SENATE.] Revenue Collection Bill. [FEB. 16, 1833. the State would be always right, and the General Govern-taining any Government but despotism. We hear loud ment always wrong. But suppose the reverse; suppose and repeated denunciations against what is called "mathe State wrong, and, since they differ, some of them must jority Government." It is declared with much warmth, be wrong; are the most important and essential operations that a "majority Government" cannot be maintained in of the Government to be embarrassed and arrested because the United States. What, then, do gentlemen wish? Do one State holds a contrary opinion? Mr. President, every they wish to establish a minority Government? Do they argument which refers the constitutionality of acts of wish to subject the will of the many to the will of the Congress to State decision, appeals from the majority to few? The honorable gentleman from South Carolina the minority; it appeals from a common interest to a par- has spoken of absolute majorities, and majorities concurticular interest; from the counsels of all to the counsel of rent; language wholly unknown to our constitution, and one; and endeavors to supersede the judgment of the to which it is not easy to affix definite ideas. As far whole by the judgment of a part. as I understand it, it would teach us that the "absolute I think it is clear, sir, that the constitution, by express majority" may be found in Congress, but the "majority provision, by definite and unequivocal words, as well as by concurrent" must be looked for in the States. That is necessary implication, has constituted the Supreme Court to say, sir, stripping the matter of this novelty of phrase, of the United States the appellate tribunal in all cases of that the dissent of one or more States, as States, renders a constitutional nature which assume the shape of a suit void the decision of a majority of Congress, so far as that in law or equity. And I think I cannot do better than to State is concerned. And so this doctrine, running but a leave this part of the subject by reading the remarks made short career, like other dogmas of the day, terminates in upon it by Mr. Ellsworth, in the convention of Connecti- nullification. cut; a gentleman, sir, who has left behind him, on the re- If this vehement invective against majorities meant no cords of the Government of his country, proofs of the more than that, in the construction of Government, it is clearest intelligence and of the deepest sagacity, as well wise to provide checks and balances, so that there should as of the utmost purity and integrity of character. "This be various limitations on the power of the mere majority, constitution," says he, "defines the extent of the powers it would only mean what the constitution of the United of the General Government. If the General Legislature States has already abundantly provided. It is full of such should at any time overleap its limits, the Judicial depart-checks and balances. In its very organization it adopts ment is a constitutional check. If the United States go a broad and most effectual principle, in restraint of the beyond their powers, if they make a law which the con-power of mere majorities. A majority of the people stitution does not authorize, it is void; and the Judiciary elects the House of Representatives, but it does not elect power, the national judges, who, to secure their impar- the Senate. The Senate is elected by the States, each tiality are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. State having, in this respect, an equal power. No law, On the other hand, if the States go beyond their limits, therefore, can pass without the assent of a majority of the if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the General representatives of the people, and a majority of the reGovernment, the law is void; and upright, independent presentatives of the States also. A majority of the rejudges will declare it to be so." presentatives of the people must concur, and a majority And let me only add, sir, that in the very first session of of the States must concur, in every act of Congress; and the first Congress, with all the well-known objects both the President is elected on a plan compounded of both of the convention and the people full and fresh in his these principles. But, having composed one House of mind, Mr. Ellsworth reported the bill, as is generally un- Representatives chosen by the people in each State, acderstood, for the organization of the Judicial department; and, in that bill, made provision for the exercise of this appellate power of the Supreme Court, in all the proper cases, in whatsoever court arising; and that this appellate power has now been exercised for more than forty years, without interruption, and without doubt. cording to its numbers, and the other of an equal number of members from every State, whether larger or smaller, the constitution gives to majorities in these Houses, thus constituted, the full and entire power of passing laws, subject always to the constitutional restrictions, and to the approval of the President. To subject them to any As to the cases, sir, which do not come before the courts; other power is clear usurpation. The majority of one those political questions which terminate with the enact- House may be controlled by the majority of the other; and ments of Congress, it is of necessity that these should be both may be restrained by the President's negative. These ultimately decided by Congress itself. Like other Legis- are checks and balances provided by the constitution, latures, it must be trusted with this power. The members existing in the Government itself, and wisely