Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-04-15

on reflection, changed the opinion il first EXPRESSED
and now seized the earliest moment to correct Gas
IL WOULD always take pleasure in doing) the error
into which il had been hastily drawn The nridc
oil opinion, he said, should never influence him TO
perseverc III error; and, being now satisfied thar
the imp @sson which he expressed Yesterday. was
wrong he deemed it his duty to state it frankly to
the House.
Mr.. Wright Of Ohio, now moved the following
amendment:
:" And, after the first day of JAM 1929, no credit
Tor duties shall be allowed at the custom houses
on any manufactures of wool or of which wool
shah be componet material, imported into the u
States"
MIR. w. submitted a few remarks, showing upon
what ground he offered this motion; his object be-
ing 10 take from the foreign manufacturer the adj
vantage which, by the credit system, he has. i'm
forclng his goods into this market.
N'r' Cambreieng complained Of a want of cour-
tesy on the part of Mr.. Wright, for moving am
amendment which was almost a copy of the second
part OF that which he had offered in Committee OF
tne " mole. Alter stating the difference between
them, he suggested TO the gentleman from Ohio
the proprety of withdrawing the amendment he
hau ohered' and suffering him (Mr. Cambreleng)
10 oner ms own amendment in its entire form.
ir. wright discaimed any intention TO interfere
with the gentleman from New York but insisted
,hat ms amendment, as standing by itself was en-
hreiy different in its effect from what il wouId he
as presented by the gentleman from New York in
conneXion with other measures of an ami; tar;fT
4
the suggestion of MIR. Cambreleng, as to withdraw
ing it.
Mr. Mercer then took the floor, and spoke In on.
position to the amendment of Mr.. Wright as one
rating injuriousy to the navigation of the country
and to the growing trade.
Mr. Martin then said, that, when a member
IRON New Jersey, (Mr. Condic) had the other
Day moved to alter the amendment of the gem
tleman from Vermont, in relation to wooIlens in
such way as to make the increased duty com
toad Df Al 4
cided that such motion could not be receved
In the House without first being offered in Com
inittee OF the Whole, because though il did NOT
propose 70 alter rate of tax, yet il proposed TO
impose tiat tax at an earlier period; and it was
therefore, as to parliamentary practice. 10 he
viewed as motion to increase tax; and TO en-
tertain such motion in the House. before IL had
been considered in Committee of the WboIn
would De In violation OF the lOlst rule of order
which says that No sum on uuantun of tav ~
" duty voted by Committee of the Whole Hons,
shall be increased in the House until the motion
- or proposition for such increase shall he first dis
" cussed and voted in Committee of the Whole
:. louse ana SO In respect to the time of its con-
un9ance; Now, the proposition of the gentle
man from Ohio was, that, after January neSt du
tes which had hitherto been bonded must be maid
In cash. lie thought that the analogy between
'hese TWO cases are SO close and striking that he
was induced to inquire of the Chair whether
such an amendment was in order? II would be
recoiiected by the Speaker that it was an amend
ment which had not been considered in Committee
of the Whole.
Inc Chair replied, that he understood il as hav
ing oeen proposed In an amendment offered by
leng.l
Mr.. Martin here quoted Mr.. CambreIeno,s =.
nendment and pointed out what he understoo5 to he
the difference between the latter part of that amend
nent, and the PROPOSE ton offered by the gentle
man from Ohio
Mr.. Mailary now quoted the two rules of order
Which applied TO propositions on the subject Of =
tax, viz: the one hundrcdth rule which ia in tbo
following words: q " -'
NO motion or proposition, for tax or CHARGE
upon the People, shall be discussed the day in which
rs, - Nhaue or oHered, and every such proposition
sna receive It's ilrst discussionin Committee of the
"hoie House,; and the one hundred and first rule
winch had been read by Mr.. Martin He contend
Gu that tills was not proposition to alter tax Ell
ther by increasing diminishing nor was the case
parallel to that OF Mr.. Condict.
MI Cambreleng contended, that the amendment
uiu involve an increase OF duty, in as much as
payment in cash was more oncrous than a nav
ment on credit, by the whole amount of interest
The Speaker stated his impre ssion to be- that the
amendment, in its present form, being diAeren,
proposition from that offered by Mr.. Cambrelen@.
in Committee of the Whole could not he recc;9'
ed.
Mr. Wright then said, that he would modify his
amendment SO as to bring it within the decision Of
the Chair He accordingly modified it so as to READ
as follows:
" And, after the first day of January, 1929, no
credit for duties shall lie allowed at the Custom
Houses, on any manufactures on wool. or of
which wool shall be a component material inn
ported into the United States belonging TO anu TO-
reigner."
The Speaker decided that he should entertain
the motion OF the gentleman from Ohio He did
not think that, under the IOOdth and IOIst Rules
OF the House, this proposition ought to be rejected
by the Chair, as one clearly not in order AS these
rules were calculated, in some degree TO limit
what might be considered the REPRESENTATIVE
rights, and as the question of order to saw the
least OF 1t, was novel, if not a verv doubtful onc
the Chair would, so far as he was concerned, en-
tertain the motion, and leave il TO the House TO
aiiirm the decision or not, as it thought proper
He therefore pronounced the motion TO amend in
order.
ne decision was objected 10 by Mr. Burgess
ana by Mr.. Cambreleng; the latter of whom ap-
pealed from the decision of the Chair on three
grounds: LIST, that the amendment he had offered
touched only imported goods beloneinn to British
manufacturers; while that of Mr.. Wright extend
ed to British merchants. 2ndly, that his own a.
mendInent related only to goods made wholly of
wool, while that of Mr.. Wright included all Goods
Of which wool formed part: such as satinctts.
etc 3diy, that his proposition allowed a discount
on cash payments, while that of Mr. Wripbf aIIo,g
ed none. The amendment Of Mr. w. therefore.
was one which had not been offered i'm Commit |
Tee OF the Whole, and went TO increase q fax and
il could not, by the rules of the House be recev-
ed I'LL 1t should first be offered in Committee of the
Whole. viz
The discussion of this appeaI occuped fbo
house during the greater part of tho dav IL /
seemed to be conceded that the amendment Of Mr. !
W right was not exactly the same with that of Mr.
CambreIeng; and that, therefore, this identical |
proposition could not be considered as having been