capitalist, the large manufacturer. The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois would make an unjust discrimination against labor and against the poor men of the country, although I know that the gentleman had no such intention.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Will the gentleman allow me to say a word here? As he has already disclaimed for me any intention to legislate unjustly against the poor man, I desire to state that in the great Northwest-Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and all those States-not a single distiller can be found in all that country who manufactures less than five hundred gallons a day.

from Kentucky and the gentleman from Maryland.

The Clerk proceeded with the reading of the bill.

Mr.SCHENCK. I move to add the following: Provided further, That no person between the ages of twenty and forty-five, who is not enrolled for military duty, or regularly exempted from enrollment, shall be entitled to a license as a peddler.

Mr. Chairman, I will explain in one word what is the object sought to be accomplished by that amendment. Now, in the midst of this war, a great number of persons, and especially foreigners not liable to the performance of military duty, who take care not to be naturalized by making a declaration of intention to become citizens so as to subject them to the laws requiring military

Mr. WEBSTER. Then, Mr. Chairman, if this amendment will not affect at all the gentleman's constituents and the people of the great Northwest, it strikes me as very unjust for him to ask that it shall be imposed upon my people, discrim-duty, go through the country as peddlers While inating against the interest of my section of the country; for, as I have remarked, the manufacturers in my section are mall manufacturers. In thus striking a blow at one of the interests of my people, while favoring unduly the interests of his people, the amendment appears still more unjust. Such sectional legislation should not be countenanced.

Mr. INGERSOLL. The gentleman will understand me as meaning the legitimate manufacturers, those who regularly pay the internal rev

enue tax.

Mr. WEBSTER. It is the business of the assistant assessors of internal revenue in every county of the United States to make proper inquiries and investigations; and if they discharge their duties, they can discover any effort to evade the law; they can ascertain where all these small manufacturers carry on their business. I maintain that it is unjust to punish, by an enactment of this kind, the small manufacturers, because there are in the country dishonest men who endeavor to evade the law.

I hope, therefore, that this House will adopt no such proposition as that now offered, whether the quantity be fixed at two hundred, one hundred, fifty, or twenty-five gallons. Let every man have his just chance in the manufacture of this

article.

Mr. MALLORY. I withdraw my amendment. Mr. CLAY. I renew the amendment. I hope that no such proposition will pass this House, making a discrimination against small distillers. It appears to me that it would be legislation in favor of capital against labor-the rich against the poor. In my district spirits are distilled in small quantities by the farmers, who, in many places where they have no good roads, convert their crops into spirits. I think it unjust, therefore, to prevent our citizens from following their legitimate business. If men cannot distill spirits on a small scale without cheating the Government, do not see why the Government will not be cheated when spirits are distilled upon a large scale. But, sir, there is nothing in that argument. You cannot distill spirits without using a great deal of wood. The grain is required to be ground, and for that purpose it must be taken to the mill. It seems to me impossible to distill even in cellars or out-houses without it being discovered. You cannot carry on a distillery without the whole neighborhood knowing it.

I hope, sir, that no discrimination will be made in favor of large distilleries and men of capital at the expense of the farming interest. It is a legitimate business in my district, and the best spirits are made by those who only distill in small quantities. I hope that the amendment will not pass.

Mr. A. MYERS. I presume that the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois is misunderstood. I think that the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Maryland have misunderstood it. The gentleman from Illinois means that all distilleries making less than five hundred gallons shall go on without paying any license at all, and in that view of the case I think it will suit the gentlemen.

Mr. MALLORY. The law provides that no man shall distill who does not procure and pay for a license.

Mr. MORRILL. I understand that the gentleman from Illinois proposes to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I will withdraw my amendment, proposing to offer it at another place in a modified form, so as to suit the gentleman

I would permit the women and the aged who were not liable to enrollment, persons who by sex or age are exempted from the performance of military duty or enrollment for that purpose to carry on the business, I desire to declare by law that all foreigners and others between the ages of twenty and forty-five shall not hawk any goods throughout the country unless they can show that they are regularly enrolled, or have been regularly exempted.

Mr. MORRILL. I see no objection to that amendment.

Mr. GANSON. This is a revenue bill, and will it not diminish the revenue?

Mr. SCHENCK. I think not. It allows the women and the aged to take up the business. Mr. GANSON. It ought to be in a military bill.

Mr. SCHENCK. It is in the right place here. It does not prevent any person availing themself of this as a means of livelihood who has been regularly enrolled and who is waiting for a draft, or who has been regularly exempted.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I move to amend by inserting in line two hundred and thirty-four, page 10, after the word "commission," the following:

And no one shall be licensed to distill spirits unless the assessor is satisfied that the person applying for the license has the necessary apparatus for distilling not less than fifty gallons daily.

By this amendment I believe I have avoided the objections made by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. MALLORY] and by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. WEBSTER.] The parties are not required by this proposed amendment to manufacture fifty gallons a day, or even one gallon; but the assessor shall not issue them a license unless they have an establishment or apparatus by which they could make fifty gallons a day, though they need not manufacture that amount unless they choose.

Mr. GANSON. What is the object?

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Is it the object of this amendment to require that a party desiring to distill spirits shall have an apparatus that is unsuitable to the quantity he is able to distill?