intended to of Congress are chosen by the people, and they are an-secure deliberation and caution in legislative proceedings. swerable to the people; like other public agents, they But to resist the will of the majority in both Houses, thus are bound by oath to support the constitution. These are constitutionally exercised; to insist on the lawfulness of the securities that they will not violate their duty, or tran- interposition by an extraneous power; to claim the right scend their powers. They are the same securities as pre-of defeating the will of Congress, by setting up against it vail in other popular Governments; nor is it easy to see the will of a single State, is neither more nor less, as it how grants of power can be more safely guarded, without strikes me, than a plain attempt to overthrow the Govrendering them nugatory. If the case cannot come be- ernment. The constituted authorities of the United States fore the courts, and if Congress be not trusted with its are no longer a Government, if they be not masters of decision, who shall decide it? The gentleman says, each their own will; they are no longer a Government, if an State is to decide it for herself. If so, then, as I have already urged, what is law in one State is not law in the other. Or, if the resistance of one State compels an entire repeal of the law, then a minority, and that a small one, governs the whole country. external power may arrest their proceedings; they are no longer a Government, if acts passed by both Houses, and approved by the President, may be nullified by State vetoes or State ordinances. Does any one suppose it could make any difference, as to the binding authority of Sir, those who espouse the doctrines of nullification, an act of Congress, and of the duty of a State to respect reject, as it seems to me, the first great principle of all re- it, whether it passed by a mere majority of both Houses, publican liberty; that is, that the majority must govern. or by three-fourths of each, or the unanimous vote of each? In matters of common concern, the judgment of a majority Within the limits and restrictions of the constitution, the must stand as the judgment of the whole. This is a law Government of the United States, like all other popular imposed on us by the absolute necessity of the case; and Governments, acts by majorities. It can act no otherif we do not act upon it, there is no possibility of main-wise. Whoever, therefore, denounces the Government FEB. 16, 1833.] Revenue Collection Bill. [SENATE. of majorities denounces the Government of his own coun- General Government, and on the equal rights of other try, and denounces all free Governments. And whoever States-a violation of the constitution, and a proceeding would restrain these majorities, while acting within their essentially revolutionary. This is undoubtedly true, if constitutional limits, by an external power, whatever he the preceding propositions be regarded as proved. If may intend, asserts principles which, if adopted, can lead the Government of the United States be trusted with the to nothing else than the destruction of the Government duty, in any department, of declaring the extent of its itself. own powers, then a State ordinance, or act of legislation, authorizing resistance to an act of Congress, on the alleged ground of its unconstitutionality, is manifestly a usurpation upon its powers. If the States have equal rights in matters concerning the whole, then for one State to set up her judgment against the judgment of the rest, and to insist on executing that judgment by force, is also a manifest usurpation on the rights of other States. If the constitution of the United States be a Government proper, with authority to pass laws, and to give them a uniform interpretation and execution, then the interposition of a State to enforce her own construction, and to resist, as to herself, that law which binds the other States, is a violation of the constitution. Does not the gentleman perceive, sir, how his argument against majorities might here be retorted upon him' Does he not see how cogently he might be asked, whether it be the character of nullification to practise what it preaches? Look to South Carolina, at the present moment. How far are the rights of minorities there respected? I confess, sir, I have not known, in peaceable times, the power of the majority carried with a higher hand, or upheld with more relentless disregard of the rights, feelings, and principles of the minority: a minority embracing, as the gentleman himself will admit, a large portion of the worth and respectability of the State; a minority, comprehending in its numbers men who have been associated with him and with us in these halls of legislation; men who have served their country at home, and And if that be revolutionary which arrests the legislahonored it abroad; men who would cheerfully lay down tive, executive, and judicial power of Government, distheir lives for their native State, in any cause which they penses with existing oaths and obligations of obedience, could regard as the cause of honor and duty; men above and elevates another power to supreme dominion, then fear and above reproach; whose deepest grief and dis- nullification is revolutionary. Or, if that be revolutionary, tress spring from the conviction that the present proceed- the natural tendency and practical effect of which is to ings of the State must ultimately reflect discredit upon break the Union into fragments, to sever all connexion her: how is this minority, how are these men regarded? among the people of the respective States, and to prosThey are enthralled and disfranchised by ordinances and trate this General