7, 1802.

?

should the gentleman be opposed to this ent, which will preclude all doubt on the

mendment was not carried.

DIRECT TAXES.

The House went into Committee of the Whole, on the bill for amending the act for laying and collecting a direct tax.

The first section repeals the thirteenth section of the act of 1798, which prescribes that lands on which taxes remain unpaid for one year, shall be sold, subject to the right of redemption within two years after sale.

Mr. RANDOLPH stated that the provisions proposed to be repealed were unsusceptible of execution, inasmuch as the expenses of advertising required, exceeded in many cases, by four or five times, the amount of the tax, and which exceeded the per centage allowed; and inasmuch as no person would buy the land offered for sale, when he might be deprived of it by a redemption within

two years.

Documents were read, which substantiated this

statement.

Mr. S. SMITH Opposed the repeal, as going to deprive the owners of lands of the right of redemption; which he deemed a valuable provision; without which the owners of land, particularly non-residents, would be deprived of their property, without a knowledge of the tax imposed, or being able, however desirous, to pay it.

Mr. RUTLEDGE also opposed the repeal, as imposing hardships upon those who have not paid the tax, which were not imposed upon those who have paid. He further stated that the non-payment in the Southern States had arisen, not from indisposition to pay, but from want of collectors to carry the law into execution; the compensation allowed having been so inadequate as in many dis

tricts to have disabled the Government from obtaining officers.

Messrs. GRISWOLD, MILLEDGE, STANLEY, and MORRIS, delivered their sentiments against the first section; when, on motion of Mr. MACON, the Committee rose, and asked leave to sit again, which was granted.

FRIDAY, January 22.

Another member to wit: ROBERT WILLIAMS, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

An engrossed bill for the protection of the commerce and seamen of the United States in the Mediterranean and adjoining seas, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. JACKSON, from the committee appointed, on the fourteenth instant, presented a bill for the relief of Isaac Zane; which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

Mr. JOHN C. SMILIE, from the Committee of Claims made report on the petition of William Kilty, Chief Justice of the District of Columbia. The committee were of opinion that when he

H. OF R.

accepted of his appointment he knew the duties required from him and the salary; they were not therefore in favor of increasing his salary.

The House concurred with the report, and leave was granted to withdraw the petition.

The House then went into Committee of the

Whole on the unfinished business of yesterday, viz: a bill respecting the arrearages of the direct tax. The first section of the bill was struck out, and Mr. ELMENDORF proposed some amendments. Mr. GRISWOLD moved that the Committee should rise, that the bill might be referred back to a select committee, as it was difficult to settle the detail of a bill in the House. The Committee rose and were discharged. The bill was recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. DENNIS proposed two resolutions, one respecting the establishment of a Chancery Court in the District of Columbia; the other relating to the public lots, squares, and streets, in the City of Washington, which had never yet been properly conveyed to the United States. There were also different plans of the city; he considered it important that public sanction should be given to the more correct one.

of indemnities under the treaty with France a large sum was put down for captures which were not brought into the United States, and which were condemned. Those made by the public armed vessels amounted to $122,000. He wished to know how far the commanders of the public and other vessels were authorized by their instructions in making these captures. He proposed a resolution, nearly as follows: Resolved, That the Secretaries of State and the Treasury be directed to lay before this House copies of all the instructions given to every description of vessels to capture French_vessels.

Mr. RANDOLPH observed that in the statement

Mr. EUSTIS, from the select committee appointed on the subject, made a report which proposes to give four months' pay to the representatives of the officers, seamen, and marines, who were on board the Insurgent, and that the widows and children should have half pay for five years.

The resolutions were twice read, referred to a Committee of the whole House, and made the order of the day for Tuesday.

DUTIES ON IMPORTS.

Mr. RUTLEDGE rose and observed, that he intended to move a resolution calling the attention of the Committee of Ways and Means to the articles of brown sugar, bohea tea, and coffee. There was not a hut or log house in this extensive country where these articles were not used. The duty on sugar and tea was fifty per cent. on the original cost, and coffee forty per cent. It was, he said, essentially necessary to reduce these high duties on what may fairly be termed necessaries of life. The general peace in Europe would be followed by a reduction in the price of articles generally, and the earnings of labor in this country would not be so much as heretofore, as the price of produce would not be so high in the coming period as in the past.