Mr. INGERSOLL. No, sir; that is not the object. I imagine that there is no one who desires to manufacture whisky or high wines in any of these forms who does not, if he intends to carry on a legitimate business, require an apparatus by which he could manufacture fifty gallons a day. My object is to protect the legitimate manufacture against a contraband article; and to that end I propose that a man who desires to manufacture so small a quantity as fifty gallons a day shall have an apparatus which shall necessarily be patent to the inspector; so large that the inspector cannot fail to know that he carries on the business. If this amendment is not adopted, any person may take out a license allowing him to manufacture, without limiting the capacity of the establishment by which the business is to be carried on, and he may hide his apparatus in a cellar or a garret, and there secretly manufacture a half barrel or a barrel a day. He can do it so secretly that his place of manufacture is not known and cannot be known by the inspector or the assessor; and although such party may pay the small license of fifty dollars to the Government, he will pay no duty on the article manufactured.

Now, the object of the amendment is to require that parties shall have an apparatus that shall be capable of manufacturing fifty gallons a day at least, so that it may be open and notorious to the || officers of the Government. In short, it is to pro

tect the legitimate manufacture against contraband competition.

Mr. MORRILL. I have listened attentively to the gentleman from Illinois, being desirous to ascertain whether his proposition would really be of any benefit to the Government, and I certainly have not been able to see that it would give any additional security, but think it would rather withdraw that security which we already have. How it is the gentleman proposes to collect any more tax from a party engaged in this illicit manufacture, by withholding from him a license, I cannot see. The very fact that he has a license enables the officers of the Government to know that he is carrying on that kind of business, and that he must be watched. I think the gentleman's amendment rather tends to withdraw the security we have now.

Mr. MALLORY. I move to amend the amend ment of the gentleman from Illinois by inserting "sixty" in the place of "fifty." I move the. amendment merely that I may make a remark. If I understand the amendment of the gentleman it is to confine the issuing of licenses to parties who manufacture at least fifty gallons a day. They must show to the inspector that their apparatus is capable of doing that amount of work. The gentleman argues that if you confine the issuing of licenses to distilleries of that capacity, they will have to be so large that they cannot be hid in garrets and cellars, but will be open to the view of the inspectors. If you adopt the amendment of the gentleman see what a strait you reduce men to. If a man wants to manufacture less than fifty gallons a day, he will get out a license, if he is permitted to do so and he is an honest man. Why not let him do it? The gentleman says that if the party happens to be a rogue he would conceal his apparatus, and therefore no man should have the privilege allowed him of manufacturing a smaller amount than fifty gallons daily. Why, you tempt honest men to become dishonest. If you do not allow men to have a license, you tempt them to get machinery and manufacture secretly. You bring this temptation to bear upon that class of men in the country who, perhaps more than anybody else, need the profits of distilling this article; men who have not the capital to engage in the business largely, even to the extent of fifty gallons a day. And let me tell the gentleman that the apparatus that would be suitable to produce fifty gallons a day would not be required, perhaps, to produce the eight, ten, or twenty gallons that one of these manufacturers might desire to produce in a day. It seems to me that the whole effect of the gentleman's proposition is to encourage and promote frauds, to promote the non-payment of revenue to the Government of the United States, to promote dishonesty; and for that reason I hope it will not prevail. I now withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. SCHENCK. I renew the amendment to the amendment in order that I may say that this. appears to be an attempt to legislate in favor of the capitalists and heavy distillers as against the men of small means and capital engaged in this business. I suppose the idea comes from the British system of restrictions upon little distilleries hid away among the hills to escape the excise duty, and as far as that is its object, there seems to be reason in the amendment; but that reason is, I think, overborne by the objection that in this country, where every man, great or small, is struggling to get on in the world, we put the restriction on men of small means for the benefit of large distillers, like the distillers of Peoria county, Illinois, or of Montgomery county, Ohio, in which I live; for I believe that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. INGERSOLL] and myself have the distinction, good or bad as it may be, of representing about as much of this business as any gentleman on this floor.

A MEMBER. And of using the product, too. [Laughter.]

Mr. SCHENCK. I do not speak of that; but since the gentleman speaks of using the article, it reminds me of another argument; this is a discrimination against good whisky, for the best of whisky is made in these copper stills by distillers of small means up in the mountains of Pennsyl vania and elsewhere, and it is proposed to legislate against them and throw the whole business into the hands of those who in the gentleman's district and mine make this liquid upon a large

scale but of inferior quality. It only suggests to me, therefore, another reason for opposing this amendment. If we must have liquor let it be good, for I believe, bad as drinking may be, that more persons are injured by the bad quality of the liquor than they are by the quantity. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

The question was taken on Mr. INGERSOLL'S amendment, and it was disagreed to.

Mr. COLE, of California. I move to amend the clause by adding to it the following proviso: . Provided, That when the amount distilled by any one person or firm shall be less than five hundred gallons per annum no license shall be required.

Mr. Chairman, all the vintners in the country are in the habit of manufacturing small quantities of brandy out of the lees and sediment that result from the fermentation of the grapes. The quantity they manufacture is but small, and is generally used for the purpose of perfecting the wine afterwards. They run the still only for a few days in each year, or perhaps for a week or two, and do it only for the purpose of working up this refuse matter. But if there is a license required, they will of course be unable to use up this substance, and it will be so much loss.

It is for the purpose of meeting such cases that I have introduced this amendment. Some of my constituents have written to me upon the subject, and have presented very forcible reasons why the amendment should be adopted. I believe that it would result advantageously to the revenue, because the brandy so manufactured will pay the twenty-five cents a gallon already provided for by law, whereas if the amendment is not adopted there will be so much absolute loss, both to the persons who make the wine and brandy and to the revenue.

Mr. MORRILL. I hope the amendment will not prevail. The provisions of the present law are very favorable to these manufacturers of grape brandy and peach brandy and apple brandy. Only twenty-five cents a gallon is imposed on it; and if the amendment proposed by the Committee of Ways and Means be adopted, the duty will be but fifty cents a gallon. The amount of profit on a single barrel will pay for the license.