Government in the dust, then nullificaacts of legislation, subjected to tests and oaths, incom- tion is revolutionary. It is not, sir, one would think, for those who approve these proceedings, to complain of the power of majori patible, as they conscientiously think, with oaths already Nullification, sir, is as distinctly revolutionary as secestaken, and obligations already assumed, they are pro- sion; but I cannot say that the revolution which it seeks scribed and denounced as recreants to duty and patriot- is one of so respectable a character. Secession would, it ism, and slaves to a foreign Power; both the spirit which is true, abandon the constitution altogether; but then it pursues them, and the positive measures which emanate would profess to abandon it. Whatever other inconsistfrom that spirit, are harsh aud proscriptive beyond all encies it might run into, one, at least, it would avoid. It precedent within my knowledge, except in periods of would not belong to a Government, while it rejected its professed revolution. authority. It would not repel the burden, and continue to enjoy the benefits. It would not aid in passing laws which others are to obey, and yet reject their authority as to itself. It would not undertake to reconcile obedidience to public authority, with an asserted right of command over that same authority. It would not be in the First, That there is, so far, a common interest among Government, and above the Government, at the same those over whom the Government extends, as that it may time. But however more respectable a mode of secesprovide for the defence, protection, and good govern- sion may be, it is not more truly revolutionary than the ment of the whole, without injustice or oppression to parts. actual execution of the doctrines of nullification. Both, Second, That the representatives of the people, and and each, resist the constitutional authorities; both, and especially the people themselves, are secure against ge- each, would sever the Union, and subvert the Governneral corruption, and may be trusted, therefore, with the ment. ties. Mr. President, all popular Governments rest on two principles, or two assumptions: exercise of power. Whoever argues against these prin- Mr. President, having detained the Senate so long alciples, argues against the practicability of all free Gov-ready, I will not now examine, at length, the ordinance ernments. And whoever admits these, must admit, or and laws of South Carolina. These papers are well cannot deny, that power is as safe in the hands of Con- drawn for their purpose. Their authors understood their gress as in those of other representative bodies. Con- own objects. They are called a peaceable remedy, and gress is not irresponsible. Its members are agents of the we have been told that South Carolina, after all, intends people, elected by them, answerable to them, and liable nothing but a law-suit. A very few words, sir, will show to be displaced or superseded at their pleasure; and they the nature of this peaceable remedy, and of the law-suit possess as fair a claim to the confidence of the people, which South Carolina contemplates. while they continue to deserve it, as any other public po- In the first place, the ordinance declares the law of last litical agents. July, and all other laws of the United States laying duties, If, then, sir, the plain intention of the convention, and to be absolutely null and void, and makes it unlawful for the cotemporary admission of both friends and foes, prove the constituted authorities of the United States to enforce any thing; if the plain text of the instrument itself, as the payment of such duties. It is, therefore, sir, an inwell as the necessary implication from other provisions, dictable offence, at this moment, in South Carolina, for prove any thing; if the early legislation of Congress, the any person to be concerned in collecting revenue, under course of judicial decisions, acquiesced in by all the States the laws of the United States. It being declared unlaw. for forty years, prove any thing, then it is proved that ful to collect these duties by what is considered a fundathere is a supreme law, and a final interpreter. mental law of the State, an indictment lies, of course, My fourth and last proposition, Mr. President, was, against any one concerned in such collection; and he is, that any attempt by a State to abrogate or nullify acts on general principles, liable to be punished by fine and of Congress, is a usurpation on the powers of the imprisonment. The terms, it is true, are, that it is unlaw VOL. IX.-37 SENATE.] Revenue Collection Bill. [FEB. 16, 1833. ful "to enforce the payment of duties;" but every cus- The character, sir, of these provisions defies comtom-house officer enforces payment when he detains the ment. Their object is as plain as their means are extragoods in order to obtain such payment. The ordinance, ordinary. They propose direct resistance, by the whole therefore, reaches every body concerned in the collection power of the State, to laws of Congress; to cut off, by of the duties. methods deemed adequate, any redress by legal and judiThis is the first step in the prosecution of the peacea-cial authority. They arrest legislation, defy the execuble remedy. The second is more decisive. By the act tive, and banish the judicial power of this Government. commonly called the replevin law, any person, whose They authorize and command acts to be done, and done goods are seized or detained by the collector for the pay- by force, both of numbers and of arms, which, if done, ment of duties, may sue out a writ of replevin, and, by and done by force, are clearly acts of rebellion and