| OCR Text |
Show 52 ACTS RELATING ‘Part I. Se&.‘lII. TO THE Commas. 53 interpretation, and have ever fince conRandy and uniformly allowed the exercife of thofe rights, and the enjoyment of‘thofe exemptions. This language we may allow, I think, to be agreeable to the fpirit of the confli- tution. The uniform exercife Of any power, by any branch of the community, from the very foundation of that commu- an unconcerned fpeétator, would not this be equivalent to what is called cal/[9212 in the common law P \Vonld it be politic all at once to aliiime a power to which parliament has no right; or having ought to have (Milled, if not ca‘ercf/Ed it long be- fore ?--VVould there be no injufiice in , treating as groundlefs, expec‘tations autho- riled by the lilence of parliament, imbibed nity, during {0 long a {pace of time, in the face ofthelegillature is, according to the de- {inition we have already given ofthe confii‘ tution, a fuflicient proof that Inch :1 power is conflitutional. , If therefore the Americans {hould have been mifl'aken in their "interpretation of their charters ; if they {hould have {uppofed them to have conveyed more powers, or granted more exemptions, than they really were meant to convey or grant :-yet if that interpretation was coeval with by the prefent coloniits, with the prejudices of their earlieit infancy? It is now afierted, that a full exemption from internal taxation by parliament, was always fuppofed by the grantees to be conveyed by the charters; and that this {uppofition hagbcen conliantly acquiefced in by parliament. \Vhat truth there is in ,this, is likewife a quefiion, which will meet us in another place. In the mean time there is another prin- ciple, on which the right of impofingin» ihecharters thcmfelves ; if their conduft ternal taxes over the colonies, has been avas guided by it; and if, for more than a hundred years, parliament has looked on ._ combatetl; a principle which has no relation to any particular charters ; or to the It 11 E 3- ilieeific |
