« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
to pass at any time a law by which that contract might be annulled.
T. Van Horn, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Wentworth, Whaley, and Stephen F. Wilson-56.
So the House refused to lay the bill upon the table.
About the details of the bill, as originally reported, the committee have never been tenacious. I merely carried out their instructions in contending for what they had carefully considered and prepared, and in insisting upon the provisions of the bill as they were, until something better was offered. Since the last reference of the bill, friends of the measure, not upon the committee, have submitted amendments which the committee have become satisfied were improvements on the original plan.
These have in every instance been incorporated into the bill as now reported. None of them were matured and offered while the bill was under discussion in the House. If they had been, they would have been promptly accepted then. I was instructed to sustain and defend the bill in the spirit of the teaching of the Roman poet, which forms a maxim in his
YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Baker, Bidwell, Blaine, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Cook, Dawson, Defrees, Dumont, Eckley, Eldridge, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Chester D. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Ingersoll, Julian, Kelso, Kerr, William Lawrence, Loan, Lynch, Marston, McClurg, McKee, Niblack, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Plants, Price, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Ritter, Rollins, Ross, Sawyer, Schenck, Sitgreaves, Stevens, Welker, James F. Wilson, and Winfield-49.
NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Ancona, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Bergen, Boutwell, Boyer, Brandegee, Chanler, Conkling, Davis, Dawes, Deming, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferry, Garfield, Griswold, Hale, Higby, Hogan, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard. Hulburd, James M. Humphrey, Jenckes, Kelley, Ketcham, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, Longyear, Marvin, McCullough, MeRuer, Moorhead, Morris, Myers, Nicholson, Phelps, Pike, Radford, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rogers, Rousseau, Scofield, Sloan, Spalding, Taber, Taylor, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Williams, Windom, Woodbridge, and Wright-78.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Barker, Benjamin. Bingham, Blow, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Coffroth, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Delano, Denison, Eggleston. Farquhar, Finck, Glossbrenner, Grinnell, Harris, Hart, Hayes, Hill, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kasson, Kuykendall, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, McIndoe, Mercur, Miller, Morrill, Moulton, Newell, Noell, Patterson, Pomeroy, Raymond, Shanklin, Shellabarger, Smith, Starr, Stilwell, Strouse, Thornton, Robert
During the vote,
Mr. CULLOM stated he was paired with Mr. WENTWORTH, who was for the bill, while he was against it.
Mr. DENISON stated he was paired with Mr. NOELL, who would vote for the bill, while he was against it.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 68, nays 59, not voting 56; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Bergen, Blow, Boutwell, Brandegee. Chanler, Conkling, Davis, Dawes, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferry, Griswold, Hale, Hogan, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, James M. Humphrey, Jenckes, Kelley, Ketcham. Laflin, Longyear, Marvin, McCullough, MeRuer, Moorhead, Morris, Nicholson, Phelps, Pike, Radford, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rousseau, Scofield. Sloan, Spalding, Taber, Taylor, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trimble, Trowbridge; Upson. Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, Williams, and Woodbridge-68.
NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Baker, Bidwell, Blaine, Boyer, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Cook, Dawson, Defrees, Deming, Dumont, Eckley, Eldridge, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Higby, Chester D. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Julian, Kelso, Kerr, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Marshall, Marston, McClurg, McKee, Myers, Niblack, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Plants, Price, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Ritter, Rollins, Ross, Sawyer, Schenck, Sitgreaves, Stevens. Stilwell, William B. Washburn, Welker, James F. Wilson, Windom, and Winfield-59.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Barker, Benjamin, Bingham, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Coffroth, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Delano, Denison, Eggleston, Farquhar, Finck, Garfield, Grinnell, Harris, Hart, Hayes, Hill, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Kasson, Kuykendall, Latham, Le Blond, Lynch, MeIndoe, Mercur, Miller, Morrill, Moulton, Newell, Noell, Pomeroy, Raymond, Rogers, Shanklin, Shellabarger, Smith, Starr, Strouse, Thornton, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Wentworth, Whaley, Stephen F. Wilson, and Wright-56.
So the bill was passed.
Mr. CULLOM said: I have paired with my colleague, Mr. WENTWORTH. He would have voted for the bill, and I against it.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. I have paired with the gentleman from New York, Mr. RAYMOND. He would have voted for it, and I against it.
Mr. ALLISON. My colleague, Mr. KASSON, who would have voted for this bill, has paired with the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. BENJAMIN, who would have voted against it.
