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 opposition to that rule. I know not how many precedents in favor of the practical use of the word establish to count. But we know, from the foundation of the Government until within a few years, establishing a post road meant the designation by law of some road already made as a mail route. This has, in many thousand cases, which ought to have the force of precedent, been the evident meaning of the acts of the Government establishing post roads. And I give a strong illustration in the case of the celebrated Cumberland road, which, if I am rightly informed, was first made, or caused to be made, by Congress, and afterwards, by a separate and distinct act, made, or established, that is, designated by law a post road, and the mail directed to be carried on it as a mail route, and so of any other road. Some seem to have a difficulty, because the same word establish is used in regard to post offices. But this will, upon a moment's reflection, be shown to be only prescribing by law the official duties or character of some individual appointed postmaster. Congress, by establishing the office, neither makes the man, nor the place where the duties are performed. In general, it does not require a great deal of room, and most of those who are willing to perform the duties have some place to perform the duty in, or furnish it. The word establish has been therefore properly interpreted by the acts of the Government from its commencement; and, if rightly informed, I believe it is so used in that country (England) from which we received our idea of post office system. The more modern, and evidently erroneous interpretation, that establish means to make post roads and post offices, must be considered an interpolation.

"We

high, in my opinion, as that. No, sir; not quite the sovereign power, but yet very high and respectable authority. I mean the Supreme Court. In the case of Gibbons 18. Ogden, the Chief Justice, in delivering the opinion of the court, after some preliminary observations, says: are now arrived at the inquiry-what is this power? It is the power to regulate, that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is is complete e in itself, may be exer cised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the constitution." He con tinues: "If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single Government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the United States." The word sovereignty, applied here to Congress, if understood as it frequently is, I do not approve of. Congress is not the sovereign power of the country, but a mere agency, with powers plenary quoad hoc over particular subjects; and in this sense the word should be understood here. I perfectly agree with the opinion of the court in the doctrine here laid down of the plenary nature and completeness of all the legitimate constitution al powers of this Government. And sir, I, for one, would not diminish one iota, nor in the smallest degree take from or diminish the powers either of the general or State authorities; but, keeping each within its proper sphere, I would adopt the old adage of suum cuique tributo. But, does not every one perceive that this doctrine, being sound The appropriating power, the most convenient for all and truly drawn, as I say it is, from one of the plainest purposes, is not a new one. It is the opinion of Mr. Ha- parts of the constitution, is at once destructive of the milton revived, I think, in 1823, or '4, because it was per- claim of this Government to make internal improvehaps thought more to the purpose by some. In his report ments within the States? The Chief Justice proceeds, afon manufactures, page fifty-fourth, Mr. Hamilton remarks: ter some other remarks: "The appellant, conceding "It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the these postulates, except the last, contends that full power National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which to regulate a particular subject implies the whole power concern the general welfare, and for which, under that and leaves no residuum; that a grant of the whole is indescription, an appropriation of money is requisite and compatible with the existence of a right in another to any proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that part of it." On the margin we have the following con

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."

If Congress can, at its discretion, pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and apply, ad libitum, the money of the public to their accomplishment, what is to prevent their exercise of any power whatever, which it may please them to say is for the general welfare, is a national object? They may select any end or object, and use any amount of means to arrive at or accomplish the purpose. The people intended this to be a Government of limited powers; but if, really, Congress is left to ita own diseretion as to the objects, with unlimited use of the means, the Government becomes as sovereign and imperial as the autocracy of Russia or Turkey. I ask, what is the difference between unlimited power, and an unlimited use of the means to accomplish whatever objects the discretion of the Government may select or point out? What is power but the use of the means to accomplish any thing? Means in use are power de facto, real, practieal power.

