It
was not the stamp duty nor the tea-tax, but the principle involved in
taxation without representation, against which our colonial fathers took
up arms. So the tariff act in 1828, known at the time as "the bill of
abominations," was resisted by Southern representatives, because it was
the invasion of private rights in violation of the compact by which the
States were united. In the last stage of the proceeding, after the
friends of the bill had advocated it as a measure for protecting capital
invested in manufactures, Mr. Drayton, of South Carolina, moved to amend
the title so that it should read, "An act to increase the duties upon
certain imports, for the purpose of increasing the profits of certain
manufacturers," and stated his purpose for desiring to amend the title
to be that, upon some case which would arise under the execution of the
law, an appeal might be made to the Supreme Court of the United States
to test its constitutionality. Those who had passed the bill refused to
allow the opportunity to test the validity of a tax imposed for the
protection of a particular industry. Though the debates showed clearly
enough the purpose to be to impose duties for protection, the
phraseology of the law presented it as enacted to raise revenue, and
therefore the victims of the discrimination were deprived of an appeal
to the tribunal instituted to hear and decide on the constitutionality
of a law.
Pages:
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778