Mr. INGERSOLL. Mr. Speaker, I voted "no" on the call of the Clerk. The chairman of the committee informs me that the gentleman from New York, Mr. POMEROY, who is absent, has written to him that he understood the pair that he made with me a month ago still continues; that he supposes that the pair applied to the old bankrupt bill, which was defeated, and also to this, that takes its place. If that is so, I wish to withdraw my vote.
Mr. GARFIELD. I have paired with the gentleman from New York, Mr. DARLING, who
Mr. ELIOT. The select committee on freedmen's affairs have instructed me to report a bill to continue in force and to amend an act entitled "An act to establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees, and for other purposes."
The bill was read a first and second time, and the question was upon ordering it to be engrossed and read a third time.
The Clerk commenced the reading of the bill, but before concluding the morning hour expired.
On motion of Mr. ELIOT, by unanimous consent, the bill was ordered to be printed.
with any opposition from the Committee of Ways and Means, and I hope it will be adopted. It refers only to the cheap pottery for kitchen purposes.
Mr. MORRILL. I have not consulted the Committee of Ways and Means, but I am in favor of that amendment myself. The amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows:
CHANGES OF REFERENCE.
On motion of Mr. DRIGGS, the Committee on Public Lands was discharged from the further consideration of House bill No. 522, to provide for the construction of a wagon road from Columbus, Nebraska Territory, to Virginia City, Montana Territory.
On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Committee on Invalid Pensions was discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Joseph Blick, the father of Henry Blick; and the same was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.
MUSIC IN THE PUBLIC GROUNDS.
Mr. WRIGHT, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read and referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds:
Resolved, That the Commissioner of Public Buildings be directed to replace the orchestra platform recently removed from the President's grounds by the erection of a new one, and also to erect one upon the Capitol grounds.
Mr. RICE, of Maine. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following concurrent resolution:
Resolved by the House of Representatives, (the Senate concurring.) That the standing Committees of the two Houses on Public Buildings and Grounds be, and they hereby are, constituted a joint committee to examine the several sites and grounds which may be proposed for the purposes of a new Executive Mansion and residence, to inquire as to the necessity and expediency for such new accommodations for the President, and to consider such prices, plans, and estimates touching the same as may be presented, and that they report by bill or otherwise.
Mr. FARNSWORTH. I object.
Mr. MORRILL moved that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order.
The motion was agreed to.
So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. DAWES in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the special order, being a bill of the House (No. 513) to amend an act entitled " "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof.
The Clerk read the pending paragraphs, as follows:
On cotton upon which no tax has been levied, collected, or paid, and which is not exempted by law, a tax of two cents per pound, which shall be and remain a lien thereon until said tax shall have been paid, in the possession of any person or persons whomsoever: Provided, That this paragraph shall be and remain in force until July 1, 1866, and no longer.
On all manufactures not otherwise provided for, of cotton, wool, silk, worsted, flax, hemp, jute, Indiarubber, gutta-percha, wood, glass, pottery-ware, leather, paper, iron, steel, lead, tin, copper, zinc, brass, gold, silver, horn, ivory, bone, bristles, wholly or in part, or of other materials, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem: Provided, That on all cloths or articles dyed, printed, or bleached, on which a tax shall have been paid before the same were so dyed, printed, or bleached, the said tax of five per cent, shall be assessed only upon the increased value thereof: And provided further, That any cloth or fabrics or articles, as aforesaid, when made wholly or in part of thread, yarn, or warps, imported, or upon which a duty shall have been assessed and paid, shall be assessed and pay a tax on the increased value only thereof; and when made wholly by the same manufacturer shall be subject to a tax only of five per cent. ad valorem.
On all diamonds, emeralds, precious stones, and imitations thereof, and all other jewelry, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem: Provided, That when diamonds, emeralds, precious stones, or imitations thereof, imported from foreign countries, or upon which import duties have been paid, shall be set or reset in gold or any other material, the tax shall be assessed and paid only upon the value of the settings.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I hope I can have leave to go back to the paragraph preceding the one just read for the purpose of striking out the words "flax and jute." Mr. MORRILL. I must object. Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I move to amend the paragraph just read by striking out in line twenty-one hundred and fifty-eight the word "five" and inserting "ten," and also by striking out the proviso.
I hope the committee will give their attention to this provision. It will be seen that this provision designs to assess a tax of five per cent. "on all diamonds, emeralds, precious stones and imitations thereof, and all other jewelry.' Now, I object to that paragraph because the tax upon these articles is not sufficiently high as compared with the other articles enumerated in this bill.
