and some others, which are of doubtful constitutionality, all excises, and rest upon the excise provision in the Constitution. This instrument provides for the collection of taxes, which mean direct taxes, and duties, imposts, and excises, as the other form of taxes. The specification of these three kinds of taxes was intended to exclude all others. Were it not for this limitation, exports might be taxed, and people might be compelled to pay a tax for permission to reside in the United States, or hold State offices, or for rearing children, or sending them to school, or the privilege of belonging to a church. The Constitution also provides, that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. A law may in terms be uniform, but be far otherwise in its practical effect.

COTTON.-Cotton can only be raised in certain Southern States. A duty on the cotton produced is, in effect, a local duty, and can only be collected there. The Internal Revenue Law levied a duty on all the cotton produced, which is in violation of the spirit of the Constitution. When this cotton is taken to New England and manufactured, and is then exported, this very three-cent duty is refunded, not to the grower of the cotton, but to the manufacturer and exporter. This bounty is unconstitu tional-the Constitution authorizes the collection of taxes to pay debts and to provide for the common defence and general welfare, and this bounty is not paid for either of these purposes.

DISTILLED SPIRITS.-Distilling whiskey can only be successfully carried on in the great grain-growing States. It cannot be advantageously done in New England, which does not produce its breadstuffs. This law imposes a tax of two dollars per gallon on all that is manufactured. This tax, although nominally uniform, is really a sectional one, bearing heavily upon some States and lightly upon others.

DRAWBACKS ON MANUFACTURES.-It is known that manufacturing is the great business of New England, while it forms but a small portion of the industry in some other States. This Internal Revenue Law provides for refunding taxes paid on raw materials when manufactured and exported, notwithstanding they may have been paid by others. This drawback privilege extends to all ar

ticles, with specified exceptions. These drawbacks have no con stitutional ground to stand upon.

The free list includes many things manufactured in few places outside of New England.

ALTERATION OF STATE LAWS AND CONTRACTS.-The States are prohibited from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts; and Congress has no authority under the Constitution to pass any such law. Still Congress has done this under the taxing power in the form of an excise duty. Under this law they have provided that, where property is delivered under a contract made before the passage of the law, the party may add the amount of the duty imposed by it and collect it of the other party beyond the provisions of the contract. They have also provided that gas companies, which are limited by State laws in the amount of their charges for gas, may add the tax to their bills and collect it in defiance of the State law. The same is true in relation to omnibus fares.

If Congress, under the taxing power, can nullify State laws and other contracts in small matters, they can in large. If the power exists, there can be no limit to its exercise, nor any restriction as to the contracts and laws that shall be nullified or changed. The principle upon which this legislation rests is broad enough to enable Congress to control all State laws and all transactions of the people. If this be so, then we live under a government where all power rests, in the estimation of Congress, in its sovereign will, which is the definition of a plural tyranny.

The enactments to which we have referred are not only unconstitutional both in form and substance, but they are antiDemocratic in principle. They are not equal in their operation, and only protect the few in the favored quarters and are oppressive in others. They do not permit mankind to seek happiness in their own way, but they exact of some and confer what is thus exacted upon others. One man is compelled to pay the Government three cents per pound on the cotton he produces, and the Government pays it out to another for manufacturing and exporting it. If a man has made a contract that is diminished in value by the act of the Government, instead of the latter indemnifying

him, the other party to the contract is compelled to bear all the loss. If gas and other companies have charters, which the act of the Government has rendered unprofitable, instead of relieving them from the consequences of its acts, Congress throws the whole upon the other party. Such legislation cannot be defended by those who believe in equality of rights and privileges. These instances of unconstitutional legislation were not accidental, but were the result of deliberate reflection, and more than once reviewed, and are the natural results of the principles of the party who enacted this statute. This law will fail to command the general respect of the people until the Democratic principle of equality of rights and uniform security becomes a controlling element in it.

It is under this law that the State banks are taxed ten per cent. on their circulation, the consequence of which is that nearly every one has ceased to exist.