Mr. COLE, of California. The gentleman misunderstands me; I do not propose to take off the excise duty, but only the license for making brandy.

Mr. MORRILL. I understand that. Mr. MALLORY. I move to amend the amendment by inserting five hundred and one gallons instead of five hundred. I do so for the purpose of giving my support to the gentleman from California in the motion he has made. I think it evidently a just one. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] suggested that the producer of peach and apple brandy is now protected by having the product taxed less than whisky is taxed. Mr. MORRILL. I alluded to the duty imposed on foreign brandy, not to anything else.

Mr. MALLORY. The business proposed to be protected by the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. COLE] is a limited one. Whisky is not produced to a large extent or by many persons in quantities less than five hundred gallons a year, but apple, peach, and grape brandy is. Farmers who have a surplus crop of peaches and apples, convert them into brandy, which is very much esteemed in some regions of the country. If this fruit were not converted into brandy it would be wasted and lost. It may be asked why it should be taxed less than whisky. For the reason that the slop produced from corn and rye used in distillation yields a large profit to the distiller; but the residue from peaches and apples used in distillation is good for nothing, is a dead loss. The difference between the profit made by the manufacturer of whisky and the manufacturer of peach and apple brandy is greater than the difference of duty proposed by the Committee of Ways and Means. I propose, at the proper time, to offer an amendment reducing the duty on peach and apple brandy. I am reminded that the time is past; that that clause was acted upon while I was unfortunately absent. But on some occasion, before the bill is reported by the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, I will ask the committee to go back to that section and act upon it. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from California will prevail. I see no reason in the world why it should not. The ||

tax imposed on the product of this distillation will be permitted to stand; and all that the gentleman proposes is to relieve these manufacturers from the necessity of taking out a license. I think that to that extent they ought to be relieved.

Mr. MORRILL. I trust the amendment of the gentleman from California and the amendment to it offered by the gentleman from Kentucky will be voted down. If we intend to have any control at all of these distillers I think it very important to require all of them to take out a license. It will be utterly impossible to keep track of these men unless they are compelled to take out a license. If we do not we will allow small distilleries to spring up all over the country. Any man who will manufacture less than a certain amount would be permitted to have a distillery without paying license. I am sure that that is a condition of things which we ought by all means to avoid.

Mr. MALLORY. I withdraw my amendment, and move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from California by inserting five hundred and two gallons. I do this for the purpose of suggesting to the gentleman from California, in order to meet the objection of the gentleman from Vermont to his proposition, to reduce the license required of those who will make not exceeding five hundred gallons a year to fifty cents. That will insure the safety proposed to be secured by the gentleman from Vermont in requiring every distiller to take out a license; while it will relieve the small producer from paying a large license which is burdensome to him.

Mr. COLE, of California. I rise to offer an amendment to the proviso.

The CHAIRMAN. There is an amendment to the amendment already pending. No other amendment is in order.

Mr. MALLORY. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman from California allow me to suggest that the annoyance of taking out a license, where a farmer manufactures currant wine, or where, as in California, he manufactures wine from grapes, is even greater than the amount to be paid; and I hope that the gentleman will insist upon his amendment as he offered it.

order that I may present to this committee some general considerations which, in my view, should govern them in their action on this bill.

Taking the bill as a whole, it proposes to increase the taxation of the country very considerably. Now, sir, in view of the very heavy municipal and State taxes which are pressing upon every portion of the country, I think that the taxes to be paid under the legislation of Congress should not be increased, unless such increase be imperatively necessary in reference to some wellestablished financial system of the country.

Now, the great element in a public debt-that which makes it command the confidence of the country and the world-is the fact that full, sufficient, and certain means, pointed out by law, are resorted to for the purpose of securing a fund for the punctual payment of the interest on that debt. What is our position in this respect? I had intended, when a suitable occasion should occur, to elaborate this subject more fully than I can do now. At the present time I can only call the attention of the committee to the very important consideration which lies at the bottom of the legislation which is now proposed.

The present expenditures of our Government for ordinary purposes are about one hundred or one hundred and twenty-five million dollars a year. They were formerly seventy or eighty million. The amount of interest paid last year on the public debt was something over seventy million dollars. During the coming year it may perhaps be one hundred and twenty-five million. Now, make these two allowances, which are both very large and very liberal, and you have an aggregate of about two hundred and fifty million dollars; it probably will not quite equal that. Now, as I understand it, our gross income is about four hundred million per year. In other words, we are not only raising enough to carry on the Government and to pay the whole interest on the public debt, but, in the present position of our public affairs, when the bounty system and other systems are bearing so heavily upon the country, we propose to raise from one hundred to two hundred million dollars per year-perhaps fully two hundred million, if this bill fulfills the expectations of its authors-toward the payment of the principal of that debt.

Well, now, if heavy taxes in municipalities and States were removed, this might be very well.