I do not see the propriety of levying the same tax upon these articles, confessedly articles of mere ornament and luxury, wholly unnecessary for any valuable purpose. I cannot see the propriety of levying the same tax upon these articles that you assess upon thread, leather, candles, screws, and many other articles that enter into the manufacture of articles of necessity, and articles for the use of the mechanic, the artisan, and laborer all over the country. It seems to me that we should impose as large a tax as possible upon these articles of mere luxury, so as to derive as much revenue as practicable.
I do not wish to discuss this matter at any length. But I hope the amendment I have offered will prevail, and that we will assess at least a tax of ten per cent. upon these articles which can bear it much better than other articles which are taxed the same amount.
Mr. MORRILL. If the gentleman had had some experience in this matter he would see the impolicy of levying any higher rate of duty than is proposed in this bill. Consider the subject in its foreign relations; the tax was formerly placed at five In the tariff act per cent. of 1861 it was raised to ten per cent. And I am informed by those who are engaged in the business that they can contract for diamonds and precious stones, whether set or unset, delivered in New York free of duty, for seven and a half per cent. Should we undertake to levy a high tax upon these articles it would prove to be wholly fallacious. If the gentleman means by his amendment to throw this business entirely into the hands of foreigners, then his course is a proper one. But if he is willing to continue the little amount of business that we have already in this country in these articles, then the present tax is high enough. It is all that we can collect, and I hope that the rate here proposed will not be changed. Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I move to amend my amendment by making it twelve per cent., for the purpose of saying that I am not troubled with the objection which is urged to my amendment by the distinguished chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, [Mr. MORRILL. I would not propose to throw this business entirely into the hands of foreign manufacturers. But I understand we are to have reported a tariff bill in which we can provide for all that. I would levy such duty on the importation of those articles as would enable the home manufacturer to produce all these
articles, or, if you please, to exclude them entirely from the country.
There is no difficulty whatever in remedying the difficulty presented by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] Simply by levying such a duty on the importation of these articles as will completely shut them out, or levy such a tax as will give the home manufacturer the command of this trade. I do not understand the philosophy that is so often presented here, when we are insisting upon an increased tax upon articles of luxury, by saying that we cannot collect the tax. I know no reason why high taxes cannot be collected upon articles of luxury as well as upon articles of necessity. The tax can be collected by vigilant officers. If it be necessary we can add provisions to this law which will enable officers to collect thor oughly all the tax that may be levied by the law.
I hope the amendment I have offered will prevail, and that we will increase the duty upon these articles, so that we may derive more rev enue from these articles than we will if the tax should be left at five per cent. I am sure if the committee will give their attention to this subject they will have no objection to the amendment I have proposed.
Mr. MORRILL. I should have no more objection than the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAWRENCE] has to levying a greater tax upon these articles, if it could be collected. But the gentleman does not seem to appreciate the objection to that, which is that these articles are and will be smuggled if the tax upon them should be raised. The experience of the whole world is against the argument of the gentle man from Ohio, that you can impose a great tax upon these articles. Take for instance the article of watches; a very large amount of the watches which are brought into this country from abroad are smuggled. Precious stones are not bulky articles, and they are not produced to any extent in this country, and if we are to get any revenue at all from such articles, we must fix the tax at a low rate. They come into the country in letters, in ladies' dresses, in gentlemen's pockets. It is impos sible for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LawRENCE] to reach his object by the amendment he has proposed, and I trust his amendment will not be adopted.
Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I withdraw my amendment to my amendment.
The amendment of Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio, was not agreed to.
Mr. GARFIELD. I desire consent to recur to the following paragraph:
On articles of clothing manufactured or produced for sale by weaving, knitting, or felting: on hats, bonnets, and hoop skirts; on articles manufactured or produced for sale as constituent parts of clothing, or for trimming or ornamenting the same, and on articles of wearing apparel manufactured or produced for sale from India-rubber, gutta-percha, or paper, or from fur, or fur skins dressed with the fur on, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem.
I am satisfied that the amendment proposed on yesterday, to strike out the words "or paper," should have been adopted.
No objection was made to recurring to the paragraph referred to.
Mr. GARFIELD. I now move to strike out the words "or paper."
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I have some doubt as to the expediency of the proposed amendment. The reason paper was included in that paragraph was that there is no tax upon the raw material, for we have relieved paper entirely from tax. We therefore thought it right that the manufacturer of paper clothing should be included in the tax of five per cent. It is the only tax it will pay, either as raw material or as manufactured articles.
