The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1814-10-28
Soeotten yarn was exempted from taxa

Mr. f.. assigned the great difficulty of dis
elimination between the large manufactures
ard those of an Individual or domestic cha
racter. The motion was agreed to without
division.
The next motion was to change the tax on
hdfer vats to a tax of fue her cent. on all
paper msnufactured--Ag to without OPP
position.
The next question was to strike out iotfc-
'TeS--which niotion was neSQfiucd without de-
bate.
Mr. GcldSboroush moved to strike out the
furniture tao, assigning as reasons therefor
its ooious character, because rendering peces-
sary valuations of properly, domiciliary vi
sits, sc.
Mr.. Ehtcs defended the tax, and stated
that no inquisitions were intended to be made
into property, the amount of which was pro-
posed to he asceJtai ed by voluntary declara-
tion OF the poSsessois. lie considered it a
YER. proper tax on luxury and superfuity.
Mr.. Rorbour of Va. also opposed the pro-
posed amendment In an argumentative man
ner, ON the grounds Of policy & justice. Con-
vunced as he was vt the necessity vt raising a
substantial revenue II supply the wants and
support the credit Of the goverrmert-he was
opposed to the Suhducticn of SO great FRO
portion oil the proposed amount OF taxation
as the erasuie CT this tax would occasion.
Mr. Il. spoke mt some length and with much
ability on the subject of taxation generally.
NJ. ffr;Sht supported his colleagues mo-
ten. He was opposed to the tax as an inqui-
sition into private property ; as veXatious if
the property was valued By inspection, and
encouraging immortality if valued bv assess
ment on the oath ofthe proprietors He was
opposed 20 IT too because it would in fact ope-
rate as tax on matIimonY, frorn which those
who lived their whole lives in violation of the
1Ist law OF nature would generally be ex-
eplpt. He considered 1t, too, in the nature of
a direct tax. & which therefore ought to be
aPportioned according to representation.
Mr.. Potter of K. l also advocated the mo
ton, Inc property proposed to bee reached
by this tax belonged generally to those who
have seen better times, but, by the operation
Of the war, are thrown out of their regular
income, and are many of them Obliged to
sell this very furniture to supply them with
bread.
Mr.. Castor ON. c. also.supported the mo-
ton OF Mr.. Goldsborough, principally on &C
| count OF the novelty of the tax, it being tax
never before laid if ever proposed n any gov
eminent. There were other strong reasons "a
| gainst it, particularly the mode inwhich the tax
must be assessed, &c. In opposing this tax Mr..
| u. SAID he at least was rot Influenced by sec
! tonal motives, as it would fall as lightly on the
| section Of the country which he represented,
| as perhaps any other. He was opposed to
| any tax of 4 questionable expediency, because
| all the taxes were TO be pledged to the pub
lie creditor, & would therefore be irrepeala-
! be until his GemaBds were satisfied
Mr.. HOPKINS of Ky. in reply to the arpu-
| ment Of novelty against the TAX, said that this
had been frequently called the age OF expert
ments. Our government itself was novelty,
! which had estabi he'd its utility; and there
| were many novelties as well Of invention as
policy, n our country, which reflected on it
| the highest honvr & he hoped this would b
attended with the sanre result.
M. bradley Of n. opposed the tax on
| furniture principally on account of it's diff
Guilty if not impracticability of collection, as
opening the door to fraud, perjury, and favor
| ItIsm.
Mr.. Oakley CIV Y. on the same side of
the question, said he was opposed IN principle
| tO the tax, which he believed would NOT rI,o-
duce any thing like the estimated amount
He wished to dispense with this tax, ard add
the amount of it to the direct tax, or lay it on
other articles.
! Mr. Ehfies rose TO defend this tax. lie
had no idea, when the u. States bad for
years collected revenue fcorn imports OF
twenty millions Of dollars, on the oaths Of TIE
nerchants that they could not collect a tax
Of million Of dollars from property to be va
lued on the oaths OF the possesSOrs. As to the
tax dIscouraging UatTlmony and consequently
population, ne denied this operation to it ;
because beds, blankets, sheets, and every ar
ticle essential to these objects were exempted
from taxation. He denied the inequality and
oppressiveness Of the tax. Its novelty was an
objection which would equally apply to vari-
Gus others, all internal taxes being new to the
government. II was , tax the rich woui,!
pay & the poor ne exempt fro5n and there
fore he was in favor Of it.
Mr. Posi- stated, that in col|sctag the du-
ties on imports. there was a Collateral exam
| nation of goods entered to verify the statement
made on oath Sc that the gentleman Was
! mistaken in ikening the mode Of collection,
! proposed to thar existing ~ relation 70 uGpovt
! duties MIR. r. agen insisted on Inc pr0pri-
ety of laying the Whole amount Of tax on the
| direct and cistillati, tax.
Mr.. Castor nv. C.spoke few words H.
explanation, and Mr.. EfheS replied.
The House then decided on Mr.. Goldsbo-
| rough's motion, as follows: Fer the motion 8
| Against it 60.
So the Committee determined to retain the
tax proposed to be laid on furniture.
Mr.. Oakiey moved to strike out the duty
ON tGiio7U caFdtcs in the hands of the manu-
| facturer. He conce we'd the tax would be rem
| dered nugatory by lie increase of domestic
! manufacture, and the very poorest people on
| ly, those who are unable to purchase 1nateri-
ais for making candles, will pay the tax.
The motion was negatived, 30 only rising
in favor Of it, IS against it.