Mr. COLE, of California. As has been well said by the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. BROWN,] the annoyance and trouble of procuring a license is a matter of more consideration than the cost of it. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. BROOMALL. I desire to call the attention of the committee to the phraseology of the amendment adopted a short time ago with respect to peddlers. I find, on examination, that it will bear the construction which was objected to by some members at the time when it was offered; in other words, it would exclude women from the pursuit of the business of peddling. I move to amend that portion of the bill by substituting "man" for "person," and by inserting, after "draft," the words "for physical disability." The clause will then read thus:

That no man between the ages of twenty and forty-five, who is not enrolled for military duty or regularly exempted from enrollment or draft for physical disability, shall be entitled to a license as a peddler.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. PRUYN. I observe, Mr. Chairman, that it is proposed in this bill to amend the law of last year so as to provide that "miners shall pay for each and every license the sum of ten dollars." I move to strike out the words "ten dollars," in

look in the face as a debt which is to exist for generations; and the object we should now have in view is to systematize that debt, to place it in a position in which the world will have confidence in it. And so long as we legislate to raise money to pay the interest on that debt, which will be certain, which will be secure, as much so as legislation can make it, we give that debt the very highest character we can give to it. Will we go beyond that at this time? Will we ask the country to add still more to these burdens until we get to a condition in which the debts of municipalities and States will press less heavily than now? [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. PRUYN. I ask for five minutes more. The CHAIRMAN. That is not in order, under the order of the House.

Mr. ALLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very much surprised at the remarks of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. PRUYN.] That gentleman is a member of the Committee of Ways and Means, and I have been surprised ever since the commencement of the session at what I understand to be the views of the Committee of Ways and Means upon taxation and currency. I have been surprised at their reluctance to bring in a bili which should tax the people of the country as I believe, and as I think I know, they want to be taxed.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the gentleman let me ask him a question?

Mr. ALLEY. Certainly.

Mr. STEVENS. How has the gentleman ascertained that the Committee of Ways and Means have been reluctant to bring in a bill which shall tax the people for the necessities of the country?

Mr. ALLEY. I have the evidence from conversation with members of the committee, and from what is generally understood to be their views, that they have been unwilling to meet what we believe to be the views of the country. I have

had letters from correspondents in various parts of the country.

Mr. STEVENS. What are the views of the country? How much does the country wish to be taxed at present? What is the amount that they wish to be taxed?

Mr. ALLEY. I do not know that they have any definite idea about the particular amount, but there is an opinion in the country that there is a great holding back on the part of Congress; and I heard a distinguished gentleman largely interested in protecting the interests of the Government remark the other day, there seemed to be a determination on the part of the Committee of Ways and Means to hold back on this question, || and there was a determination also on the part of Congress to hold back, but not so great as on the part of the Committee of Ways and Means, and no disposition, so far as he had discovered, on the part of either to meet fully the wishes and desires of the country.

this bill at as early a day as they could bring it forward with the views and spirit which animated them, and with the intention of imposing a tax on the country which should meet the expectations of those whose opinions were expressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ALLEY.] But I want the House and the country to understand what the principle is which lies at the bottom of this bill, and have them determine whether, under the circumstances, we should go on and raise more than the annual expenses of the Government, and apply two or three hundred millions to sinking the national debt.

There are other general views which I would like to present to the committee in relation to our public debt and the system on which it should be managed. But the present time is not, perhaps,|| the time to do it; and at any rate, the five-minute rule would prohibit me from going into that subject. But I hope the House-and that was my principal object in rising-in passing upon the increase of taxation proposed in this bill, will bear in view the general considerations I have mentioned. I am not familiar enough with details to know whether these propositions are adjusted as they should be; but if they are not, adjust them as they should be. The object of increasing the taxation as indicated in the bill is, in my opinion, to a very great extent not needed in the present condition of the country, and is not justified under the circumstances in which we are placed with reference to the great debts of our municipalities and States.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is my opinion of the sentiment of the country: I believe that if there is anything the people desire more than another, it is that our taxes should be increased to such a degree that the credit of the country should be preserved and protected. It is the only way in which it can effectually be done. The people of the country feel that, and they feel it intensely. Letters are pouring into me, and I know also to many other members of Congress, in both Houses, begging and praying us to impose such additional taxes as will place the credit of the Government beyond question. And I have yet to see such a disposition on the part of the Committee of Ways and Means, or of Congress either, to do it to the extent which the people of the countrychusetts, [Mr. ALLEY.] The object of his remarks, desire.

I was much surprised to hear the gentleman from New York assert that it was exceedingly desirable and even indispensably necessary to provide for the interest on this great debt, but not to go beyond this point in the imposition of heavy taxes. He talked against raising these additional taxes to pay off the debt. Who ever dreamed of our paying any portion of it during the existence of this war? Are we not and must we not be getting unavoidably in debt, with the most stringent taxation, several hundred millions annually? [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. PRUYN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment I made, and move to insert "five. I was about to say when the hammer fell before, with regard to taxation in the State of New York, that I believe I may venture to say this in answer to the gentleman from Massachusetts: that if the whole real estate of the State of New York at this time-except, perhaps, the farms occupied by the owners, and I do not know that I might not include them-I say at this time, and I believe it is based upon sound data, I believe the whole income of the State of New York will not pay the charges and taxes upon it.

Now, sir, this may be a startling assertion. I have not time to go into details, but if any gentleman will sit down with me at any time, I will show him the facts and figures which lead me to this conclusion.

In regard to the Committee of Ways and Means, I am placed in that situation toward them that 1 may venture to say that which otherwise it would. not perhaps be quite proper for me to state. I was placed on that committee in the early part of this session, but I was called away on one or two occasions, so that I have not been with them quite as much as I hoped to be. But I can bear this testimony to their labors, and especially the labors of the sub-committee (of which I was not a member) who prepared this bill: that they have been most earnest, zealous, and industrious. Without prejudice to the claim put forth yesterday by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK,] Who claimed that he had been the most industrious man in this House, I think I could point to three members of the Committee of Ways and Means, and perhaps to more, who can say even more than that gentleman could, or rather the same thing, and with more justice; because the Committee of Ways and Means have been in session, I believe, every day of this session, while the committee of which the gentleman from Ohio is chairman has only held daily sessions for two or three weeks.