Mr. GARFIELD. The action of the committee yesterday was based upon what we then understood to be the fact that the whole busi ness of making paper collars is in the hands of a monopoly controlling entirely the manu facture. That, so far as we were then informed, appeared to be the truth. But we have since
had a statement from gentlemen well acquainted with the business, and we find that instead of the business being in the hands of a monopoly, there is a very heavy competing interest, so that these paper collars are now sold at a very reduced rate. If we should take off the tax provided for in this paragraph and place this article with other articles of clothing, this branch of business will have the advantage which I think it ought to have. The question simply comes to this: whether we shall charge upon collars made of linen a different rate of tax ad valorem from that charged on collars made of paper. The paper collar is certainly worn by a class of men less able to pay a tax than those wearing collars of more costly materials. It seems to me, therefore, that we ought to liberate this article from tax.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HOOPER] states that the raw material from which these collars are made has been exempted from tax. So much the better, I reply; for this is a home manufacture almost exclusively; whereas linen is an article very largely imported. I hope the amendment will prevail. The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend by striking out or," in line twenty-one hundred and sixty-one, and inserting in lieu thereof the word "and."
The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:
clared by law that an ounce of gold, whether it
Now, while there is great propriety in taxing,
On bullion, in lump, ingot, bar, or otherwise, a tax of one half of one per cent. ad valorem, to be paid by the assayer of the same, who shall stamp the product of the assay as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, may prescribe by general regulations. And all sales, transfers, exchanges, transportation, and exportation of gold or silver assayed at any mint of the United States, or by any private assayer, unless stamped as prescribed by general regulations as aforesaid, are hereby declared unlawful; and every person or corporation who shall sell, transfer, transport, exchange, export, or deal in the same, shall be subject to a penalty of $1,000 for each offense, and to a fine not excreding that sum, and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years nor less than six months. No jeweler, worker, or artificer in gold or silver shall use either of those metals except it shall have first been stamped as aforesaid, as required by this act; and every violation of this section shall subject the offender to the penalties contained herein. No person or corporation shall take, transport, or cause to be transported, export or cause to be exported from the United States any gold or silver in its natural state, uncoined or unassayed, and unstamped, as aforesaid; and for every violation of this provision every offender shall be subject to the penalties contained herein.
There is in this tax a principle which does not apply to any other single provision in this bill. Gold and silver bullion are worth only so many dollars and cents. This tax cannot be attached to them, but must be paid by the labor which produces them, whether that labor is profitable or not. I hope, therefore, the justice of the committee will see that this paragraph ought to be stricken out, and that the tax should only be placed upon gold and silver bullion manufactured into articles of luxury.
product taken to the assayer and stamped, unless he is willing to subject himself to the severe penalties of this act. This, I think, is unfair, unnecessary, and unjust. The large manufacturers in New York and other principal cities use, I suppose, bullion to a great extent, but the small manufacturers using limited amounts depend principally upon old coin and old articles which have been injured or the fashion of which has changed. My amendment will give to them a deserved protection from the inconvenience, annoyance, and injustice to which they will be otherwise subjected.
Mr. WRIGHT. In looking at the latter part of this paragraph I do not quite see the effect of the following:
Mr. HIGBY. I move to strike out the last word in order to make a brief statement in reference to the history of this matter. I know very well the feeling of this House on this subject. I know the struggle we had to get the tax down even to the present rate. The bill as originally reported to the Thirty-Eighth Congress put on a tax of three per cent., to be paid in gold. On motion of a Delegate from Idaho, the words "to be paid in gold" were stricken out. Thereupon a member of the Committee of Ways and Means rose and moved to increase it from three to five per cent., which went through like a whirlwind. It then went from the House to the Senate, and the Senate have the merit of reducing it down to one half of one per cent. When it came back to the House in that form the delegation from California was consulted as to whether we would object to the tax as reduced. I said then, as I say now, that it is manifest injustice to tax at all the digging of gold out of the mines. While I do not think my colleague's motion will be adopted, still I shall cheerfully vote for it. I withdraw my amendment to the amendment.
Mr. DAVIS. I move to insert in line twentyone hundred and eighty-one after the word "use" the words "bullion of." My object, Mr. Chairman, in offering this amendment, is to protect the small manufacturers of gold and silver wares in our country towns as well as in our cities. If the original terms of the paragraph I desire to amend shall be retained, it will be seen that no manufacturer can use old metal, either of gold or silver, old spoons, watch-casings, or jewelry settings which he may have received, as is customary, in exchange for his wares, without having such articles or their
No person or corporation shall take, transport, or cause to be transported, export or cause to be exported from the United States, any gold or silver in its natural state, uncoined or unassayed, and unstamped, as aforesaid; and for every violation of this provision every offender shall be subject to the penalties herein contained.
Mr. MORRILL. Unless this provision is in we shall be unable to collect the tax. This is simply a provision that compels the payment of this tax before it can be exported.