densation 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 regulation of which has been given to Congress? It is commerce "with foreign natio nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." This is the commerce to be regulated, constituting one subject whole and entire, totus teres atque rotundus. The power of Congress over it is commensurate with the subject: it is full and complete, and consequently exclusive, as I say all the appropriate powers of Congress are. It follows from the very nature of things, that, if the power is plenary, it is necessarily exelusive, and cannot of necessity be concurrent, or participant, or conjointly with another. I have once before advanced the doctrine here, and I think truly, that, properly speaking, there are no concurrent powers between the General and State Legislatures or Governments. Even the power of taxation, which seems to be so considered by some, I find no difficulty with. There are powers to be exercised by both very similar, but this may be remarked 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

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 yens and nays: :

For the motion

Against it

85 101

Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, rose to address the House,

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, Hor is the exercise of that power by the States an exercise of any portion of the power that is granted to the United 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; but exercising distinct and separate, though similar powers; and so of the power to regulate commerce, that is, the power, as properly defined by the court to make legal

success of the bill. He knew the state of exhaustion in which the minds of the members were, after the protracted debate; and that no gentleman, however transcendent 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 deeies, both with powers plenary quoad hoc over the same livering his sentiments as to the constitutional question in

relation to the subject of internal improvements; it had been so often and so thoroughly discussed, that it was impossible by argument to shed any new light upon it. He did not believe a single new idea could be advanced by any one. Instead of constitutional argument, he wished to substitute facts, examples, and legislative action. And he should feel happy, and consider himself fortunate, when a proposition was presented for the benefit of Maine, or Georgia, or of New York, if he could lend it any aid. For

subject, is not a legal and political absurdity. And, sir, is there a man here who will have the hardihood to say that the States have not the right to make internal improvements within their jurisdictional limits? And, if so, does it not follow, from the very nature of the powers of this Government, that Congress cannot? The thing is self-evident. The truth is, that both Governments are agencies, with powers plenary in relation to each other, over the subjects appropriately and constitutionally to them committed by 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 ment and his attachment to all which is in the people. If the power to regulate, means would guide him. Wherever the salutary e salutary power of this the power to make commerce, or any of its parts or ad- Government was involved in the question, 80 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 harbors, &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 its 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, adjunets, 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

I think this power has been misunderstood. The exer- with perfect and absolute equality-aye, to a cent, or to cise of the power of this Government, in regard to internal the millionth part of a cent. Then they might lie down, improvements, has been evidently to me pushed beyond perhaps, on their pillow in peace, and not hear the same its proper bounds and authority. I am against extremes, strain of complaint continually resounding in their ears. modus est in rebus. I do not think Congress has the right He hoped his friend from Georgia, should he bring for

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

ward 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.

[Here Mr. HALL interposed, and explained.]

Mr. JOHNSON resumed. If my friend suspects that I

АРКІL 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 willing to give him bread. I will go with him so far as I can do it on principles of magnanimity and equality; in the course I pursue, my conscience is at rest. But let any proposition be brought forward which violates the rights of conscience, the freedom of speech, or the liberty of the press, that gentleman will find me, I trust, among the foremost to defend the constitution, whether with body or

were spent (and well spent) upon the seaboard, in the erection of fortifications to defend your coast, and millions more in protecting your commerce from foreign aggression: I do not urge that Kentucky, alth although far inland, and secure from all danger of invasion, joined boldly in the ery, "do not give up the ship." No; I call on you to pass this bill, because the object in view is such a one as you ought to patronize. Surely this is as much a national ob

mind; 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 nation had no interest, then I may give up this bill So, I say, if the Chesapeake and Ohio canal is a 'national work, this road is such. Does it follow, that because you are now going to appropriate for sixty miles of a great connecting avenue between several States, that that avenue loses its nationality? Does it cease to be national because you cannot make it all at one time? I say that the Dismal Swamp canal was a national work, and we granted our aid to it against the will of that ancient State which is the mother of Kentucky. Yes, sir; we made her take the boon, whether she would or not. Has Virginia been injured by our appropriating money to finish the Dismal Swamp canal; just as we are going to do to South Carolina; for the citizens of South Carolina have petitioned Congress to aid them in a railroad; and a bill has been reported to give the money. I hope we shall pass on that bill, and that we shall pass it, too. Aye, sir, and there is another bill, interesting to the South, I hope we shall pass. I mean the Indian bill. Yes,

our time of need. It is not the only appropriation I intend to ask for. My constituents are very deeply interested in other roads and highways passing directly through my district. We have no incorporated companies yet; and the time has not arrived when their claim can be presented. When that period arrives, the grant, in this case, will not at all interfere with the strong and irresistible claim they have upon your justice; and I shall not be wanting in my duty, and you will not be unjust or ungrateful.