Now, sir, that committee has brought forward

Mr. STEVENS. I am opposed to the motion to strike out. I am somewhat astonished at the remarks of the honorable gentleman from Massa

or at least the tendency of them is, to bring the Committee of Ways and Means into odium with the House and the country. Now, sir, I claim nothing for myself particularly eminent upon the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. ALLEY. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him a moment?

Mr. STEVENS. Certainly.

Mr. ALLEY. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania understood me as casting any imputation upon the integrity or the industry of the Committee of Ways and Means, he greatly misapprehended the scope and purposes of my remarks. I concur fully with the remarks of the honorable gentleman from New York [Mr. PRUYN] upon that point. I know that their labors have been very arduous, and that they have exerted themselves to the utmost in preparing this and other measures which have emanated from that committee. I believe, with the gentleman from New York, that no committee of this House does as much work as the Committee of Ways and Means; and I did not intend to apply my remarks to any member of that committee.

Mr. STEVENS. I do not suppose the gentleman intended anything in particular, when he made his statement; but his remarks tended toward bringing the Committee of Ways and Means into disrespect with the House and the country.

Now, sir, he misstated when he said the committee were believed to be reluctant to raise by taxation sufficient to meet the exigencies of the Government. Who made that statement I know

not.

I do not believe the man exists who talked with a member of the committee and received a reply to that effect. The committee have tried to raise as much money as the exigencies of the country required, and in the best way they could. This committee seemed to think that we are too exacting, and have just struck out three millions of proposed revenue by refusing to increase the tax on beer half a dollar a barrel.

As to the industry of the Committee of Ways and Means I have little to say. I may say, however, that every day since the session commenced that committee has been in session from ten or half past ten o'clock in the morning until the House met. And not only that, but it has been in session on exempt days. On Saturdays when this House has adjourned over, we have uniformly met and worked. It may be, sir, I know that we are slow workers and cannot do what we are attempting to do. Of course the gentleman's impeachment of us is only an impeachment of our capacity, about which I say nothing. So far as I am concerned I feel humbled in the presence of the chairman of the Committee on the Post Office

and Post Roads, [laughter,] which committee no doubt meets once or twice a month and does its business well.

Sir, what is expected of the Committee of Ways and Means? What burdens does the gentleman from Massachusetts expect it to put on the peo ple? I contend that if we provide for the ways and means to liquidate the interest on the public debt fully, leaving the principal for a future time, we establish public confidence; for all that the bond, holders want is their interest. If the bill before us shall be executed as it ought to be, it will produce more than four times the interest of our present debt. Gentlemen have not looked into it, fear. They know less about it than we do. No one except the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ALLEY] has examined it; but I assure you, sir, that the avails of this bill will pay the interest on the present public debt and will leave $300,000,000 to be applied to our current expenses, if the law be properly executed. That is a sufficient portion of the expenses of the war for the people to bear now. I have found nobody who did not consider himself sufficiently taxed except the gentleman from Massachusetts. I know that a good many of our manufacturers, in order to evade the tax which they pay at home, have latterly built establishments and had tanneries in Canada, and in that way lightened their taxes. A large quantity of leather is thus manufactured in Canada, and finds its way here under the reciprocity treaty. When we come to the income tax, I propose to increase the present rate on all incomes above $2,000 to fifty per cent. [Laughter.] Will that gratify the gentleman from Massachusetts? Will the country demand more than that? If it does, 1, for one, cannot stand it. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. PRUYN. I withdraw my amendment. Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I move to amend the forty-ninth paragraph by striking out the word "minerals" and inserting the word "metals," so that it will read, that "every person, firm, or company who shall employ others in the business of mining for coal, or for gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, zinc, spelter, or other metals, shall be regarded as a miner." I doubt very much the expediency of adopting the paragraph as it now stands. I think it will be found very difficult to execute it. To the miners of iron in my region of country the payment of ten dollars for a license is nothing at all. They have large blast furnaces, and many of them have a capital of nearly half a million dollars, employing perhaps two or three hundred men. Under this paragraph they will only have to pay ten dollars. But there is another class of men to be affected by it-men who have only a little iron mine, and who may, perhaps, have an assistant to help them in their little work. They will have to pay the same license fee for the privilege as these miners on a larger scale.

There are three classes of mining interests in my district, of which I intend to speak more particularly. Coal mining there is of the same character. Some of the coal-mining companies have their half million dollars invested. What is a license of ten dollars to them? So, too, with the zinc mining. The business is of the same class. But if we let this paragraph stand as it now is, and leave it to be construed by the assessor, there will be found a difficulty in its construction; for, in point of fact, limestone is a mineral, and that is mined by every farmer in the country. It may not be mined by his own hand. He may employ, and he does generally employ, somebody to assist him in it. He would, therefore, be required to pay ten dollars for his license. I do not think that it is the intention of this committee to require a man who mines limestone, and who burns it on his farm for the purpose of manure, to pay ten dollars for a license. And yet, not straining the construction of this section, it would require him to do so. But by striking out the word "minerals" and inserting in lieu ofit the word "metals,' we leave it as I think the committee intend it should be left-a license on those who mine coal and metals; and we relieve the section from any danger of an improper construction as to the mining of limestone and other materials of that character.

Mr. McBRIDE. Ift correctly understand this section, I have no objection to it. We have imposed a license upon almost every trade and busi

the sum of ten dollars therefor." The section will then read thus:

Every person, firm, or company, who shall employ others in the business of mining for coal, or for gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, zinc, spelter, or other minerals, not having taken out a license as a manufacturer, shall be regarded as a miner under this act; and every such person, firm, or company, shall take out a license aud pay the sum of ten dollars therefor.