Mr. STEVENS. It was reduced to this small
now from manufacturers in my own district.
Now, I would like to know how you are going to fix a stamp on gold which is not assayed, in the form of dust, for instance. And I desire further to know whether that penalty of $1,000 will apply to the miner who digs out his hundred dollars of gold in the course of two or three months and goes down to some village in order to exchange it. I believe it will so apply, according to the reading of the section, and thereby create the greatest dissatisfaction throughout the entire mining region of the Pacific slope, and, I may say, the greatest injustice. All that is necessary for a proper understanding of this question and to dispel the idea of attempting to raise a revenue from the miners in this way, would be for members of Congress to go to the mining region. They never would think of imposing such a tax after witnessing the labors of those who, at the sacrifice of life and property, have gone to labor in the mines. If anything should be done it should be rather to pay these men a bonus for the gold, they dig.
You say these precious metals belong to the Government. They belong to it just as much as does the center of this globe, and no more, and they would be no more benefit to the Government, unless they were extracted, than is the gold that lies at the center of the globe.
I am almost afraid that this House may come to the conclusion that because we have asked for certain exclusions in regard to the interests of California we desire to escape all taxes.. But I beg to assure the House that such is not the case. If you will only place the tax upon those articles and those industries which can bear it we will say nothing. If you will single out the mines which are paying fortunes almost every month, I will say amen. But when you
Would the Adams Express Company, or any other express company, for sending abroad a box containing unstamped metal be liable to be sent to State's prison?
attempt to place it indiscriminately you do injustice. Every man who goes into the mining region, and risks his means and his life, does so because he hopes to be able to strike something rich, like those mines which are paying dividends. If you can fix this tax so that it will fall on the net proceeds, I have no objection, even if you make it fifty per cent. [Here the hammer fell.]
Internal Revenue, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, may prescribe by general regulations."
Mr. KELLEY. All I ask is that the phrase ology shall be so guarded as not to be susceptible of this construction.
Mr. KELLEY. I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from California. I invite the attention of the House especially to this clause:
No jeweler, worker, or artificer in gold or silver shall use either of those metals except it shall have first been stamped as aforesaid, as required by this act.
The amount of tax received by the Government from the branches of business involved in this provision would be but a small percentage of the whole tax imposed. Indeed, it would be almost inapplicable as to the amount involved to the artificer. I know by experience, Mr. Chairman. For twelve years, each day of my life, when in health, was given to labor in one of those branches of business. Jewelers, especially in the smaller shops, melt but a few ounces of gold, sometimes but a few pennyweights, and to force them to have a mint stamp put upon each melting before they can use it, would be the destruction of most
of the shops in our larger cities. It would give to the Government no compensation for the amount of industry it would impair. Fashions of jewels change. People will carry their jewelry to an establishment and have it transformed from the fashion which is passing away to that which is coming in vogue. A small worker has but little capital. He looks to the stock provided by the old goods, with a small addition, and if after having melted it, he must carry it or send it to the mint to be stamped and taxed before he can work it up, he will be taxed inordinately and fruitlessly. It may not have been the intention of the committee to embrace such cases, but the phraseology of the bill clearly has that effect, and I hope it will be stricken out. That is the understanding, I find, of all the gentlemen to whom I have spoken. And when gentlemen remember how the Departments have construed the law; when they remember how the mantua-maker, the widow, perhaps, of a soldier supporting her children, has found that she must abandon her business because the material she used was taxed, as well as her labor, while an unmarried woman, who could go from home to work, escaped taxation, they will see that this will be the effect, and that all our small working jewelers, all the men who are struggling up to become employers of the little capital they may have accumulated, as well as their own skill, will be taxed by this; and I ask either that the language of the clause be so clearly modified that no such construction can be put upon it or to strike out a clause calculated to impede the industry of the country.
Mr. BIDWELL. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. MORRILL. I renew the amendment for the purpose of saying that the provision as it now is, I believe, will stand the test of criticism. I am satisfied that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has not fully considered the entire paragraph. This tax is to be levied upon and paid by the assayer and not by the miner, and then the language is, that "no jeweler, worker, or artificer in gold or silver shall use either of those metals except it shall first have been stamped as aforesaid, as required by this act," &c.
Mr. KELLEY. The gentleman will observe that the language is "shall use either of these metals."
Mr. MORRILL. Yes; but go on; "except it shall first have been stamped as aforesaid."
Mr. KELLEY. Yes.
Mr. MORRILL. That refers back to the tax paid by the assayer "who shall stamp the product of the assay as the Commissioner of
Mr. MORRILL. Unless you allow the provision to stand as it is, of course these bars unstamped might be used to any extent.
