137. C. U. S. Art. 1. Sec. 8.
138. C. U. S. Art. 1. Sec. 9.
139. Spavan's Puffendorf, vol. II. p. 330.
140. Spavan's Puffendorf, vol. II. p. 283.
141. Stuart's Political Economy, vol. II. p. 485.
142. Stuart's Political Economy, vol. II. p. 485.
143.Ibid. p. 496.
144. Stuart's Pol. Economy, Vol. 1, p. 520. ... For a variety of examples to illustrate the distinction here made, the student is referred to the same book. Art. taxes.
145. The preceeding investigation of this subject, was made about two years before congress passed the act imposing duties upon carriages for the conveyance of persons. The tax was opposed in Virginia as unconstitutional, because the sum to be raised thereby was not first apportioned among the states. A suit was brought in the federal court in Virginia; the judges were divided in opinion, and the case, by consent, was carried to the supreme federal court; it was there decided that the tax was not direct; and consequently that no apportionment was necessary. United States vs. Hylton. The editor's reasoning upon this subject, must therefore be regarded by the student as merely hypothetical, and speculative.
146. Direct taxes have been more than once proposed in congress: but the strenuous opposition to them leaves reason to believe that a maritime war, alone, will overcome the repugnance to them. Happily for America, if this repugnance should always operate so strongly, as to make her avoid such an occasion for them.
But since the preceding was written, congress have imposed a direct tax of two million of dollars. See L. U. S. 5. Cong. c. 86, and 92. 126. 6 Cong. c. 3. See Note 33. p. 313. of the first Book of the Commentaries .... part 2.
147. Confederation, Art. 8.
148. May, 1784, c. 31.
149. See Federalist, No. 54.
150. See Federalist, No. 36.
151.Ibid. No. 35.
152. See L. U. S. 2. Cong. c. 32. 3. Cong. c. 51. 108. But since this was written the excise laws have all been repealed. 7 Cong. 1 Sess. c. 19.
153. "Though the law for laying a tax for the use of the United States would be supreme in its nature, and could not legally be opposed or controled, yet a law for abrogating or preventing the collection of a tax laid by the authority of a state, unless upon exports or imports; would not be the supreme law of the land, but an usurpation of power not granted by the constitution." Federalist, No. 33.
The inference upon the whole is, that under the proposed constitution the individual states would retain an independent and uncontrolable authority to raise revenue to any extent, of which they may stand in need, by every kind of taxation, except duties on imports and exports." Ibid, No. 33, vol. I. p. 205.
154. "As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain. The wants of the union are to be supplied in one way or another: if it be done by the authority of the federal government, it will not be done by that of the state governments. The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case." Ibid. No. 36. vol. I. p. 225.
155. 1 Blacks. Com. 318.
156.Ibid. 320.
157.Ibid.
158. Blacks. Com. 318, which appears however to be a mistatement. See Christian's Edi. in a note to p. 318. 1. Blacks. Com.
159. What is said above was the result of conjecture but a report of the secretary of the treasury to the house of representatives, dated December 18, 1801, places the subject beyond the uncertainty of conjecture. "It will appear, says the secretary, from a statement annexed, that whilst the expences of collection on merchandize and tonnage, which are defrayed out of the revenue do not exceed four per cent, those on the permanent internal duties amount to almost twenty per cent. This is an inconvenience which, on account of the great number of individuals on whom the duties are raised, and of their dispersed situation throughout the whole extent of the United States, must, more or less attach to the system of internal taxation, so long as the wants of government shall not require any considerable extention, and the total amount of revenue shall remain inconsiderable."
160. C. U. S. Art. 1. §. 10.
161. See L. U. S. 5. Cong. c. 38, and 39, with many others.
162. May 1781, c. 2. the title occurs in the chancellor's revisal, p. 140.
163. Articles of confederation and perpetual union, Art. 13.
164. L. V. November, 1781. c. 9. Sessions Acts.
165.Ibid. October, 1783. c. 218 Ibid.
166. L. V. October, 1783. c. 5.
167. C. U. S. Art. 1, Sec. B.
168. It seems to have been upon this principle that all the internal taxes (except that arising from the post-office,) were repealed by an act of 7. Cong. 1. Session, c. 19)
169. C. U. S. Art. 1. Sec. 8.
170. C. U. S. Art. 1, Sec. 8.
171. C. U. S. Art. 1. §. 10.
172. The constitution of the United States does not authorise congress to regulate, or in any manner to interfere with, the domestic commerce of any state. Consequently, a vessel wholly employed in that domestic commerce, seems not to he subject to the control of the laws of the United States. Those laws may certainly provide for the punishment of such persons. and confiscation of such vessels, as may he detected in giving aid or assistance to any fradulent commerce, either with foreign parts, or between the states; they may also prescribe, or limit the terms and conditions, upon which vessels may he permitted to trade with foreign parts, or with other states: but they seem to have no constitutional right to control the intercourse between any two or more parts of the same state. See Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 12.
173. Amendments proposed by the convention of Virginia, Art. 7, 8.
174. Message from the President of the U. S. to the House of Representatives, March 30, 1796.
175.Federalist, No. 42.