This amendment, I think, will obviate all difficulty as to the construction of the language.

The question being on the amendment offered by Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I do not care about pressing my amendment, if the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means is opposed to it.

Mr. MORRILL. I think the effect of the gentleman's amendment would be more extensive than he thinks. Take, for instance, the State of Maine: there they are very largely engaged in working limestone; and the gentleman's amendment would exempt all of those who are thus engaged.

The question was taken on Mr. JOHNSON'S amendment, and it was rejected.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I move to amend the fortyninth paragraph by striking out the word "every" and inserting the words "of such;" so that it will read, "only such person, firm, or company, as shall employ others in the business of mining," &c. It seems to me that the construction which would be naturally given to this section as it now stands, without the amendment which I propose, would be that all persons operating in mining should pay a license of ten dollars each. I desire that the section shall be amended so that no such construction can be given to it, so that no license duty shall be imposed upon operatives who work by the day, or who work for a compensation, or upon a man who is prospecting. I wish to exeipt all such from the payment of license.

Mr. MORRILL. I do not think that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. INGERSOLL] is at all necessary. The language here is plain and explicit. The definition of a miner is that he must be a person who employs others. Can there be anything more explicit than that? If a man only works with his own hands he is, of course, exempt. No one is to be taxed or licensed unless he employs others. There can be no difficulty withdraw my amendabout that.

Mr. INGERSOLL.

ment.

Mr. COBB. I move to amend the fortyninth paragraph by inserting between the word "others" and the word "in" the words "two or more, so that it will read:

49. Miners shall pay for each and every license the sum of ten dollars. Every person, firm, or company, who shall employ others, two or more, in the business of mining for coal, or for gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, zinc, spelter, or other minerals, not having taken out a license as a manufacturer, shall be regarded as a miner under this act.

I offer this amendment for the purpose of curing what seems to me to be an uncertainty and ambiguity in the meaning of the section. If it is proposed to tax those persons who engage in the business of mining by means of hired help I have no objection to it. In the district which I have the honor to represent lead mining is carried on extensively.

Mr. SHANNON. My colleague [Mr. HIGBY] has prepared an amendment which I think will accomplish the desired object and obviate all objection.

Mr. COBB. I shall be glad to hear the amend

ment.

Mr. HIGBY. I desire to offer an amendment which I think will not interfere with any object sought to be accomplished by the Committee of Ways and Means. I propose to strike out the words "miners shall pay for each and every license the sum of ten dollars," and to add after the word "act," in the two hundred and fortysecond line the words, "and every such person, firm, or company, shall take out a license and pay

Mr. COBB. With all due deference to the gentleman, I must say that I do not think it will. In the lead-mining business, where it is carried on upon a small scale, it is generally the case that not more than two persons work together. Fre

afford to hire more than one person to assist him. This assistant is called a windlassman, being employed to draw the dirt and mineral away. A person carrying on this kind of business with one assistant ought not to be required to pay a license any more than the farmer.

Mr. MORRILL. The gentleman will allow me to call his attention to the fact that a party must employ at least two persons in order to come within the provisions of this section. The language is plural. It reads "every person, firm, or company, who shall employ others."

Mr. COBB. If that is the intention, I think that my amendment will obviate a possible ambiguity.

Mr. McBRIDE. I desire to call the attention of gentlemen who have been criticising the language of this section to the fact that, according to the uniform method in which the bill is drawn, the class is first designated, with the amount of scription of the persons included in that particulicense, and then immediately following is a de

lar class. In this view of the matter I think the section should be adopted in its present form.

The amendment of Mr. COBB was rejected. Mr. HIGBY. I now move the amendment which I have already indicated-to strike out the words, "miners shall pay for each and every license the sum of ten dollars," and to add after the word "act" in the two hundred and forty-seventh line, the words "and every such person, firm, or company, shall take a license, and pay the sum of ten dollars therefor."

Mr. BOUTWELL. I think that the adoption of this amendment would violate that uniformity of language which is desirable in our legislation. It will be observed that throughout these various sections the first sentence contains a statement of what the rule of law shall be, and the latter part describes the persons to whom the law shall apply. There has been one uniform interpretation of this language in the Department and in the courts, and I think that the safest course is not to depart from it unnecessarily.

Mr. HIGBY. As the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BOUTWELL] is better acquainted with this subject than I am, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BENNET. I wish to say that the latter part of this section includes a class of persons who are not defined to be miners. The first part of the section refers to miners-a class of individuals who are known and recognized as persons who delve in mines. The second clause of the section includes a class of persons who do not delve in mines, but who employ others to do so. It brings in a different class from the first class. I believe that the construction of this section will be that it not only includes all persons delving in mines, but that it includes and designates as miners those who employ others to delve in mines. It taxes not only those who delve in the mines but the employer also. I think that the amendment of my friend from Illinois on my left is necessary and proper to cover the difficulty in this

case.

Mr. HIGBY. I withdraw my amendment. Mr. ALLEY. Mr. Chairman, I renew the amendment of the gentleman from California for the purpose of making a remark in reply to the observations of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS;] not to the line of his argument, but to the mean insinuations he made against me personally in reference to my action in this House concerning these revenue bills.

In the first place he spoke of my being influenced by my interests in relation to the tax upon leather and other materials in which I was sup

posed to be interested. I think if there is any gentleman upon this floor who is free from that charge, completely and entirely, it is myself; and I think that the gentleman's associate on that committee who has immediate charge of this bill will bear me witness that I have always in every instance advocated the largest tax on every article which I manufactured, or in which I have the slightest interest.

