MY DEAR COUNTRYMEN,
There is another late Act of Parliament, which appears to me to
be unconstitutional and as destructive to the liberty of these colonies,
as that mentioned in my last letter; that is, the Act for granting the
duties on paper, glass, etc.
The Parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to
regulate the trade of Great Britain and all her colonies. Such an
authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and her
colonies; and necessary for the common good of all. He, who considers
these provinces as States distinct from the British Empire, has very
slender notions of justice, or of their interests. We are but parts of a
whole, and therefore there must exist a power somewhere to preside, and
preserve the connexion due order. This power is lodged in the
Parliament; and we are as much dependent on Great Britain as a perfectly
free people can be on another.
I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from
their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them
founded on this principle till the Stamp Act administration. All before
are calculated to regulate trade and preserve or promote a mutually
beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the
Empire; and though many of them imposed duties on trade, yet those
duties were always imposed with design to restrain the commerce of one
part, that was injurious to another, and thus to promote the general
welfare. The raising a revenue thereby was never intended. Thus the
king, by his judges in his courts of justice, imposes fines which all
together amount to a very considerable sum and contribute to the support
of government: but this is merely a consequence arising from
restrictions that only meant to keep peace and prevent confusion; and
surely a man would argue very loosely, who should conclude from hence
that the king has a right to levy money in general upon his subjects.
Never did the British Parliament, till the period above mentioned, think
of imposing duties in America for the purpose of raising a revenue. Mr.
Grenville first introduced this language, in the preamble to the 4 Geo.
III, c. 15, which has these words: "And whereas it is just and necessary
that a revenue be raised in Your Majesty's said dominions in America,
for defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the
same: We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of
Great Britain, in Parliament assembled, being desirous to make some
provision in this present session of Parliament, towards raising the
said revenue in America, have resolved to give and grant unto Your
Majesty the several rates and duties herein after mentioned," etc.
A few months after came the Stamp Act, which reciting this,
proceeds in the same strange mode of expression, thus: "And whereas it
is just and necessary that provision be made for raising a further
revenue within Your Majesty's dominions in America, towards defraying
the said expences, we Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects,
the Commons of Great Britain, etc., give and grant," etc., as before.
The last Act, granting duties upon paper, etc., carefully pursues
these modern precedents. The preamble is, " Whereas it is expedient that
a revenue should be raised in Your Majesty's dominions in America, for
making a more certain and adequate provision for defraying the charge of
the administration of justice, and the support of civil government in
such provinces, where it shall be found necessary; and towards the
further defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing
the said dominions, we Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects,
the Commons of Great Britain, etc., give and grant," etc., as before.
Here we may observe an authority expressly claimed and exerted to
impose duties on these colonies; not for the regulation of trade; not
for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse
between the several constituent parts of the Empire, heretofore the sole
objects of parliamentary institutions; but for the single purpose of
levying money upon us.
This I call an innovation; and a most dangerous innovation. It may
perhaps be objected that Great Britain has a right to lay what duties
she pleases upon her exports, and it makes no difference to us whether
they are paid here or there. To this I answer: these colonies require
many things for their use, which the laws of Great Britain prohibit them
from getting anywhere but from her. Such are paper and glass. That we
may legally be bound to pay any general duties on these commodities
relative to the regulation of trade, is granted; but we being obliged by
the laws to take from Great Britain any special duties imposed on their
exportation to us only, with intention to raise a revenue from us only,
are as much taxes upon us as those imposed by the Stamp Act.
What is the difference in substance and right whether the same sum
is raised upon us by the rates mentioned in the Stamp Act, on the use of
paper, or by these duties on the importation of it ? It is only the
edition of a former book, shifting a sentence from the end to the
beginning.
Suppose the duties were made payable in Great Britain.
It signifies nothing to us, whether they are to be paid here or
there. Had the Stamp Act directed that all the paper should be landed at
Florida, and the duties paid there before it was brought to the British
colonies, would the Act have raised less money upon us, or have been
less destructive of our rights? By no means: for as we were under a
necessity of using the paper, we should have been under the necessity of
paying the duties. Thus, in the present case, a like necessity will
subject us, if this Act continues in force, to the payment of the duties
now imposed.
Why was the Stamp Act then so pernicious to freedom? It did not
enact, that every man in the colonies should buy a certain quantity of
paper - No: It only directed that no instrument of writing should be
valid in law if not made on stamped paper.
The makers of that Act knew full well that the confusions that
would arise from the disuse of writings would compel the colonies to use
the stamped paper, and therefore to pay the taxes imposed. For this
reason the Stamp Act was said to be a law that would execute itself. For
the very same reason, the last Act of Parliament, if it is granted to
have any force here, will execute itself, and will be attended with the
very same consequences to American liberty. Some persons perhaps may say
that this Act lays us under no necessity to pay the duties imposed,
because we may ourselves manufacture the articles on which they are
laid; whereas by the Stamp Act no instrument of writing could be good,
unless made on British paper, and that too stamped.
Great Britain has prohibited the manufacturing iron and steel in
these colonies, without any objection being made to her right of doing
it. The like right she must have to prohibit any other manufacture among
us. Thus she is possessed of an undisputed precedent on that point. This
authority, she will say, is founded on the original intention of
settling these colonies; that is, that we should manufacture for them,
and that they should supply her with materials. The equity of this
policy, she will also say, has been universally acknowledged by the
colonies, who never have made the least objections to statutes for that
purpose; and will further appear by the mutual benefits flowing from
this usage ever since the settlement of these colonies.
Our great advocate Mr. Pitt, in his speeches on the debate
concerning the repeal of the Stamp Act, acknowledged that Great Britain
could restrain our manufactures. His words are these: "This kingdom, the
supreme governing and legislative power, has always bound the colonies
by her regulations and restrictions in trade, in navigation, in
manufactures - in everything, except that of taking their money out of
their pockets, without their consent." Again he says: "We may bind their
trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatever,
except that of taking their money out of their pockets, without their
consent."
Here then, my dear countrymen, ROUSE yourselves, and behold the
ruin hanging over your heads. If you ONCE admit that Great Britain may
lay duties upon her exportations to us, for the purpose of levying money
on us only, she then will have nothing to do but to lay those duties on
the articles which she prohibits us to manufacture - and the tragedy of
American liberty is finished. We have been prohibited from procuring
manufactures, in all cases, anywhere but from Great Britain (excepting
linens, which we are permitted to import directly from Ireland). We have
been prohibited in some cases from manufacturing for ourselves, and may
be prohibited in others. We are therefore exactly in the situation of a
city besieged, which is surrounded by the works of the besiegers in
every part but one. If that is closed up, no step can be taken, but to
surrender at discretion. If Great Britain can order us to come to her
for necessaries we want, and can order us to pay what taxes she pleases
before we take them away, or when we land them here, we are as abject
slaves as France and Poland can show in wooden shoes and with uncombed
hair.
Perhaps the nature of the necessities of dependent states, caused
by the policy of a governing one, for her own benefit, may be elucidated
by a fact mentioned in history. When the Carthaginians were possessed of
the island of Sardinia, they made a decree, that the Sardinians should
not raise corn, nor get it any other way than from the Carthaginians.
Then, by imposing any duties they would upon it, they drained from the
miserable Sardinians any sums they pleased; and whenever that oppressed
people made the least movement to assert their liberty, their tyrants
starved them to death or submission. This may be called the most perfect
kind of political necessity.
A FARMER.
APStudent.com | www.apstudent.com