty to be aware, that the foe is beaten off indeed, but not conquered. That child of vindictive despotism, the FORCE BILL, is not yet repealed by Congress. Tyranny and Selfishness never sleep; and we are safe only by cherishing among ourselves an unrelaxing military spirit, and propagating among our citizens correct ideas on the all important science of political economy. If we do this, our determinations may be taken not boldly only, but understandingly. Mr. Clay's compromise will be sustained by the north, if the north should deem it prudent to abide by that agreement. Even though the prosperous state of the revenue, should call aloud for its abolition. But had the late threatened war with France taken place, the protecting and prohibitory Tariff would have been resorted to, under the mask of a revenue measure, as a convenient means of throwing the expense of northern losses on southern agriculture; and of grasping for the emolument of the north, the whole profit of a protracted and enormous war expenditure. In fact, every known government,) of all consumers the most reckless, extravagant, and wasteful) is desirous of raising as great an amount of taxation with as little outcry as possible. Money gives patronage, and patronage gives power. Every Government, therefore, is in favour of Tariffs and Custom house taxation; because it enables them to blind the people, not only by dextrously involving the tax with the price of the commodity, but by raising up also an immense patronage of useless custom house officers, whose salaries the people are duped to pay, as if they were absolutely necessary to the support of society!

These proceedings of the northern majority in Congress, made a deep and very unfavourable impression on the southern section of the Union. An impression which unfortunately subsequent events have not tended to efface. The claim was arrogated and distinctly set up on this occasion, that a majority had a right to govern with absolute sway, on the principle of general welfare, without being estoped by claim of right on the part of the minority-that it belonged to a majority, as such, to decide on the constitutional limits of entrusted powers, and to construe them as might best suit the views of that majority, in respect to the General Welfare-that the imposition of a Tariff taxation bearing with almost exclusive weight on the industry of the South, and the voting of enormous sums for internal improvement, not sanctioned by any character of general necessity or federal utility-were all of them subjects proper to be submitted to the discretion of Congress, and within the uncontrouled power of a majority in the legislature of the Union. These claims and positions are still boldly persevered in; and among northern Jurists are fast assuming the aspect of settled doctrine. They must therefore at all hazards be resisted. If the south be true to her own rights and her own interests, those claims will be resisted, at all and every hazard. And so have the people of South Carolina determined, and so have they fearlessly acted, as the ensuing documents will fully show. The course so honourably adopted for a dozen years past, in the state, must be

persevered in, till the selfish tenets of political usurpation are pros- EDITOR'S trate, to threaten us no more.

The great excitement produced in South Carolina by the agitation of these questions, that of the Tariff in particular, made all our citizens political economists. But the events have passed away, the compromise act has produced a quiescent state of public feeling, and the arguments against a protecting and prohibitory tariff may, in a few years of apathy and slumber, escape from public recollection. My firm persuasion is, however, that occasions will occur, or be purposely introduced, within no long period, again to propose a Tariff actually of this character; and plausible pretences for the purpose can easily be found. I deem it therefore not alien from the duty I have undertaken, to accompany the State proceedings on the Tariff, with a brief summary of the principal arguments by which such a Tariff may be fairly and effectually opposed,

should it be hereafter introduced.

These arguments relate first, to the unconstitutionality of a protecting Tariff. Secondly, to the injustice of this measure. Thirdly, to its inexpedience, on general principles applicable to all states of Society.

The Tariffs proposed by Messrs. Baldwin, Todd and Mallory, were openly and distinctly proposed, not as measures of Revenue, which Mr. Todd declared was not needed, but as a system to protect domestic against the competition of foreign industry. Yet on the face of them they are Revenue Acts! I see no constitutional objection to a Tariff equally and honestly imposed for mere purposes of revenue, and to supply the real wants of the Treasury. But the political economists of Europe are now settled in opinion, that of all modes of taxation it is the most objectiona ble; and that the welfare of society requires every kind of taxation on the introduction of foreign commodities to be repealed. Commerce is a laborsaving machine; it not only supplies from abroad those wants that we cannot supply at home, but it supplies articles that are wanted, at a less expense, by bringing the commodities that are called for, from the places where they are plentiful and cheap. It is this feature of Commerce that affords the temptation to a Tariff. The welfare and happiness of every community, dictates that the people should be permitted to lay out their honest earnings wherever they can purchase to the best advantage: and if they are to be taxed, they should be enabled to see precisely how much is exacted from them by Government, and for what public purpose. A custom-house Tariff is purposely framed to conceal all this. The real value of the commodity, the tax itself, the merchant's charge for the trouble it occasions, and the interest on so much of his capital as the payment of the tax requires, are all involved in one general sum constituting the price of the commodity: and this price is augmented by the tariff taxation at every hand through which the commodity passes, from the first wholesale importer to the last retailer, where the original tax is in many cases doubled. This complication renders it almost impossible for the consumer to ascertain how much is tax, and how much is price. The people should remember, that all mystery is prima facie evidence of fraud: a position which the experience of history has taught us to regard as one not now to be contested. The strong condemnation by Joseph Barlow of the custom house system of indirect taxation, copied into 21 Niles' Register, p. 165, is true in its utmost extent.