But the execution of this statute is as bad as the act itself. Where Congress has failed to provide for cases, and sometimes when they have made ample provision, the Commissioner legislates and makes laws to suit himself, without the least regard to the principles of the Constitution. He makes, what he terms, decisions, many of which are inconsistent, and others are unequalled for their display of ignorance and absurdity. All such things are in violation of the rights of the people, and are indefensible under the statute laws, and the rules concerning equality of rights.

87.-THE FORCE OF BAD PRECEDENTS IN LEGISLATION.

We have elsewhere remarked upon the error of giving an effect to precedent over that of logical reason. This error early crept into legislation, and has often bled the Treasury. The authority of precedent is most frequently invoked in aid of private claims and pensions. Those engaged in prosecuting claims hunt up and cite them as authority. If a private claim is a debt, we are bound to pay it, as much as any other debt; but if it is a gratuity we have no constitutional authority to vote money or means on account of it. The distinction is plain and easily understood.

The Constitution is the only authority for raising money, and that confines it to paying debts, providing for common defence and general welfare. Neither of these authorizes gratuities, or any like purpose. Sometimes these gratuities have rested upon even a worse foundation than personal favor, though seldom frankly avowed.

In 1841, after a month's service, President Harrison died. A bill was introduced by his friends to give his widow, or, in case of her death, his legal representatives, the sum of $25,000. Mrs. Harrison did not claim that the Government owed her any thing. It was a gift outright, and given for a reason assigned by Mr. J. Q. Adams, who reported the bill to the house, in these words:

"There had been more objection to the constitutionality than than there had been to the sum proposed. So far as there had been any discussion in the committee, it seemed to be the general sense of those composing it, that some provision ought to be made for the family of the late President, not in the nature of a grant, but as an indemnity for actual expenses incurred, by himself first, when a candidate for the presidency. It had been observed in the committee, and must be known to all the members of the House, that in the situation in which General Harrison had been placed-far from the seat of Government, and for eighteen months or two years, while a candidate for the presidency, exposed to a burden of expense, which he could not possibly avoid —it was no more than equitable that he should, to a reasonable degree, be indemnified."

Here the ground is distinctly taken, that when poor men are elected President the Government ought to indemnify them for their expenses in obtaining the office. Once admit this principle, and the indemnity must be made, regardless of amount. This bill passed both Houses, which were decidedly anti-Democratic. This precedent, though not resorted to on the death of President Taylor, was invoked in behalf of the widow of President Lincoln, and $25,000 granted her, although a hundred thousand was claimed. It is to be presumed that this grant was made as an indemnity for election expenses, as in the case of Mrs. Harrison. If these appropriations were made on the ground of right, then the like sum is due to Mrs. Taylor, or her legal representatives. If they

were mere gifts, or provisions to cover election expenses, then there was a wanton violation of duty on the part of Congress in making them.

These cases are cited to show how little Congress observes the Constitution when legislating on such matters. Bad precedents in granting pensions are often made, and almost daily followed. Invalid pensions are clearly right, and necessarily result from the power to raise and support armies and navies. But these only form a part of the immense sum paid out as pensions. There is an army of people supported on pensions who have never seen any service whatever, and who are not invalids.

The Government at an early day set aside its share of naval prizes to pension the wounded and disabled, and for the temporary support of the widows of those killed in battle, or in the line of their duty. After the War of 1812 this fund amounted to a million and a quarter of dollars, and, being invested, produced over $70,000, which was applied for these purposes, and when insufficient the Government provided what more was needed. In March, 1837, a bill with a false title swept the whole of this fund away, and required an immense additional expense. It required that pensions should commence, not from the completion of the proof, but from the date of disability, even though the applicant continued in service, and received full pay. It extended them in all cases of death, whether incurred in the line of duty or not, so that, if the person became disabled from excesses or immoral acts, he would be pensioned. It extended widows' pensions, which had been only for five years, during their lives, and pensioned children until they were twenty-one, thereby conforming to the English system. It was ascertained that this act had passed without discussion on the last night of the session, in the House, under the gag of the previous question. In 1841 an attempt was made to repeal it, and restore the former law. Mr. Adams, who did not vote for the repeal, gave this account of its passage: "He was in the House, but could not say how it passed. He was not conscious of it, and the discussion must have been put down in the way in which such things are usually done in this House-by clapping the previous question upon it. No questions were asked; and