Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1806-06-06

~ ""|' ~ may oe ieVieu. nope
me mouse Will never consent to give up
this invaluable privilege, of saying wha,
supplies they will grant and the Object on
which they shall be levied. Boz even sup.
posing this objection nugatory, hope this
house will not suffer itself to be trapped
on the last day of the session.in agreeing
TO grant which it was never i'm their con-
temptation TO make. When we sent a
oiii to the other branch to continue the
MEDITERRANEAN duty, we sent a. taC sans
time bill to repeal The duty on salt. The
amendment from the senate can be view.
ed IN no other light than as originating a
money Dill IN the senate-it goes To OH.
ginate tax on spit. Such in effect viii
be the object and tendency of the mea-
sure. Let Us supp6se, Instead of sending
20 the senate bill imposing a ne tax, we
had sent simple bin 10 repeal this same
tax upon salt. Could the senate by an /.
mendment, rivet and c9ntinue the Aisdi.
terranean fund ! And if they could, would
not that be originating money bill |
hope the house will disagree 10 the amend.
ments oflhe senate.
MIR SLOAN, However I nav expose
myself to the censure of the gentleman
from Virginia. l think il my diiy TO say
something on subje0 highly lot. resting
10 my constituents. Notwithstanding the
talen;s aud eloquence of that gentle man.
diiier from hi,n on this subject. I will
ask what chance there was Of cbta;njnp the
repeal ofthis lax upon salt, when the mSa-
sure was popped in AZ the heel of a sessi
on when it might have been offered ,hree
months ago, and connected with anolher
lhlng which compelled me to vote for il,
In my opinion it is as constitutional for Ms
to agree 10 an amendment of the senate.
as II the thing originated with US. hone
the house viii agree to The amendment
the situation OF our affairs REQUIRES il, and
trust we shall treat with contempt the at
tempt TO force down so important bill a,
the end OF session.
Mr ASTON thought it would be adyis.
able TO accommodate with the senate. In
ordcr TO obtain an accommodation. he
| should vote IN the first instance against
the amendments ofthe senate. On a con.
ierencs they may agrccto strike off the du
" OF eight cents on salt /; the next wear
when we shall better understand the
ground on which we stand, the house NAV
be disposed still further to lessen the bur
| then.
Mr. RHEA (of Ten.) i do not consider
this bill as in the nature of bill orieipst.
ing revenue, but as one, on the contrary,
de,racting from the revenue. I contend
that the senate have not the power at any
Tune to say they will not consent to the
repeal OF revenue law, else they are a
triRing, insignificant body. Are they not
as well as we to Judge Of the EFFICIENCY of
the country? This is not question Of ex.
pedency, but of necessity. Though we
are DESTROYS of taking off The duty on salt,
| such is the situation of the country, me-
naced with foreign danger, and particular
~ with war with Tunis, that the reye-
nue. ought not to be diminished. For these
reasons shall concur in the amendment,
Of the senate.
The yeas and nays were then taken on
agreeing 10 the amendment of The senate
Yeas 24-Nsys Sc.
MrJ. RANDOLPH, hope we shall now
adhere TO our disagreement to the amend.
rnent OF The senate. l hope we Shall not
concur with the senate under the idea Of
! reducing the duty on salt from 20 TO 10
cents. Notwithstanding fear entertained
by some gentlemen of a deficiency in the
revenue, the house, by vast majority, pas.
sed the bill repeating the duty on salt. The
message OF the president was referred to
the commilse Of ways and means, and
that committee made report recon-.
mending the taking off The duty on salt
and continuing the two and half per cent
duty. Every objection to the measure
That now exists then existed. and ougbt
then TO have been offered. We then sent
to the other house supply Of money
tax yielding 100000 dollars, with the
probability ot its amounting the ensuing
year to million, in this same bill was
proposed taking off tax, which does not
yield 100000 dolIars--we therefore made
grant OF 400 900 dollars annually. It's
SAID that the amendment of the senate
does not go to the imposition of new tax,
but that It continues the revenue as il is,
There is some plansibiliiy, but no solidty
m this remark. If itgoes TO continue the
revenue az it now is, where is the neces-
sity OF continuing the duty OF two and
hall per cent Z 1t is therefore in fae( a new
money bill. Let me urge one thing to the
house. If we ever mean in strike og tbs