treason. virtue of that writ, the goods are to be restored to him. A writ of replevin is a writ which the sheriff is bound to execute, and for the execution of which he is bound to employ force, if necessary. He may call out the posse, and must do so, if resistance be made. This posse may be armed or unarmed. It may come forth with military ar- And now, Mr. President, what is the reason for passing ray, and under the lead of military men. Whatever laws like these? What are the oppressions experienced number of troops may be assembled in Charleston, they under the Union, calling for measures which thus threatmay be summoned, with the Governor or commander-in-en to sever and destroy it? What invasions of public chief at their head, to come in aid of the sheriff. It is liberty, what ruin to private happiness, what long list of evident then, sir, that the whole military power of the rights violated, or wrongs unredressed, are to justify to the State is to be employed, whenever necessary, in dispos- country, to posterity, and to the world, this assault upon sessing the custom-house officers, and in seizing and hold- the free constitution of the United States, this great and ing the goods without paying the duties. This is the second step in the peaceable remedy. Such, sir, are the laws of South Carolina; such, sir, is the peaceable remedy of nullification. Has not nullification reached, sir, even thus early, that point of direct and forcible resistance to law, to which I intimated, three years ago, it plainly tended? glorious work of our fathers? At this very moment, sir, the whole land smiles in peace, and rejoices in plenty. A general and a high prosperity pervades the country; and, judging by the common standard, by increase of population and wealth; or judging by the opinions of that portion of her people not embarked in those dangerous and desperate measures, this prosperity overspreads South Carolina herself. Sir, whatever pretences may be set up to the contrary, this is the direct application of force, and of military force. It is unlawful, in itself, to replevy goods in the custody of the collectors. But this unlawful act is to be done, and it is to be done by power. Here is a plain interposition, by physical force, to resist the laws of the Union. The legal mode of collecting duties is to detain Thus, happy at home, our country, at the same time, goods till such duties are paid or secured. But force holds high the character of her institutions, her power, comes and overpowers the collector and his assistants, her rapid growth, and her future destiny, in the eyes of and takes away the goods, leaving the duties unpaid. all foreign States. One danger only creates hesitation; There cannot be a clearer case of forcible resistance to one doubt only exists to darken the otherwise unclouded law. And it is provided that the goods thus seized shall brightness of that aspect, which she exhibits to the view be held against any attempt to retake them, by the same and to the admiration of the world. Need I say that force which seized them. that doubt respects the permanency of our Union? and Having thus dispossessed the officers of the Govern- need I say that that doubt is now caused, more than by ment of the goods, without payment of duties, and seiz- any thing else, by these very proceedings of South Caroed and secured them by the strong arm of the State, only lina? Sir, all Europe is, at this moment, beholding us, one thing more remained to be done, and that is, to cut and looking for the issue of this controversy; those who off all possibility of legal redress; and that, too, is accom- hate free institutions, with malignant hope; those who love plished, or thought to be accomplished. The ordinance them, with deep anxiety and shivering fear. decrees, that all judicial proceedings founded on the re- The cause, then, sir, the cause! Let the world know venue laws (including, of course, proceedings in the the cause which has thus induced one State of the Union courts of the United States) shall be null and void. This to bid defiance to the power of the whole, and openly to nullifies the judicial power of the United States. Then talk of secession. comes the test oath act. This requires all State judges Sir, the world will scarcely believe that this whole conand jurors in the State courts to swear that they will ex- troversy, and all the desperate measures which its supecute the ordinance, and all acts of the Legislature pass-port requires, have no other foundation than a differed in pursuance thereof. The ordinance declares that ence of opinion, upon a provision of the constitution, no appeal shall be allowed from the decision of the State between a majority of the people of South Carolina, on courts to the Supreme Court of the United States; and one side, and a vast majority of the whole people of the the replevin act makes it an indictable offence for any United States on the other. It will not credit the fact, clerk to furnish a copy of the record, for the purpose of it will not admit the possibility, that, in an enlightened such appeal. age, in a free, popular republic, under a Government The two principal provisions on which South Carolina where the people govern, as they must always govern, relies, to resist the laws of the United States, and nullify under such systems, by majorities, at a time of unprethe authority of this Government, are therefore, these: cedented happiness, without practical oppression, without 1. A forcible seizure of goods before the duties are paid evils, such as may not only be pretended, but felt and or secured, by the power of the State, civil and military. experienced; evils not slight or temporary, but