H. OF R.

JANUARY, 1802.

Mr. R. said, what he was about to propose was a very favorite project with him, not only that it should go to the Committee, but be carried through the House.

We are told that such is the prosperity of the country that we may reduce even the taxes on luxuries-carriages, stamps, &c., have been particularly mentioned.

Mr. R. then read his resolution, as follows: "Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reducing the duties on brown sugar, coffee, and bohea tea." There was a call for the question, and also that it should be taken by yeas and nays.

Mr. CLAIBORNE hoped the resolution would be treated as it deserved. He was surprised when he saw gentlemen who were formerly so fond of this mode of taxation, now so strenuous against it. He could not view the resolution in any other light than being introduced merely for popularity. He did not blame gentlemen for a wish to be popular; he liked the principle, but would vote against the resolution, and still he would maintain his popularity. Unless gentlemen would show him they could repeal the internal taxes, and part with some of the remaining revenues, and yet leave sufficient for the exigencies of Government, he would not agree to this resolution. Do gentlemen, who are for taking the funds from the present Administration, like it less than they did the last? He thought they did not. Mr. C. hoped the mover of the resolution would let it lie for consideration.

The question was again called for.

Mr. DANA hoped the proposition would be treated as it ought, and that it would not be scouted from the House without consideration, because it interfered with a favorite measure of some gentlemen.

Mr. D. said, upon general principles, he was in favor of the resolution going to the committee, that a fair comparison between the external and internal duties might be made. The duties on articles then before the House, were specific and not ad valorem duties, and they were laid with a view to war prices, and not what they would be in time of peace. Thirteen per cent. was about the average rate of ad valorem duties, and twenty per cent. the highest, and those were the articles consumed by the wealthy.

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury shows clearly that the price of the articles in the

There was another point of view in which this

Mr. D. said he knew they were doomed to bear whatever certain gentlemen chose to lay upon them; but he would not be laughed out of the object which his duty pointed out to him. The articles in the resolution were more used in the Northern than Southern States, and were paid chiefly by the poor; therefore, the proposed inquiry was perfectly proper, unless gentlemen were determined the internal duties should first be repealed, before any consideration should take place, as to what duties were most proper to be reduced.

Mr. S. SMITH observed, that he did not rise to offer any arguments against the resolution, as he did not consider it intended for that House, but for the public. He was opposed to the resolution because the subject was already generally before the committee.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, he would state, for the information of the gentleman from Maryland, that he might not hereafter misunderstand him, that he always had one meaning in what he said to that House. The good of the people was the object he had in view.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, according to his idea, this subject was not before the committee; they had the subject of duties generally before them, and would make a general report; but if these three articles are referred, they must report on them, and the House must decide specifically on these three. Were gentlemen afraid to let the House decide on these three?

It

He was at a loss to see any reasons for such an objection. The tax on sugar and coffee was fifty per cent. on the first cost, and on tea more. becomes a matter of serious consideration, said Mr. G., whether you can retain the present taxes on them in time of peace, and prevent smuggling. It is a clear principle, that revenue is diminished when taxes are carried too far. When we connect with this truth, the fact that these articles are of prime necessity, and used principally by the poor, and it is determined the rich shall not pay for their carriages, &c., it cannot be denied that this resolution ought to go to the committee for their consideration?

Mr. DANA thought it prudent for the gentleman from Maryland to decline answering the arguments urged in favor of the resolution. The duty on the articles included in it amounted to $220,000.

what you have to say; we will not answer? Will the country be satisfied with such procedure?