The gentleman, from Pennsylvania also remarked that the people in Canada would like to have heavy taxes because they were interested in protecting manufacturing there, and because they were interested in the manufacture of leather, &c. If there was any point in that remark, he must have referred to me as being interested in manufacturing in Canada, and the House so understood him. I will state to that gentleman and to the House that I have no manufacturing interest in Canada. I have no interest in any property there, directly or indirectly, of any kind. I suppose that that is a sufficient answer to that baseless insinuation.

The gentleman asked me whether I would like to have the income tax raised fifty per cent. I have only to say that there has never been any income tax proposed in the House that I have not invariably voted for, (even for the largest amount,) from the very beginning. And I think that that is a sufficient answer to the gentleman's inquiry upon that point.

I made no unworthy imputation upon the gentleman's committee. I merely meant to say that the Committee of Ways and Means differ, I believe, from this House, and in a much greater degree with the country, in their judgment as to the best mode of protecting and preserving the credit of the Government. And this difference, in my opinion, was a serious calamity to the country.

Mr. SHANNON. As there seems to be some difference of opinion in reference to the construction of this paragraph, I move an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. An amendment is pending.

Mr. ALLEY. I withdraw my amendment. Mr. SHANNON. I move, in line forty-two, before the word "shall," to insert the words "and no others," so that it will read:

49. Miners shall pay for each and every license the sum of ten dollars. Every person, firm, or company, who shall employ others in the business of mining for coal, or for gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, zinc, spelter, or other minerals, not having taken out a license as a manufacturer, and no others, shall be regarded as a miner under this act.

Mr. MORRILL. I have no objection to the amendment, but I do not think that it is necessary. There are none who are required to pay a license unless they come within the specific prescription. All others are exempted.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I propose now, if the gentleman from Vermont will give me his attention, to strike out these words, "miners shall pay for each and every license the sum of ten dollars," and also the words "who shall,' and inserting in lieu of them "whose business it shall be;" so that it will read, "every person, firm, or company whose business it shall be, &c., shall pay for each and every license the sum of ten dollars."

The paragraph as it is now makes every miner pay a license of ten dollars, as well as those who employ miners.

Mr. MORRILL. I do not think that the paragraph can be more explicit than it is.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. UPSON. I move to strike out the following:

26. Conveyancers shall pay ten dollars for each license. Every person, other than one holding a license as a lawyer or claim agent, whose business it is to draw deeds, bonds, mortgages, wills, writs, or other legal papers, or to examine titles to real estate, shall be regarded a conveyancer under this act.

And in lieu thereof to insert the following: Conveyancers shall pay ten dollars for cach license. Every person, other than one holding a license as a lawyer or claim agent, who shall draw deeds, bonds, mortgages, wills, writs, or other legal papers for others, or whose business it is to examine titles to real estate, shall be regarded as conveyancers under this act.

I move this amendment for the reason that in many parts of the country the provision of the law as it now stands is held as not applicable to

a large class of persons who, as magistrates, justices of the peace, and notaries public, draw deeds for others without charge and without taking out a license, but who, after drawing them, take their acknowledgments by virtue of their respective offices, and receive the fees allowed by law for such services. Such I know to be the practice in some parts of the West, and yet they are not held to be conveyancers under the act. I therefore call the attention of the committee to the subject, that they may make the law effectual for the accomplishment of the end in view, namely, the obtaining of revenue from the class of men who do this kind of business for others. I will say that this amendment would allow a man to draw deeds for himself of his own property.

Mr. FRANK. I would have no objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan if it applied to those who draw deeds for a compensation. But if I understand the amendment, it would compel a man who draws simply one deed for another without compensation, to take out a license and pay ten dollars for the same. There are little towns all over the country where there are no lawyers to draw deeds and conveyances at all. If this amendment could be modified so as to include only those who draw deeds for a compensation, I would not object to it. I move to amend by inserting the words " for a compensation."

Mr. UPSON. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York does away with the whole object of the original amendment. Those individuals who do the business of conveyancing claim that they do not charge for drawing the instrument, but only for taking the acknowledgment, and that therefore they do not come within the provision of the law which requires them to take out a license. They draw the papers simply as a preliminary to taking the acknowledgment for which they charge the legal fee. They claim that they do not come within the purview of the act. It is to meet that particular class of cases that I drew up this amendment, and also to meet the decision of the assessors in different parts of the country, that where men do this work without pay they are not required to take out a license.

The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I propose

to oppose the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Debate is exhausted upon

that.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. Then I move to amend it by striking out the last line, in order to allow me to make the remarks 1 desire. I believe the law is well enough as it is. The proposition of the gentleman from Michigan is to require every man who writes a deed for another to take out a license, or to make every man who writes a deed for another a notary public, and then require the notary to take out a license, which is the same thing in another form. Now, if I sell a piece of land to another and write a deed for it, I write a deed for another, though the object is to convey my own title. So, if I should be in extremis, and should write my last will and testament, I make it for the benefit of others; and then I might have the assessor after me for ten dollars just as I was taking my exit from the world. [Laughter.] So it seems to me that the distinction implied in the words "those who shall do it for others," amounts to nothing. It certainly would be a very strict construction of the law to say that no man should write the will of another unless he took out a license as a notary public. It is not always convenient to get a notary to write a man's will.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. We have no town clerks with us. If we have a town clerk he is only a pound-keeper. Suppose a man should be injured on the road and is likely to die, are we to have no one to draw his will? Sir, the old definition of a notary is a man who follows the business of writing these things, and he ought to pay a license; but the man who writes here and there a single deed or will ought not to be required

too small. Ten or twenty dollars to an express company seems to me to be a mere trifle. I think the Committee of Ways and Means have not levied this tax properly; it ought to be upon each office of an express company. Take, for instance, the Adams Express Company; they have offices in Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and throughout the whole United States, doing a business of more than a million dollars, mak

Mr. FRANK. I am perfectly willing that the law shall remain as it is without amendment, and I moved the amendment to the amendment for that purpose.

