different articles; it is also true, that the inhabitants of the several states generally import different articles for home consumption; and investigation will show nearly as great a diversity in the local character of imports, as there is in the local character of exports. But beside this, the local character of exports or imports is not at all determined by state lines. Whether a locality shall engage in any particular enterprise as that of agriculture, manufactures, mining, fishing or commerce, does not depend upon state lines; and there exists no reason why the particular prohibition under consideration should be construed as intended to avoid inequality of burden by prohibiting duties upon exports, in any other sense than that the exports from a particular state should not be made the subject of a local export duty. In other words, the spirit of the entire clause is, that in the regulation of commerce, congress shall pay no heed to state lines; but shall so exercise its powers that they shall operate equally upon all citizens, in the same manner as though the political division known as states, did not exist.

S473. As a historical fact the convention which prepared the draft of the constitution, intended by this clause to deny to congress the power to lay export duties. This is very clearly manifested in their discussions upon that subject. This prohibition was insisted upon as a protection to the staple states, as they were called. Thus, General Pinckney was alarmed at the remarks of Gouverneur Morris, who had spoken of laying taxes on exports, because South Carolina had, in a single year, exported to the amount of £600,000 sterling, all of which were the fruits of the labor of her blacks. Again Mr. Pinckney reminded the convention that if the committee should fail to insert some security to the Southern States against an emancipation of slaves, and taxes on exports, he should be bound in duty to vote against their report. Again Mr. Mason urged the necessity of connecting with the power of laying taxes, the prohibition, that no tax should be laid on exports. He hoped the Northern States did not intend to deny to the Southern, this security. Mr. Elsworth claimed there were solid reasons against congress laying taxes on exports. First, it would discourage industry, as taxes on imports would discourage luxury. Second, the produce of different

1 Madison's Debates in Congress, 302; 5 Elliott's Debates by Lippencott, 1866. 2 Id., p. 357.

3

Id., p. 432.

states is such as to prevent uniformity in such taxes. Third, the taxing of exports would engender incurable jealousies. On the other hand, Mr. King objected to the position in which the general government would be placed by not allowing it to prohibit the importation of slaves, or to tax exports. He inquired, "is this reasonable? what are the great objects of the general system?" First, defense against foreign invasion; secondly, against internal sedition. Shall all the states then be bound to defend each, and shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness which will render defense more difficult? Shall one part of the United States be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at liberty, not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold the compensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported shall not the effects produced by their labor supply a revenue the better to enable the general govern

ment to defend their masters? There was no such inequality and unreasonableness in all this - that the people of the northern states could never be reconciled to it; no candid man could undertake to justify it to them. The clause as it now stands in the constitution, was the result of the discussion and compromises of the convention; and it cannot well be questioned that they intended so to frame the draft of this prohibition, as to deprive congress of the power to tax exports. But here arises a more serious question. The intention of the framers of the constitution has nothing to do with the legal interpretation of the instrument itself. It can

not give a meaning to it differing from the natural import of the language used. It is not a question, what were the views of those who made the draft of the instrument but what were the views of those who ordained it. If the language used by them be such as to render it necessary to resort to interpretation, then resort may be had to such principles of interpretation as well established rules will permit; but in no case can the motives and purposes of those who prepared the draft of the instrument be inquired into, with the view of ascertaining the intention of another body who adopted it. If the expression, "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state," require an interpretation other than that which the natural import of the language used implies, then a resort to the established rules of interpretation is required; and no one is authorized to

1 Madison's Debates in Congress, p. 454. Id., p. 391.

depart from such rules; because all instruments are constructed with the view of disclosing the intention of the parties to the same, as it shall appear when interpreted according to such rules. The first principle of construction requires that the words used shall be understood according to their usual and most known signification. If the meaning is still dubious, then resort to the context shall next be had, by which is included an examination of the preamble; or of other acts passed by the same legislature; as statutes in pari materia are to be construed in reference to each other. If the meaning is still uncertain, then reference to the subject matter is next in order; and the meaning still remaining doubtful, the last resort is to the reason and spirit of the law; or the motive which led the legislature to enact it. Tried by any or all of these modes of ascertaining the legal meaning of the above clause, and there is but one conclusion; and that is, that in the exercise of its power over commerce, and in the regulation thereof, congress should pay no heed to state lines, but should so exercise its powers, that they should operate equally upon all citizens, in the same manner as they would if the political division known as states, did not exist. If congress cannot levy export duties without violating this principle, then it is prohibited from doing so.