deep, 2. The taking away, by the most effectual means in permanent, and intolerable; a single State should rush her power, of all legal redress in the courts of the United into conflict with all the rest, attempt to put down the States; the confining all judicial proceedings to her own power of the Union by her own laws, and to support State tribunals; and the compelling of her judges and those laws by her military power, and thus break up and jurors of these her own courts to take an oath before- destroy the world's last hope. And well the world may hand that they will decide all cases according to the or- be incredulous. We, who hear and see it, can ourselves dinance, and the acts passed under it; that is, that they hardly yet believe it. Even after all that had preceded will decide the cause one way. They do not swear to try it, this ordinance struck the country with amazeinent. It it on its own merits; they only swear to decide it as nulli- was incredible and inconceivable, that South Carolina fication requires. should thus plunge headlong into resistance to the laws, FEB. 16, 1833.] Revenue Collection Bill. [SENATE. on a matter of opinion, and on a question in which the of a Legislature is not allowed as a ground to set aside a preponderance of opinion, both of the present day and law. of all past time, was so overwhelmingly against her. The But, sir, is it true that the motive for these laws is such ordinance declares that Congress has exceeded its just as is stated? I think not. The great object of all these power, by laying duties on imports, intended for the pro- laws is, unquestionably, revenue. If there were no octection of manufactures. This is the opinion of South casion for revenue, the laws would not have been passed; Carolina; and on the strength of that opinion she nullifies and it is notorious that almost the entire revenue of the the laws. Yet has the rest of the country no right to its country is derived from them. And, as yet, we have colopinions also? Is one State to sit sole arbitress? She lected none too much revenue. The treasury has not maintains that those laws are plain, deliberate, and palpa- been more exhausted for many years than at this moment. ble violations of the constitution; that she has a sovereign All that South Carolina can say is, that in passing the right to decide this matter; and, that, having so decided, laws which she now undertakes to nullify, particular artishe is authorized to resist their execution, by her own cles were taxed from a regard to the protection of dosovereign power; and she declares that she will resist it, mestic articles, higher than they would have been had no though such resistance should shatter the Union into atoms. such regard been entertained. And she insists that, acMr. President, I do not intend to discuss the propriety cording to the constitution, no such discrimination can be of these laws at large; but I will ask, how are they shown allowed; that duties should be laid for revenue, and reveto be thus plainly and palpably unconstitutional? Are nue only; and that it is unlawful to have reference, in any they quite new in the history of the Government? Have case, to protection. In other words, she denies the powthey no countenance at all in the constitution itself? Are er of discrimination. She does not, and cannot, complain they a sudden and violent usurpation on the rights of the of excessive taxation; on the contrary, she professes to States? Sir, what will the civilized world say, what will be willing to pay any amount for revenue, merely as reveposterity say, when they learn that similar laws have exist-nue; and up to the present moment there is no surplus of ed from the very foundation of the Government; that for revenue. Her grievance, then, that plain and palpable thirty years the power never was questioned; and that violation of the constitution which she insists has taken no state in the Union has more freely and unequivocally place, is simply the exercise of the power of discriminaadmitted it than South Carolina herself? tion. Now, sir, is the exercise of this power of discrimi To lay and collect duties and imposts is an express pow-nation plainly and palpably unconstitutional? I have al er, granted by the constitution to Congress. It is also ready said the power to lay duties is given by the constian exclusive power; for the constitution as expressly pro- tution in broad and general terms. There is also conferhibits all the States from exercising it themselves. This red on Congress the whole power of regulating comexpress and exclusive power is unlimited in the terms of merce in another distinct provision. Is it clear and palthe grant, but is attended with two specific restrictions: pable, sir-can any man say it is a case beyond doubt-that first, that all duties and imposts shall be equal in all the under these two powers Congress may not justly discriStates; second, that no duties shall be laid on exports. minate in laying duties for the purpose of countervailing The power, then, being granted, and being attended with the policy of foreign nations, or of favoring our own these two restrictions, and no more, who is to impose a home productions? Sir, what ought to conclude this third restriction on the general words of the grant? If question forever, as it would seem to me, is, that the reguthe power to lay duties, as known among all other nations, lation of commerce, and the imposition of duties, are, in and as known in all our history, and as it was perfectly all commercial nations, powers avowedly and constantly understood when the constitution was adopted, includes exercised for this very end. That undeniable truth ought a