Mr. UPSON's amendment was rejected.

Mr. FINCK. I move to add to the clause the

following proviso:

Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons who mine coal solely for their own consumption.

Mr. Chairman, I do not suppose that it was the purpose of the Committee of Ways and Means to tax the class of persons that I propose to exempt. There are persons who own coal lands, situate at some distance from market, who mine coal exclusively for their own use, and it would be unjust to tax them. I trust, therefore, that my amendmeut will be agreed to.

Mr. BOUTWELL. The gentleman from Ohio will see that his amendment is objectionable in this respect, that it would exempt from license tax persons whose business it is to mine coal which they themselves consume in some branch of manufacturing which they carry on. A person who mines coal merely for ordinary domestic uses will be exempt under the article as proposed by the Committee of Ways and Means, upon principles which have been recognized in the Office of Internal Revenue from the beginning, such as this: peddlers are subject to a license tax; but a farmer who peddles his own produce has from the beginning been exempted, on the ground that it is not his business to peddle, but that that is an incident to his business of farming. So the mining of coal for domestic use is not under the law a business, but an incident to the domestic necessities of the household. But a person who mines coal for the purpose of manufacturing iron, forexample, or manufacturing salt, should be subject to a license duty as a producer under this section, and therefore the law is well enough, in my judgment, in the language proposed by the com

mittee.

Mr. BOUTWELL. The amendment is unnecessary. It is exempt already.

Mr. FINCK's amendment was disagreed to. Mr. INGERSOLL. I move to strike out the word "ten," in line two hundred and forty-three, and to insert "twenty" in lieu thereof; so that the clause will read:

50. A license of twenty dollars shall be required of every person, firm, or company, engaged in.the carrying or delivery of money, valuable papers, or any articles for pay, or doing an express business, whose gross receipts therefrom exceed the sum of $600 per annum.

Mr. MORRILL. I hope that amendment will not prevail. We tax express men, as we do manufacturers and various others, on their gross receipts in addition to this ten dollars for a license. Ten dollars is sufficient. Many of these expresses are small concerns running, perhaps, only from a depot to an adjoining town, and their receipts are, perhaps, not more than a few hundred dol

lars.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania because the amount he proposes is

They charged me five cents a pound for carrying my trunk from this city to my home, almost the fare of a passenger. They charged me nearly as much for taking my trunk as I had to pay for myself, although I weigh almost twice as much as the trunk. (Laughter.] It seems to me that these express companies ought to be taxed for every office they keep.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania propose an amendment to the amendment?

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. No, sir. I do not see how I could do it very well.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the gentleman's remarks are out of order.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I make the suggestion. I do not suppose the amendment would carry if I did propose it.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. INGERSOLL] by striking out twenty dollars and inserting fifteen dollars. I merely desire to say that the licenses provided for in the act are not mainly for the purpose of revenue. We tax these express companies now three per cent. on their gross receipts. That is intended to be the real tax on their business. But, having been accidentally omitted in the last tax bill, they are put in here. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment. Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. It is very little consolation to me, when an express company robs me of eight or ten dollars, to know that the Government has got two cents of it.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Will the gentleman from Vermont answer me one question? Where ten dollars license is paid by an express company, does that permit it to have an office in every city. of the United States without the payment of any additional license?

Mr. MORRILL. I do not know how that may be construed. suppose the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BOUTWELL] can inform us. The question was taken on Mr. INGERSOLL'S motion, and it was rejected.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I propose to amend the fiftieth paragraph by adding the words, and where the gross receipts exceed $5,000 shall pay $100 for a license;" so that it will read:

50. A license of ten dollars shall be required of every person, firm, or company, engaged in the carrying or delivery of money, vainable papers, or any articles for pay, or doing an express business, whose gross receipts therefrom exceed the sum of $600; and where the gross receipts exceed $5,000 shall pay $100 for a license.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I move to amend the fiftyfirst paragraph by striking out" $100" and inserting "$500;" so that it will read:

51. Substitute brokers shall pay $500 for each and every license. Every person who shall furnish, or offer to furnish, for pay, fee, or reward, volunteers, representative recruits, or substitutes for men drafted, or liable to be drafted, for the military or naval service of the United States, shall be deemed a substitute broker under this act.

Mr. TRACY. I move to amend the amendment by striking out "$500" and inserting "$2,500," and by adding the following proviso:

Provided, That any person having been licensed as aforesaid, who shall, directly or indirectly, demand or receive any greater sum than ten dollars for each and every substitute by him furnished, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall, for every such offense, be fined not exceeding $300, or imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding two years, or both, according to the circumstances and aggravations of the offense.

I have some doubts, Mr. Chairman, as to the propriety of dignifying this substitute business by licensing it; yet, as the proposition has been presented by the Committee of Ways and Means, it seems to me that the substitute business should be regulated. Congress has deemed it wise to regulate the business of persons engaged in procuring pensions for others. If that is wise, it seems to me that there is a greater necessity for regulating the business of substitute brokers, who are now allowed to go on and swindle the men