I have already said, the power to lay duties is given by the Constitution in broad and general terms.  There is also conferred on Congress the whole power of regulating commerce, in another distinct provision.  Is it clear and palpable, Sir, can any man say it is a case beyond doubt, that, under these two powers, Congress may not justly discriminate, in laying duties, for the purpose of countervailing the policy of foreign nations, or of favoring our own home productions?  Sir, what ought to conclude this question for ever, as it would seem to me, is, that the regulation of commerce and the imposition of duties are, in all commercial nations, powers avowedly and constantly exercised for this very end.  That undeniable truth ought to settle the question; because the Constitution ought to be considered, when it uses well-known language, as using it in its well-known sense.  But it is equally undeniable, that it has been, from the very first, fully believed that this power of discrimination was conferred on Congress; and the Constitution was itself recommended, urged upon the people, and enthusiastically insisted on in some of the States, for that very reason.  Not that, at that time, the country was extensively engaged in manufactures, especially of the kinds now existing.  But the trades and crafts of the seaport towns, the business of the artisans and manual laborers,—­those employments, the work in which supplies so great a portion of the daily wants of all classes,—­all these looked to the new Constitution as a source of relief from the severe distress which followed the war.  It would, Sir, be unpardonable, at so late an hour, to go into details on this point; but the truth is as I have stated.  The papers of the day, the resolutions of public meetings, the debates in the contentions, all that we open our eyes upon in the history of the times, prove it.

Sir, the honorable gentleman from South Carolina has referred to two incidents connected with the proceedings of the Convention at Philadelphia, which he thinks are evidence to show that the power of protecting manufactures by laying duties, and by commercial regulations, was not intended to be given to Congress.  The first is, as he says, that a power to protect manufactures was expressly proposed, but not granted.  I think, Sir, the gentleman is quite mistaken in relation to this part of the proceedings of the Convention.  The whole history of the occurrence to which he alludes is simply this.  Towards the conclusion of the Convention, after the provisions of the Constitution had been mainly agreed upon, after the power to lay duties and the power to regulate commerce had both been granted, a long list of propositions was made and referred to the committee, containing various miscellaneous powers, some or all of which it was thought might be properly vested in Congress.  Among these was a power to establish a university; to grant charters of incorporation; to regulate stage-coaches