Mr. R. had no objection to the internal taxes being discontinued, but he thought they should take a comprehensive view of the subject, and see whether that would be the most favorable to the country. It is a favorite project, he said, with some gentlemen, to abolish the stamp tax; but, Mr. R. said, his constituents did not feel it; there was not, perhaps, one of them who paid three dollars a year; yet he had no objection to discontinuing it. Nor did they feel the tax on stills. He thought the House should not attend exclusively to taxes that bear hard only upon particular parts of the country. To refuse a reference was not treating gentlemen with that respect which was reciprocally due from members of that House. Mr. SOUTHARD wished to give his reasons for voting against the resolution. He was of the same opinion as to this, that he was when the resolution respecting salt was offered to the House, he believed it completely before the committee, and it was their duty, under the general reference, to take into view each article. It was, therefore, unnecessary for members to offer resolutions on each article of importation. It was erroneous to say coffee was exclusively used by the poor; they scarcely used any; and brown sugar was used with coffee, and but little of it consumed by the poor; almost the whole of these articles were used by the rich. The taxes could never fall equally upon all parts of the country. In the carriage tax, New Jersey pays more than some large States. They should go upon the general good in regard to taxation.

Mr. S. thought it unnecessary and improper in every point of view, that the Committee should be directed to each particular article. One gentleman might rise in his place, and propose a resolution on the carriage tax, another on stills, a third on stamps, and so on, to the great delay of business. It was premature to offer any resolutions, until the Committee of Ways and Means made their report on the general reference.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, when he submitted the resolution, he did not expect any serious opposition would be made to it, but. finding it was cpposed, he would vary his motion, so as to read, "Resolved, That the duties on brown sugar and bohea tea, and coffee, ought to be reduced."

Mr. RANDOLPH did not think the House prepared to decide on the resolution.

If the revenue should be found sufficient to extinguish the national debt within the time mentioned in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, pay the expenses of Government, repeal the internal taxes, and yet leave a surplus, he would be happy to join gentlemen in making reduction on their imposts.

Mr. R. hoped to live to see the time, when the General Government would only net the five per cent. ad valorem duty, agreeably to the resolution of the Old Congress, but he would not agree to any reduction until he could see his way clear into the necessary expenses of Government. Mr.

JANUARY, 1802.

R. said, we are told we should not repeal the internal taxes, because the rich pay them. The taxes on carriages and loaf sugar are given as instances. And we are urged to reduce the taxes on salt, brown sugar, bohea tea, and coffee, because the poor pay it.

Mr. R. had no difficulty in saying, he was in favor of repealing the internal taxes, to get clear of the perplexities of the excise system, and the expenses incurred in collecting the internal duties. These taxes were not paid by the rich. Domestic distilled spirits were used by the poor. A principal objection with him to the internal taxes, was the host of officers brought under Executive patronage, who take their tone from those on whom they depend, and are ready to disseminate through the country the principles held by the Executive. Gentlemen appeared desirous of retaining that rampart of protection the Executive has been raising around him. His object in repealing the excise, was as much to get clear of this host of officers as to be relieved from the taxes.

Mr. R. said, he would endeavor to get clear of this question in the way appointed for Legislative bodies to get clear of questions calculated to embarrass them, and would move the previous question.

Mr. DENNIS moved a postponement of the resolution, which he thought would supersede the previous question.

Some observations were made as to points of order.

Mr. GILES said, it was necessary certain rules should be had for the government of deliberative bodies; the previous question was adopted to get clear of subjects prematurely brought before them; this was its original intention. That was one of the questions this rule was calculated for. The only proper question, was the previous one.

Gentlemen have now placed themselves in the situation they blamed others for taking. They have reversed the situation of things as to the internal revenue. Instead of contrasting the taxes, it is proposed to reduce the impost on certain articles.

There was no cause for gentlemen to say they are treated with disrespect. There was an evident precipitation in the business, and when that was the case, it was not the proper time for gentlemen to give their sentiments on a subject.

Mr. RUTLEDGE then restored his resolution to its original form.

The previous question was called, and ayes and noes agreed to be taken.

Mr. GODDARD said, there were, daily, references made of petitions on various subjects, and therefore this resolution ought to be referred.

The constituents of some gentlemen think proper to petition Congress on particular subjects. The constituents of others depend upon their Representatives to bring their grievances before the Legislature, and in this way, shall a reference be refused?

Mr. GILES wished the question had been taken directly, and was prepared to give it his negative He should be now in favor of the previous ques

tion. He thought it improper to refer particular articles, when the committee had them generally before them.

Mr. G. said, ninety-nine hundredths of brown sugar were consumed by the rich, or by those in middling circumstances. This was the case with the taxes generally. There were not sufficient grounds for saying the poor were affected by these

taxes.