Mr. BIDWELL. This clause provides that no person or corporation shall take, transport, or cause to be transported, export or cause to be exported from the United States, any gold or silver in its natural state, uncoined or unassayed, and unstamped, as aforesaid," &c. I would ask the gentleman if that would not apply to the persons who take the gold or silver out of the mine and take it to market.
Mr. MORRILL. That provision refers merely to exportations from the United States. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.
amendment, and it was disagreed to. The question was taken on Mr. DAVIS's
Mr. KELLEY. I move to insert after line twenty-one hundred and ninety the following:
Provided, That nothing herein contained shall apply to the reworking of old gold or silver not in lump, ingot, or bar as aforesaid.
Mr. MORRILL. Although I consider it a matter of infinitesimal consequence, I do not object to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. In lines twenty-one hundred and eighty-five and twenty-one hundred and eighty-six I move to strike out the words "transport or cause to be transported."
Mr. MORRILL. I have no objection to that.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. In lines twenty-one hundred and eighty-seven and twenty-one hundred and eighty-eight I move to strike out the words "uncoined or unassayed or unstamped" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "not coined nor assayed nor stamped."
The amendment was agreed to.
On snuff, manufactured of tobacco or any substitute for tobacco, ground, dry, or damp, pickled, scented, or otherwise, of all descriptions, when prepared for use or sale, a tax of forty cents per pound.
obliged to take measures against the cabarets that
supply eau-de-vie to children, for there are drunkards
of fifteen as there are laborers of eight; and mor ally and physically they present a melancholy spectacle. No one can believe, no one will venture to say, that the wretched people who haunt the public houses to ruin and to poison themselves have any excuse for so doing."
Mr. PRICE. I move to amend that clause by striking out "forty" and inserting "fifty" in lieu thereof, so as to make the tax fifty cents per pound. I offer that amendment for the reason that it has been suggested to me that this dampening or pickling is done with the cheap wines that we talked about yesterday; and if that be the case, then it may very readily pay a tax of fifty cents per pound. I know nothing of the quality of the tobacco out of which snuff is manufactured. But if it be dampened or pickled by the manufactured wines, about which we heard so much yesterday, then I propose to put this additional tax upon it. And as an additional reason for my amendment I ask the Clerk to read the extract which I send to his desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. GARFIELD. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] suggests there is not a very obvious connection between this debate on wine and the section before the House, which relates wholly to snuff.
The late Dr. Hitchcock, of Amherst College, in his little book entitled "A Zoological Temperance Convention," makes one of his animals say that wine and tobacco are intimately connected philologically. Bacchus was god of wine; and when you pass to the third case in the declension of his Grecian name you reach the weed under discussion, namely "Ho Bacchos," ""Tou Bacchou," "To Baccho"Anglice tobacco.
Mr. KELLEY. If I wanted to establish the charge of aristocracy against any portion of my countrymen, I could not do it more thoroughly in the minds of the aristocratic classes of Europe than by arranging our taxes and so controlling our imports as to keep from the poor these wines, the use of which is so promotive of temperance and health, and confine the use of them to the wealthy classes.
"Even in France there are towns where women rival men in the habits of intoxication. At Lille, at Rouen, there are some so saturated with it that their
Mr. PRICE. I move to amend my amend ment so as to make it forty-five cents instead of fifty cents. I do this for the purpose of say ing to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] that he probably would believe Hor ace Greeley upon this subject quite as much as he would the author he has referred to as authority. And I am authorized to say, and no gentleman who understands the question will dispute it, that Horace Greeley indorses the statement the Clerk has read from the desk in reference to the prevalence of drunkenness in countries where cheap wines abound. It is the almost universal testimony of those who have
infants refuse to take the breast of a sober woman. In the mountains of the Vosges, infants drink caude-vic. On Sunday, in the churches, the air is literally infected with the smell of eau-de-vie made from potatoes. In those mountains there are no more frequent causes of idiocy and imbecility, for in general the dwellings are healthy and the water is excellent. The great misfortune is that the children
of habitual drunkards are idiots, so that the punish- investigated this matter that the use of cheap
ment follows generation to
wines in any country is productive of anything
"DRUNKENNESS AND DEBAUCHERY IN FRANCE.We have been accustomed to think that, through the cheapness of light wine, the mechanics and agriculturists of France were free from the coarser and lower forms of drunkenness. But poor brandies are cheaper than poor wines; and such is the degradation of much of the French rural and manufacturing population that they resort to the former for exhilaration and forgetfulness. Here is a sad picture of debasement and debauchery, terribly suggestive of the effects of ignorance and poverty in dwarfing the race and belittling nations:
During the reading of the paragraph, Mr. ANCONA said: I rise to a point of order, that the extract now being read is not pertinent to the amendment now pending.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair overrules the point of order. The Clerk will proceed with the reading.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the paragraph as above.