right of discriminating, while exercising the power, and of laying some duties heavier and some lighter, for the sake of encouraging our own domestic products, what authority is there for giving to the words used in the constitution a new, narrow, and unusual meaning? All the limitations which the constitution intended, it has expressed; and what it has left unrestricted, is as much a part of its will as the restraints which it has imposed. to settle the question; because the constitution ought to be considered, when it uses well known language, as using it in its well known sense. But it is equally undeniable that it has been, from the very first, fully believed that this power of discrimination was conferred on Congress; and the constitution was itself recommended, urged upon the people, and enthusiastically insisted on, in some of the States, for that very reason. Not that, at that time, the But these laws, it is said, are unconstitutional on ac- country was extensively engaged in manufactures, especount of the motive. How, sir, can a law be examined cially of those kinds now existing. But the trades and on any such ground? How is the motive to be ascertain- crafts of the seaport towns, the business of the artisans, ed? One House, or one member, may have one motive; and manual laborers, these employments, the work of the other House, or another member, another. One mo- which supplies so great a portion of the daily wants of all tive may operate to-day, and another to-morrow. Upon classes, all these looked to the new constitution as a any such mode of reasoning as this, one law might be un-source of relief from the severe distresses which followed constitutional now, and another law, in exactly the same the war. It would, sir, be unpardonable, at so late an words, perfectly constitutional next year. Besides, arti-hour, to go into details on this point; but the truth is as I cles may only be taxed for the purpose of protecting have stated. The papers of the day, the resolutions of home products, but other articles may be left free, for the public meetings, the debates in the conventions, all that same purpose, and with the same motive. A law, there- we open our eyes upon, in the history of the times, fore, would become unconstitutional from what it omitted prove it. as well as from what it contained. Mr. President, it is a settled principle, acknowledged in all legislative halls, recognised before all tribunals, sanctioned by the general sense and understanding of mankind, that there can be no inquiry into the motives of those who pass laws, for the purpose of determining on their validity. If the law be within the fair meaning of the words in the grant of power, its authority must be admitted until it is repealed. This rule, every where acknowledged, every where admitted, is so universal, and so completely without exception, as that even an allegation of fraud in the majority The honorable gentleman, sir, from South Carolina, has referred to two incidents connected with the proceedings of the convention at Philadelphia, which he thinks are evidence to show that the power of protecting manufactures by laying duties, and by commercial regulations, was not intended to be given by Congress. The first is, as he says, that a power to protect manufactures was expressly proposed, but not granted. I think, sir, the gentleman is quite mistaken in relation to this part of the proceedings of the convention. The whole history_of the occurrence to which he alludes is simply this: To SENATE.] Revenue Collection Bill. [FEB. 16, 1833. wards the conclusion of the convention, after the provi- and as an object necessary to be attended to, is Mr. Fitz sions of the constitution had been mainly agreed upon, simons, of Pennsylvania; the second, Mr White, of Virafter the power to lay duties and the power to regulate ginia; the third, Mr. Tucker, of South Carolina. commerce had both been granted, a long list of proposi- But the great leader, sir, on this occasion, was Mr. tions was made, and referred to the committee, contain-Madison. Was he likely to know the intentions of the ing various miscellaneous powers, some, or all of which, convention and the people? Was he likely to understand it was thought, might be properly vested in Congress. the constitution? Among these, was a power to establish a university; to At the second sitting of the committee Mr. Madison grant charters of incorporation; to regulate stage-coaches explained his own opinions of the duty of Congress fully on the post-roads; and also the power to which the gen- and explicitly. I must not detain you, sir, with more than tleman refers, and which is expressed in these words: a few short extracts from these opinions, but they are "To establish public institutions, rewards, and immuni- such as are clear, intelligible, and decisive. ties, for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, "The States," says he, "that are most advanced in and manufactures." The committee made no report on population, and ripe for manufactures, ought to have their this or various other propositions in the same list. But particular interests attended to, in some degree. While the only inference from this omission is, that neither the these States retained the power of making regulations of committee nor the convention thought it proper to author- trade, they had the power to cherish such institutions. By ize Congress to establish public institutions, rewards, adopting the present constitution, they have thrown the and immunities" for the promotion of manufactures and exercise of this power into other hands; they must have other interests. The convention supposed it had done done this with