Mr. ELMER Spoke against the resolution. He thought the poor consumed very little of the articles mentioned; many of them were, for months together, without having any sugar in their houses. He was in favor of the previous question.

Mr. DENNIS Said, he was prepared to vote against the previous question, and for the main question. He thought it very unusual to oppose the reference of such a resolution.

Mr. DANA considered it proper, when an abstract proposition was presented to the House, that it should be decided there, or in Committee of the Whole; but a resolution like the one before the House, even upon the principles of the gentlemen who oppose it, should be referred, as proposed, to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. SMITH agreed with his colleague in opinion, that it would be best to decide on the proposition directly. Early in the session, he proposed a resolution, that the external duties should be brought before the committee, and he mentioned, at that time, one of the articles (salt) which has occasioned so much debate since. It was his opin ion, therefore, that the subject was already before the committee. He then read from the Journal the resolution he alluded to.

"Resolved, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be directed to report whether any and what alterations are necessary in the laws imposing duties on the tonnage of ships or vessels, and on goods, wares, all merchandise, imported into the United States.

"Resolved, That said resolution be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means."

Mr. SMITH said, it would unnecessarily swell the journals to refer specific resolutions on each article. When the committee make a general report, it will be in the power of each gentleman to move a reduction on any article he may think

proper.

Mr. GRISWOLD Considered the arguments used by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES,) respecting the previous question, went to show that the main question ought then to be put; he had also said he was prepared to give it his negative. Why, then, vote for the previous question? Mr. RANDOLPH wished to withdraw the previous question.

The SPEAKER said, it required five members to agree in moving the previous question, and therefore it could not be withdrawn by one member.

Mr. BAYARD thought it clear that the main question should be then put. He had heard two arguments only used against it; one, that the resolution was already referred; but this was denied. He asked, would the committee fail in their duty if they did not report on this subject? Could

H. of R.

you impeach them of disobedience? Let me appeal to the candor of gentlemen. Many wish it referred because they think it is not before the committee. Where, then, can be the harm of referring it? They agree that the committee should make the inquiry, but say it is already referred. We think not. What, then, can be the injury upon their own grounds, if it should be referred? It is a proposition allowed on all hands to be proper for the committee to take under consideration.

Gentlemen say, delay is our object in bringing it forward. They are the authors of the delay. If they had taken a more proper mode, and, give me leave to say, a wiser mode, it would have been avoided. Further delay may now be avoided by them. The debate has been provoked. To offer a resolution on every article would not delay an hour in the session. Nor could we produce delay if they did not oppose us. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) talks about swelling the journals by that mode. Is he afraid of increasing the labors of the Clerk, or making work for your printers? What motive can there be for us to increase expenses in this way y?

The resolution is not to reduce the taxes on those articles, but to make inquiry on the subject. Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars may be dispensed with, besides the internal taxes. We wish the whole subject before the committee, for them to calculate the two species of taxation, internal and external, that they may decide which taxes would be most beneficial to the community to be reduced. Will gentlemen say that these internal taxes shall be reduced, even in opposition to public utility?

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) says, they create a host for Presidential patronage. We have no desire to send Executive influence over the country. These motives would influence me against these taxes. It is a great national object we have in view. If there should be any system of espionage in the tax on stills, this will not apply to the tax on loaf sugar, on carriages, &c. It has been said that it takes twenty per cent. on the aggregate amount of this tax to pay for collecting. But this is not the case with each particular item. On stamps it does not amount to six per cent., and if a number of these duties may be retained, and the expense of collection not exceed what is paid for collecting the impost, their great argument is invalidated. If the tax on necessaries is more burdensome than on luxuries, which the excised articles are, will they pay the tax on imports if it should not be reduced?

Mr. NICHOLSON could not agree with the gentleman from Delaware as to the cause of delay. When the resolution was proposed, the question was called for, different gentlemen in favor of it continued to speak, although not opposed; it was not therefore his friends who occasioned the delay. He was opposed to referring the resolution, because the subject was already before the Committee. He hoped they would have the question.

Mr. GRISWOLD observed that every member who spoke on the subject said he was prepared to vote