25 



made in section nine. And the manifest object of the one qnoted, was to 

 guard against any inequality or injustice towards any State. 



Mr. Story says of it : 



"The obvious olject of those provisions is to prevent any possibility of 

 applying the power to lay taxes, or to regulate commerce injuriously to the 

 interests of any one State, so as to tavor or aid another. If Congress were 

 allowed to lay a duty on exports from any one St<ile, it might unreasonably in- 

 jure, or even destroy, the staple productions or common articles of that State. 

 The inequality of such a tax would be extreme. In some of the States the 

 %hole of their means result from agricultural exports. * * * 



The burden of such a tax would, of course, be very unequally distributed. 

 The power is, therefore, wholly taken away to intermeddle with the subject of 

 exports — (paragraph 1,014.") And speaking of the clause quoted in section 

 nine, he adds, "that it was reported in the first draught of the Constitution; 

 that it did not pass without opposition; and several attempts were made to 

 amend it, by inserting after the #ord 'duty,' the words 'for the purpose of 

 revenue,' and by inserting at the end of it, 'unless by consent of two-thirds 

 of the legislature,' both of which propositions were negatived. The prohibi- 

 tion, he says, extends not only to exports, hut to the exporter. Congress can 

 no more rightfully tax the one than the other." 



Mr. Hamilton, in the 32d number of the Federalist, s ;ys "that the general 

 power of taxation is abridged by another clause, which declares that no tax or 

 duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State ; in consequence of which 

 qualification, it noAV only extends to the duties on imports." 



Since, then, it is clear that taxes cannot be laid on exports, the question arises, 

 Can Congress lay an excise tax, and din// the right to its draivhack on exporta- 

 tion 1 What is an excise? Mr. Story considers, at much length, the meaning 

 of the words taxes, duties, imposts, and excises,.as used in the Constitution, and 

 comes to the conclusion that they mean direct and indirect taxes, and that in 

 the latter are embraced duties, imposts, and excises. Hence, when the Constitu- 

 tion says that no tax or duty shall be laid on exports, it is the same as de- 

 claring that no direct or indirect tax shall be so laid. Both of these kinds of 

 taxes operate alike on exports, by so raising their price that they cannot be ex- 

 ported. And for this reason the prohibition extended to both kinds. How the 

 proposed excise would operate on the export of tobacco has been shown at 

 length. The destruction of such a ciop is clearly one of the evils the Constitu- 

 tion so decisively guarded against. 



For the purposes of revenue, Congress may affect the domestic consumption 

 of any commodity by taxes on it, but there its authority ends. That power cannot 

 be continued so as to aftect its export. Hence, that part of the recommenda- 

 tion of the Commissioner of Internal llevenue is clearly unconstitutional which 

 advises " that no drawback be allowed on its exportation in the leaf, so that 

 the cost to the foreign manufacturer may be increased to the extent of our ex- 

 cise." 



I have given these views, not unmindful of the wants of the government for 

 revenue, nor of that high respect due to the recommendation of a co-ordinate 

 department, but with that freedom which the well-being of our agricultural 

 hiterests demands. 



ISAAC NEWTON, 



Commissioner. 



TOBACCO CULTIVATION. 



[Believing that there will be no tax on tobacco leaf, and that the tobacco- 

 grower will find profit in giving to its production all the labor he can bestow 

 on the crop, the following article is now published, in anticipation of the annual 