Mr. PRICE. That is a picture of the coun try where they have cheap wines.
Mr. HIGBY. What kind of wine do they make from potatoes? [Laughter.]
Mr. PRICE. I was referring to the cheapwine country.
Mr. KELLEY. I do not know what is the authority for the extract which has just been read; but I do know that it is very unreliable. I do not believe that my friend from Iowa [Mr. PRICE] ever wrote it; I do not think he would commit himself so far: Let him turn to Kay's work upon the laboring classes of Europe, and he will find there the most elaborate contradiction of the cardinal points of the statement that has just been read, and the most ample verification of my theory on yesterday, that where the cheap acid wines prevail there is an almost entire absence of intemperance, inebriety, and all those excesses that mark the life of the British laboring population and which too often mark the life of our American laboring population.
Mr. STEVENS. I would ask my colleague [Mr. KELLEY] what effect it has upon snuff. [Laughter.]
Mr. KELLEY. I am not responsible for introducing the subject in this connection.
Mr. STEVENS. I only want to know.
Mr. KELLEY. I have heard somewhere that there is an affinity between the use of tobacco and the use of strong drinks. But I do not know that there is any affinity between the use of tobacco and the use of sour wines.
is the issue I have made with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. KELLEY.]
And I see that the practice is prevailing to an alarming extent, so much so that even little boys are using tobacco. I see little negro boys, not more than four feet high, walking the streets with cigars in their mouths, costing perhaps twenty-five cents.
Mr. GARFIELD. Is not that a "civil right?" [Laughter.]
The amendment was not agreed to.
On cavendish, plug, twist, and all other kinds of manufactured tobacco, not herein otherwise provided for, a tax of forty cents per pound.
Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman
Mr. PRICE. I cannot yield. I am attending to the gentleman from Pennsylvania now. Mr. HALE. I rise to a question of order: that this debate is not relevant to the paragraph under consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. PRICE. I thought the Chair had overruled that point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order which the Chair overruled was raised by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. ANCONA.] [Laughter.]
Mr. MORRILL. I move that the committee rise, that we may terminate debate on this paragraph.
Mr. HENDERSON. I should like to have an opportunity to say a few words.
Mr. MORRILL. I merely desire to say that yesterday, we progressed to the extent of only four pages of the bill. To-day we have not made that much progress. I trust that the committee will sustain me in the effort to cut off debate when a reasonable length of time has been allowed so that the facts can be understood. I believe that the committee do not require argument so much as facts. The motion was agreed to.
So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. DAWES reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration the Union generally and particularly the special order, being bill of the House No. 513, to amend an act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof, and had come to no resolution thereon.
CLOSE OF DEBATE.
Mr. MORRILL. I move that all debate in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the pending paragraph of the special order terminate in three minutes after the committee shall resume the consideration of the subject. This will give the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. HENDERSON] an opportunity to submit a few remarks.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. MORRILL. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order.
The motion was agreed to.
So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. DAWES in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the special order, being a bill of the House (No. 513) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of a high rate of taxation upon the articles of tobacco, cigars, and suuff. I think that tobacco and the articles made from it are now altogether too cheap and too easily obtained by those who use them. I regard the use of these articles as one of the nuisances that curse the country, and I believe that they ought to be taxed as highly as possible. If the tax received should not increase the revenue, I hope it will decrease the use of tobacco. I regard the use of this article as a barbarous practice; and in confirmation of this idea I refer to the trade-signs which I see on Pennsylvania avenue. At the door of every tobacco store I see the figure of a half-naked savage or a crazy negro, or a monster representing, I suppose, a heathen god or some other imaginary being, holding out tobacco, cigars, and snuffs; as much as to say, "If you want to be a heathen, a savage, or a monster, use tobacco."
No amendment being offered, The Clerk read as follows:
On tobacco twisted by hand, or reduced from leaf into a condition to be consumed without the use of any machineorinstrument, and without being pressed, sweetened, or otherwise prepared, a tax of thirty cents per pound.
Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. I move to amend by striking out in line twenty-two hundred and one the word "thirty," and inserting in lieu thereof the word "ten;" so as to provide for a tax of ten cents per pound.