On the question of the unconstitutionality of the Tariff, two books of authority are necessary to be consulted. Viz, "Mr. Yates' account of the secret debates in the Conventian of 1787; to which is added the history "of the proceedings in the Convention, by Luther Martin, Delegate from

66

REMARKS.

EDITOR'S "Maryland, in a letter to his constituents." Also, "a journal of the acts REMARKS. "and proceedings of the Convention which formed the Constitution of the "United States, from May 14th to Sept. 17th 1787. Published by "order of the President of the United States, in conformity to a reso"tion of Congress of March 27, 1818."

First, then, as to the constitutionality of a protecting Tariff. If the framers of our constitution, having the subject before them, refused to sanction such a measure, or to give the power of imposing it to Congress, the exercise of that power by Congress, is bold and fraudulent usurpation. I copy from a pamphlet published by the present Editor, at the meeting of the Convention of South Carolina, at Columbia, in 1832, entitled " Hints and Suggestions on the busines of the Convention."

"And whereas, the United States by their representatives in CONVENTION met, in the year 1787, to consider of those circumstances and interests which alike concerned every State of the Union in its capacity as an independent State; to settle the terms of the compact under which they should become an united community of Sovereign States; and the form of government which they should adopt for this purpose; and to appoint the various departments and description of officers by which that government should be conducted; with the powers, authorities and jurisdictions which they deemed necessary for this purpose; conferring these only, no other, and no more-performed this, by enacting the mutual State compact, called the Constitution of the United States:

"The general government, therefore, as it is popularly termed, consisting of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial departments of the United States, with all the subordinate apparatus of Officers thereto belonging, is an agency merely, created by the Convention of States in 1787 for specific purposes of general policy, to execute specific trusts, and perform specific duties and services, for which each member of each department receives a specific compensation, as in case of all other Agents, whether public or private: and for the purpose of enabling each Department to perform the duties and execute the trusts required of them, certain defined and specific powers, authorities and jurisdictions, are delegated, within whose limits each department is strictly confined; which is indeed universally the case, with every agent of whatever description, to whom powers and authorities are delegated by his principal, to enable him to execute the trusts committed to him, and perform the duties required of him. This universal Law of principal and agent, embraces the case before us.

"While the Agent keeps within the limits of the authority with which he is invested by the instructions of his Principal, his acts are legal and valid, and the principal is bound by them. If the Agent exceeds the instructions of the Principal his acts are null and void, his Principal is not bound by them, and may refuse to ratify them. In the present case, the Principal consists of each separate State, that united to draw up the Document of Instructions called the Constitution; the Agent, is the General Government, comprising the departments to which that Constitution gave origin and authority.

"The Convention of States in 1787 having finished their labours, embo died them in the Constitution of the United States. To that Constitution, therefore, the People must look, to know what is the form of their General Government, what are the several departments of that Government, what powers, authorities, and jurisdictions are delegated to each Department, what trusts are committed to and what duties and services are re

quired from each department. The very existence of the Government, every department comprised in it, and every officer belonging to it, depends on that Constitution; the powers, authorities, and jurisdictions delegated to them, are such, and such only, as are plainly expressed in that Constitution; they have, and can have, no other. What is not plainly and unambiguously delegated in that Constitution, is not delegated at all: to claim it is usurpation; to exercise it is Tyranny.

"The Constitution of the United States, and the Union, are one and the same thing what the Union is, can only be seen in the Constitution : to support, protect, and defend the Constitution, is to support, protect, and defend the Union: to permit the wholesome limitations of the Constitution to be broken in upon, or a power to be exercised under its sanction which is not plainly conferred by it, is to weaken the bond of Union of these United States, to open the flood-gates of usurpation, and most culpably to stand by, inactive, while the fences against CONSOLIDATION, which our ancestors so anxiously built up, are gradually broken down. It is not by careless apathy, by reprehensible inactivity on the part of the several States, that the Union is to be preserved. To preserve the Union in its purity and utility, we must with jealous eyes, and anxious care, keep the Constitution of the United States, such as the Convention left it, pure and undefiled. We must do this, by persevering remonstrance against usurpation in theory, and uncompromising resistance to Tyranny in practice.