S474. The remaining portion of the fifth clause of the ninth section has the same end in view, to wit: that congress, in the exercise of its power to regulate commerce, should act upon the hypothesis that all are members of one government, and that there is but one authority in that respect to be obeyed. Thus, "no preference shall be given by any regulation 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 pay duties in another." The effect of this prohibition is, that congress, as the national legislature, shall make no law touching the subject of regulating commerce, which shall not apply with equal force to all parts of the nation; that is, its laws regulating commerce shall be general, and not local. That when a ship has entered, cleared, or paid duties in any port of the United States, it has discharged its duty, in that respect, to the government, and shall not be required to do it again, because it may be bound to or from any other state.

11 Bl. Com., 59, 60; ante p. 128 and notes.

$475. "No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time." The object of this provision is to bring under the inspection and authority of congress all expenditures of money by the nation, or for and on its behalf. The provision requiring an exhibit of the receipts and expenditures of all public money from time to time, is designed as a sure means of enlightening the public; that they may, through their representatives, know what appropriations are required; and the means on hand by which such requirements are to be met. That is, this provision is based upon the hypothesis that the law-making power is in the hands of the people; and that all payments of money shall be by their authority; and that they shall have the means of correct information, that they may act understandingly upon that subject.

S 476. "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States." That is, the general government has no authority to create classes or class distinctions among the people;-that all its laws shall be enacted upon the hypothesis that all men are created equal, and are equally entitled at the hands of their government;that government is an institution of the people, created for the sole and only purpose of administering their authority, to the end that each and all may be secure in the enjoyment of civil liberty; and that equal and exact justice may be administered to all; and that those who are intrusted with the administration of the public authority, may not be influenced to betray their trust, or to administer under a foreign influence, all persons holding an office of profit or trust under the general government, are prohibited from accepting any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state, without the consent of congress.1

1 Const. U. S., art. 1, 29, cl. 7.

38

CHAPTER XV.

OF THE STATES AS POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS-THEIR OFFICE, DUTIES AND POWERS.

S477. ACCORDING to the American theory, government has no original authority. It is an institution of the people, designed only as an instrument of administration; and all the power it possesses and can properly exercise, is a mere trust for the common good. Government is imposed upon society by the law of necessity. Thus, the public authority must be applied to the regulation and control of the public acts of the individual members of society; and also to the regulation and control of their private conduct, so far as it affects the legal rights of others. But this can be done only through the instrumentality of a political organization, created for the purpose of exercising such public authority, and duly authorized to exercise it. Such political body becomes a corporation, or an artificial person, having the qualities and attributes, in law, of a person, with an understanding, will and power, to be exercised within the limits of the authority conferred, called its jurisdiction; and for the purposes for which it was created and endowed, called its administration. Thus, government proper is a creature of the public authority. It is an instrument of administration, by which alone the public authority is to be made known; or by means of which, during its continuance, the public authority is to be represented. In treating of government, it is necessary to remember that it possesses powers to be exercised; but that all such powers are trusts, and can be exercised only in accordance with the authority given, and for the purposes for which the powers were given. Thus, the general and state governments are mere instruments of administration, each intrusted with the exercise of certain powers, over certain subjects or classes of subjects, for specific purposes. In either case, the authority by which they administer, as well as the authority administered, by them or either of them, is the authority of the public or nation, and not the authority of the government or institution.

S 478. The government, whether of the state or of the nation, is a body corporate and politic, created by the people, to be intrusted with the exercise of their