Page:HOUSE CR Exposition and Protest 1828-12-19.pdf/3

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Exposition.

The Committee have bestowed on the subject referred to them, the deliberate attention which its importance merits; and the result, on full investigation is, an unanimous opinion, that the Act of Congress of the last session, with the whole system of legislation imposing duties on imports, not for revenue, but for the protection of one branch of industry, at the expense of others, is unconstitutional, unequal and oppressive; calculated to corrupt the public morals, and to destroy the liberty of the country. These propositions they propose to consider in the order stated, and then to conclude their report, with the consideration of the important question of the remedy.

The Committee do not propose to enter into an elaborate, or refined argument on the question of the constitutionality of the Tariff system.

The general government is one of specific powers, and it can rightfully exercise only the powers expressly granted, and those that may be “necessary and proper” to carry them into effect; all others being reserved expressly to the states, or to the people. It results necessarily, that those who claim to exercise a power under the constitution, are bound to shew, that it is expressly granted, or that it is necessary and proper, as a means to some of the granted powers. The advocates of the Tariff have offered no such proof. It is true, that the third section of the first article of the constitution of the United States authorizes Congress to lay and collect an impost duty, but it is granted as a tax power, for the sole purpose of revenue; a power in its nature essentially different from that of imposing protective or prohibitory duties. The two are incompatable; for the prohibitory system must end in destroying the revenue from impost. It has been said that the system is a violation of the spirit and not the letter of the constitution. The distinction is not material. The constitution may be as grossly violated by acting against its meaning as against its letter; but it may be pro-