Sir, we inhabit a fertile region a fair and delightful habitation for man; it is surrounded not with water, but land, land in all directions, and to a vast extent. The plensant Ohio rolls along its borders, bearing on its bosom the wealth of ten States. We wish to get at this great national highway, that we may carry the products of our industry to a market. The request is most reasonable, and you, I am confident, will not refuse it. If any State has been more liberal in her course toward the general interest of 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 of land. You have given to Illinois, to Indiana, to all the their white neighbors. In this, too, I have the advantage new States. The donation to the Louisville and Portland of my friends to the South. Although their principles will canal was not a Kentucky boon; it was a gift gift to ten States not enable them to aid my native State to open n road, I of this Union, all equally interested in the navigation of feel free, and able, and willing to aid them in this great the Ohio river. This road is the first object which Kensouthern measure, as beneficial to the red man as it will be tucky has presented to you. It is a great and important to our brethren of the South. Here, sir, is the request of thoroughfare; not a road in the Union (except those between

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 setour whole State machinery in motion. The House is acquainted with the causes which have produced the embarrassments under which we labor; they know that these embarrassments have been incurred by exertions in the common cause of our country. They deprive us of the means of carrying into effect the improvement of the State by great and expensive works. Yet, sir, whenever similar aid was asked by other States, I and my colleagues have stood for

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.

Mr. STORRS, of New York, replied to some remarks of Mr. HALL, relative to the cost, productiveness, and advantages of the New York canals.

Mr. HALL said, in reply, that, as the remarks of the gentleman were directed to the report emanating from the Legislature of New York, and not in answer to what he had said, he left the subject between them.

Mr. POLK next addressed the House, and renewed the 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 adopvotes. 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.

1

H. oF R.]

The Tariff

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. CAMBRELENG] 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 poMr. POWERS opposed the measure. He deemed it litical economy to which we have so often and so vainly course they have objectionable in every constitutional point of view. He appealed, for the purpose of convincing the majority of spoke of the various ingenious arguments urged in favor the inexpediency and injustice of the of this project, and of others of a similar nature. The been pursuing. That it is equally unwise and unjust to Buffalo Road bill had been objected to, because it was too attempt to direct the course of national industry by Golong; and this one might be so objected to, because it was vernment restrictions-that individual sagacity and interest too short. This circumstance reminded him of the lady will infallibly find out and pursue those employments that (and ladies were sometimes fond of complaining) whose are most profitable-are positions in which the enlightened husband was stated to find the bread occasionally burnt, 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 France, in the midst of commercial restrictions imposed by their own Governments, have boldly maintained the folly and injustice of those restrietions. 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 any argument (as I have done in former discussions of this subject) 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 demonin Massachusetts, strated, in my opinion, than that, even 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 com mercial restrictions has been established by the majority of Congress, from a deliberate conviction that it 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 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.j 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 excluinterest in importing, is the fixed officers of the customs, but by rendering the laws them- sion of all those articles of foreign merchandise which the southern States have an that the great equitable, so just, and moderate, and eq temptation to evade them, which is now held out by the and unalterable policy of Congress. I sincerely deplore high rate of the duties, will be, in a great measure, re- the fact; but moved. As the amendment I have offered obviously opens sive hopes for discussion the policy of the entire system of prohibi- no man who will reflect upon the progress of this system

exciting false and deluI did not declare it. Sir,

APRIL 29, 1830.]

The Tariff.