Mr. Chairman, a tax of forty cents per pound on manufactured tobacco is perhaps about reasonable; but tobacco put up in twists merely is not worth one fourth or one fifth of the value of the manufactured article. Manufactured tobacco sells for four or five times as much as tobacco which is merely twisted. Hence the tax proposed in this paragraph is altogether
In the West tobacco is prepared in this way, simply twisted up by hand, without any machinery, and without any expenditure of capital whatever. It is furnished in this shape by those who raise it, most generally negroes, who raise perhaps one or two hundred pounds, and sell it prepared in this rough way at the country stores.
Well, now, this tobacco will not sell in market for more than twenty cents per pound. Twenty-five cents per pound is a high price. Yet here is a tax of thirty cents, while on manufactured tobacco worth five times as much the tax is only forty cents. The result will be to break this up and men will buy the tobacco and twist it themselves. Any man can twist up as much in two hours' time as will last him for a year. It will therefore cut off entirely this source of revenue. Men cannot afford to
pay this tax. It is wholly confined to those who raise small quantities. You will find the tobacco in small quantities in the little stores. There is no expensive machinery about it. It is altogether unreasonable this tax should be imposed. I therefore move that it shall be reduced to ten cents.
Mr. MORRILL. This was originally inserted into the law both for the protection of the revenue and the regular manufacturer of tobacco. We found in Kentucky that large quantities of this tobacco were twisted up, put into paper, and labeled, "This tobacco has paid no tax." It was to protect the Government and the honest manufacturers, and it is still found to be necessary.
Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. I withdraw my amendment and move to reduce the tax to fifteen cents.
have just offered, and renew my previous amendment that the tax shall be reduced to ten cents.
Mr. Chairman, the tax moved by the committee in their bill will defeat the very object which the gentleman from Vermont declares they had in view. You cannot prevent the men who wish to avail themselves of the privilege of twisting this tobacco. Why, sir, you can go to a tobacco-raiser and buy fifty pounds, twist it up, and lay it away. The whole object of twisting it is to preserve it so that it will not crumble. You cannot force people to buy manufactured tobacco by this extremely high tax. If you allow the tax to remain at a reasonable figure such as I propose, this will go on as it has done heretofore. If, on the contrary, the bill is allowed to remain as it is the Government will collect no revenue at all. This operates upon the poor class of people, and not upon the large planters, who of course send their tobacco to the regular market in hogsheads. I withdraw the amendment I
The committee divided; and there wereayes 26, noes 67.
So the amendment was disagreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. SCHENCK. I move to strike out "twenty" in line twenty-two hundred and eight and insert "ten." I propose to follow up this amendment, which relates to cheap, ordinary fine-cut smoking-tobacco, with an amendment which shall also make it possible to manufacture cheap cigars.
The present amendment, confining itself exclusively to fine-cut smoking-tobacco, I will in a word explain. So far as tobacco is concerned, while it related to that which is used for chewing, I made no proposition because it does not affect any interest I represent, but so far as smoking-tobacco is concerned, either fine-cut or used in the manufacture of cigars, it does largely affect a great industrial pursuit in my State and in the West, and affects it, even with the amendments to the existing law proposed in this bill, to a ruinous extent. Fine-cut smoking-tobacco is largely manufactured from the tobacco leaf raised in the western States. This tobacco leaf is a different article from the southern tobacco. Southern tobacco has a glutinous or gummy character which enables you to manufacture from it plug, cavendish, and the various forms of chewing-tobacco. But that same tobacco seed sown in our northwestern States produces an article which is not capable of being manufactured at all into chewing-tobacco. It is dry, and is used only for the purpose of smoking.
I spoke of fine-cut. I mean smoking-tobacco. This smoking-tobacco, made out of leaf raised in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and in all the Northwest, burdened by this tax which is now proposed of forty cents, cannot be produced or used at all, and the proposed tax will therefore defeat the object sought of affording a revenue to the Government.
Let me tell you how it operates. This same smoking-tobacco, as manufactured before the Government tax was levied upon it, was made somewhat in this way and at this cost: mixing the leaf and the stem in the proportion used, it was worth two and a half cents a pound. Making this half leaf and half stem by the process of cutting and drying and putting it into a condition fit for smoking-tobacco cost an average of five cents a pound, making a total of seven and a half cents. Now, if you put upon that a tax of twenty cents, as proposed by this bill, you will make the entire cost twenty-seven and a half cents per pound, or more than three times the original cost of labor and stock to the producer. If you bring the tax down to ten cents it will still amount to about seventeen and a half cents, tax included, and the Govern ment will get its full share, and more than its full share, at the lowest price for which the article can possibly be sold.
The effect of the adoption of the provisior in the bill as it stands will be to destroy the manufacture of smoking-tobacco out of our common leaf at the West. This leaf can be bought anywhere at ten cents a pound; but in what