LETTER |.

Montpelier, Sept. is' 1898.
{"character_count": 5313, "word_count": 901, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9641000032424927], "ccnet_perplexity": [824.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Dear Sir-YOur late letter reminds me "s o,,r cor~ors.,;on m inc constitutiOnality of the power in Congress to Imp"se d a'" ", the encourarenenf of manufacturers aud ot my prom,se to sketch the grounds of the con fdent opinion had expressed that it was among the powers vested in that Ondy. nau not forgotten my promise, and had even be- gun the task of fulfilling it, hut frequent in- ferruntiOns. from other causes, being follow ed by bilious indspOstion, have not been able sooner to comply with your request.- The subioined view of the subject might have been advantageOusly expanded; but leave the improvement to your own reflections and researches.

 The Constitution vests in Congress, ex pressly, ''the power to lay and collect taxes; duties, imposts, and excses;' and "the pow CT tO regulate trade"

 That the former power, if not particularly expressed, would have been included in the latter as one of the objects of general pow CT to regulate trade, is not necessarily i'm pugned by its being so expressed. Examples of this sort cannot sometimes be easily av"i- ded, and are to be seen elsewhere in the Con- stitution. Thus the power ''to define and punish offences against the laws of nations.' includes the power, afterwards particularly expressed ito make rules concerning cap lures, &c. from offending neutrals." So also ''power to coin money" would doubtless include that of regulating its value, ,"had not the latter been expressly inserted. The term tGres, if standing alone, would certainly have included duties, imposts, and excises. In an- other clause it is said ''no tax or duties shall be laid on exports, &c.," Here the two terms are used as synonymous. And in another clause, where it is said ''no state shall lay any imposts,o or duties, ,"Szc. the terms imposts and duties are synonymous. Pleonasms, tau tolOgies, and the promiscuous use of words and phrases, differing in their shades of mea- ming, (always to be expeunded with reference to the context, and under the control of the general character and manifest scope of the instrument in which they are found, )are to be ascribed, sometimes to the purposes of grea- ter caution; sometimes to the imper(ections of language; and sometimes to the imperfec tions of man himself In this view of the sub jeet, it was quite natural, however certainly the general power to regulate trade might in- clude power to impose duties on it, not to omit it in clause enumerating the several modes of revenue, authorised by the consti tuition. In few cases could the tex moiori cautcla" occur with more claim to respect.

 Nor can it be inferred that a power to reg uIate trade does not involve power to tax it, from the distinction made in the original con- frOversy with Great Britain between DOW CT to regulate trade with the Colonies, and power to tax them. A power to regulate trade between different parts Ofthe Empire. was contessedly necessary--and was admitted to lie, as far as that was the case in the Brit ish parliament; the taxing part being at the same time denied to the Parliament, and as- serted to he necessarily inherent in the Colo nial Legislatures, as sufficient, and the only safe Repositories of the taxing power. So diff 6cult was it, nevertheless to maintain the dis tinction in practice that the ingredient of rev. enue was overlooked or disregarded in the British regulations, as in the duty on sugar & molasses imported into the colonies. And it was fortunate that the attempt at an internal and direct tax, in the case of the Stamp Act, produced a radical examination of the sub ject, before regulation of trade with view to revenue ad grown into an established au- thoTity. One thing at least is certain, that the main and admitted object of the Parlia- mentary regulations of trade with the en- couragement of manufactures in Great Brit ain.

 But the present question is unconnected with the former relations between Great Brit ain and her colonies, which were of a pecul- far, a complicated, and in several respects. of an undeined character. It is a simple ques- tion under the constitution of the U. States. whether "the power to regulate trade with foreign nations' as distinct and substantive item in the enumeza powers, embraces the object of encourag By duties. restrictions ! and prohibitions. the manufactures and pro- ducts of the country? And the affirmative must be inferred from the following consider ations;

 |. The meaning of the phrase to regu- late trade," must be sought iu the general use oft; in other words. in the objects to which the power was generally understood to be ap- psaesbse, when the phrase was inserted in the CssGGhrhiaR.

 9- The power has beaa understood and us- an by al commarsial and EsssDufsetusing na- atons sss esss,hraGmg Ghs sAgsct Sf esOeOersging manufacturers. Af is hs.liesas fhsa ssss sim gle ssSceptMn can sbe named

 s- 1his has haau particularly ths case with Gt Es1Ealn. N1hose eOsatnese&al vocabulary is the parent Of oass. A primary object. of her commercial regulations is well known to have been the protection and encouragement her manufactures.

 4. Such was understood to be proper use ofthe power by the States most prepared for manufacturing industry. while retaining the power over their foreign trade.

 3. Such use of the power by Congress, aNk al