[H. OF R.

for the last twelve years, cau indulge the slightest hope | which it is obtained; and every imposition of duties upon that it will ever be abandoned by those who have imposed that commerce is a burden of taxation thrown upon the it upon us. From year to year the duties have been in- domestic industry by which it is sustained. If, therefore, creased and the system extended, and, at each successive you would know what stake any particular portion of the enlargement of the circle of monopoly, the majority in Union has in the foreign commerce of the country, you Congress has uniformly increased. So far from perceiving have only to ascertain what proportion the exports of do any indications of a reaction here, it seems obvious to me mestic productions from that part of the Union bear to that the more odious, and oppressive, and intolerable the the whole amount of foreign merchandise imported for system is rendered to the people of that portion of the consumption. How, then, are the burdens imposed by Union whose rights it grossly violates, and whose interests this Government, regarding the impost duties as a mere it is calculated to destroy, the more determined and obsti- system of revenue, distributed among the various States nate are the majority in adhering to it, and extending and sections of this Union? If I shall succeed in showing its operation. Placing the question then upon the footing that the States engaged in the production of cotton, toon which it is placed by the advocatesodthis system-con- bacco, and rice, are taxed by the Federal Government in eeding to them the right and the eapacity to judge of their proportion to the amount of their exports, it will follow own interests-yielding the point, as I am compelled to that those States pay very nearly two-thirds of the whole do, that the prohibitory system does really promote what amount of the federal revenue. It will also follow that they regard as their true interests, I shall proceed to de- the States engaged in the production of cotton and rice

monstrate, 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.

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. Gentlemen 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

Sir, I am well convinced that the people of the United States have not realized, even in a partial degree, the na- favor of the existing policy, will examine my argument ture and extent of the oppression under which the people critically, and, if they can detect any fallacy in it, that they of the Southern states are laboring. I shall proceed, will expose it to this committee. My sincere desire is to 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.

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 proHas it any retensions to be regarded as a just and equal ductions in their own ships, and import, in the same way, system of taxation? Is not the fact undeniable, that almost the merchandise obtained in exchange nge for it, would any the whole burden of federal taxation is thrown upon those doubt exist that they actually paid into the treasury an branches of productive industry which furnish the ex- amount of taxes proportioned to their exports? Export changes of our foreign commerce, while all the other ing productions to the amount of thirty-seven millions of branches of domestic production are free from taxation, dollars, they would pay, assuming the average rate of the and a large portion of them derive considerable bounties, duties even at forty per cent., fourteen millions eight hunindirectly, from the very burdens imposed upon those dred thousand dollars, while the States producing cotton productions which constitute the staples of foreign com- and rice would pay twelve millions. Now, as the import

merce? 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 reference 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

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

the aggregate value of the domestic exports of the whole he had no factor or commercial agent, but exported his own Union, it may be estimated that those portions of the produce himself, and imported what he obtained for it southern and southwestern States which are engaged in abroad. Why, then, is it denied that he is taxed in prothe production of the great agricultural staples of cotton, portion to the amount of his exports? It is denied, upon tobacco and rice, constituting less than one-third part of the assumed ground that the producer pays no part of the the Union, export to the amount of thirty-seven millions tax, as a producer, but that the whole burden falls upon of dollars; and those portions of the States just mentioned, the consumer of the articles subjected to impost duties. which are engaged in the production of cotton and rice, Now, although, as I shall hereafter attempt to show, the constituting less than one-fifth part of the Union, export condition of the planter would be very little better, even to the amount of thirty millions of dollars. Now, sir, it if it were true that the consumer paid the whole tax; yet would be difficult to imagine a proposition in political I deem it important to refute the common error, that indieconomy more undeniable, than that the amount of im- rect taxes, laid upon production, fall ultimately and excluposts which belong to each respective portion of the Union, sively on consumption. I know, sir, that indirect taxes must be proportioned to their exports. It is wholly im- do not exclusively rest upon those classes from whom they material who are the carriers and importers of the mer- are actually levied. But upon what principle of reason or chandise received in exchange for domestic productions, common sense can it be maintained that no part of them or through what custom-house it happens to pass; it must rests there?

still be regarded as constituting the commerce of that por- Such an idea never would have been indulged for a motion of the country, in exchange for the productions of ment, but for the disguised form in which indirect taxation