an expectation that those interests would enough, (at any rate it had done all it intended,) when it not be neglected here." had given to Congress, in general terms, the power to lay imposts and the power to regulate trade. It is not to be argued, from its omission to give more, that it meant to take back what it had already given. It had given the impost power; it had given the regulation of trade; and it did not deem it necessary to give the further and distinct power of establishing public institutions. The other fact, sir, on which the gentleman relies, is the declaration of Mr. Martin to the Legislature of Maryland. The gentleman supposes Mr. Martin to have urged against the constitution that it did not contain the power of protection. But, if the gentleman will look again at what Mr. Martin said, he will find, I think, that what Mr. Martin complained of was, that the constitution, by its prohibitions on the States, had taken away from the States themselves the power of protecting their own manufactures by duties on imports. This is undoubtedly true; but I find no expression of Mr. Martin intimating that the constitution had not conferred on Congress the same power which it had thus taken from the States. But, sir, let us go to the first Congress; let us look in upon this and the other House, at the first session of their organization. In another report of the same speech, Mr. Madison is represented as using still stronger language; as saying that the constitution having taken this power away from the States, and conferred it on Congress, it would be a fraud on the States and on the people were Congress to refuse to exercise it. Mr. Madison argues, sir, on this early and interesting occasion, very justly and liberally in favor of the general principles of unrestricted commerce. But he argues also, with equal force and clearness, for certain important exceptions to these general principles. The first, sir, respects those manufactures which had been brought forward under encouragement by the State Governments. "It would be cruel," says Mr. Madison, "to neglect them, and to divert their industry into other channels; for it is not possible for the hand of man to shift from one employment to another without being injured by the change." Again: "There may be some manufactures which, being once formed, can advance towards perfection without any adventitious aid; while others, for want of the fostering hand of Government, will be unable to go on at all. Legislative provision, therefore, will be necessary to collect the proper objects for this purpose; and We see in both Houses men distinguished among the this will form another exception to my general principle." friends, framers, and advocates of the constitution. We And again: "The next exception that occurs is one on see in both those who had drawn, discussed, and matured which great stress is laid by some well-informed men, and the instrument in the convention, explained and defended this with great plausibility; that each nation should have it before the people, and were now elected members of within itself the means of defence, independent of foreign Congress to put the new Government into motion, and to supplies; that, in whatever relates to the operations of war, carry the powers of the constitution into beneficial exe-no State ought to depend upon precarious supplies from any part of the world. There may be some truth in this remark, and therefore it is proper for legislative attention." cution. At the head of the Government was Washington himself, who had been president of the convention; and in his cabinet were others most thoroughly acquainted with the history of the constitution, and distinguished for the part taken in its discussion. If these persons were not acquainted with the meaning of the constitution, if they did not understand the work of their own hands, who can understand it, or who shall now interpret it to us? In the same debate, sir, Mr. Burke, from South Carolina, supported a duty on hemp, for the express purpose of encouraging its growth on the strong lands of South Carolina. "Cotton," he said, "was also in contemplation among them; and, if good seed could be procured, he hoped might succeed." Afterwards, sir, the cotton seed was obtained, its culture was protected, and it did succeed. Mr. Smith, a very distinguished member from the same Sir, the volume which records the proceedings and de- State, observed: "It has been said, and justly, that the bates of the first session of the House of Representatives States which adopted this constitution expected its adminlies before me. I open it, and I find, that, having provid-istration would be conducted with a favorable hand. The ed for the administration of the necessary oaths, the very manufacturing States wished the encouragement of manfirst measure proposed for consideration is the laying of ufactures; the maritime States the encouragement of shipimposts; and in the very first Committee of the Whole into building; and the agricultural States the encouragement which the House of Representatives ever resolved itself, on of agriculture." this its earliest subject, and in this its very first debate, the Sir, I will detain the Senate by reading no more extracts duty of so laying the imposts as to encourage manufac- from these debates. I have already shown a majority of tures was advanced, and enlarged upon by almost every the members from South Carolina, in this very first sesspeaker; and doubted or denied by none. The first gen- sion, acknowledging this power of protection, voting for tleman who suggests this as the clear duty of Congress, its exercise, and proposing its extension to their own pro |