"And whereas a series of acts have been passed by Congress from the year 1816 to the year 1832, inclusive, laying high and increasing duties on the importation of manufactured goods from foreign parts, for the express and avowed purpose, not of raising a revenue to supply the wants of the national treasury, but of enabling the domestic manufacturers of similar articles, to command the monopoly of the home market, to compel the consumers of such articles to purchase from the home manufacturer at high prices what they could otherwise purchase from the foreign importer much cheaper, and to enrich the manufacturers at home, at the expense of all the other citizens of these United States, who are taxed and rendered tributary to this manufacturing monopoly: thereby erecting in the midst of this republican country of equal rights, a favoured and privileged class, for whose sake the commerce of the nation is burthened and impeded; the value of agricultural exports lessened; the expences of every citizen who needs manufactured articles of any kind, greatly increased; and the planting States impoverished, to swell the emoluments of the manufacturing States, by a system of taxation, partial, sectional, unjust, and to the State of South Carolina intolerably oppres

sive.

"It becomes important, therefore, to ascertain whether the Constitution of the United States has clearly and plainly conferred on Congress the authority of enacting a Tariff of protection in favour of domestic manufactures, by means of duties on the importation of foreign manufactures, expressly for this purpose, without reference to the wants of the treasury, or the increase of the revenue.

"On looking over that Constitution, there is no such power plainly and expressly granted to Congress. Power is given to regulate Commerce. But Commerce is one object of legislation, Manufacutures another, and Agriculture another. Wheat and Rice, and Tobacco and Cotton, are objects of Commerce; does it follow that Congress has a right, because they are so, to regulate agriculture as well as Čommerce?

VOL. I.27.

EDITOR'S
REMARKS.

EDITOR'S
REMARKS.

"Nor can it be said that the expediency of laying protecting duties, and regulating manufactures as such, was not brought before the Convention of 1787, which drew up and enacted the present Constitution of the United States; on the contrary, that Convention had this very subject repeatedly brought to their view; and if they have not plainly and clearly delegated to Congress the power of protecting domestic manufactures, it is because they did not think it right to do so; but have given it under certain limitations, not to Congress, but to any State who shall apply for leave to lay duties on imported manufactures.

"This appears by article 1st, section 10, paragraph 2, of the Constitution; and is fully explained in p. 71 of the History of the proceedings of the Convention, by Luther Martin, one of the Delegates to that Convention from Maryland, in his letter to the Speaker of the House of Delegates of Maryland, published at the commencement of Mr. Yates' account of the Secret debates in the Convention: by which it will appear, that the power of protecting domestic manufactures could not be obtained for Congress, or in any other manner provided for than appears in the reference above made.

"The President of the United States, in conformity to a Resolution of Congress of March 27, 1818, caused to be published, "a Journal of the acts and proceedings of the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, from May 14 to Sept. 17, 1787."

"In that volume, the subject of imposts and duties on foreign importations, appears to have been brought before the Convention repeatedly, as may be seen by referring to pages 227, 294, 303, 359, 376, 380.

"On the 25th Aug, p. 294, the following proposition was referred to a committee of a member from each State, viz: "all duties, imposts, excises, prohibitions, and restraints, laid or made by the Legislature of the United States, shall be uniform and equal throughout the United States." That committee did not report as to prohibitions and restraints," and the Constitution contains nothing on the subject.

"Aug. 18, p. 261. Motion to "establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures." Making the usual distinction between these separate objects of legislation. The committee refused to report in accordance with this motion, and the constitution contains nothing in conformity with it, but the power of granting patents.

"August 20th, p. 266. It was moved, that there should be "a Secretary of domestic affairs, who shall be appointed by the President and hold his office during pleasure. It shall be his duty to attend to matters of general police, the state of agriculture and manufactures, the opening of roads and navigations, and facilitating communications through the United States; and he shall from time to time recommend such measures and establishments as may tend to promote those objects."

"This motion also was rejected, for,no report is made thereon, and the Constitution contains no provision in accordance with it.

"All these motions relating to import duties, to prohibitions and restraints on importation, to the protection, guardianship, and encouragement of manufactures, must have brought the very point in question repeatedly before the Convention. That Convention did not think it right to give any power over manufactures to Congress, although so repeatedly urged to confer such a power: they refused to confer it; and the Constitution finally reported does not contain it.

The brief history and final result of all these attempts, is thus given by LUTHER MARTIN, Delegate from Maryland. "By this same section