Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-05-18

Mr. s. then went argue the motion for rsoonsidsra
ten. -
Mr.. Barringer regretted that a measure which pro-
missed some little alienation TO tho South should produce
20 much excitement. The reduction of the duty was
voted for from Of its intrinsic proprcty and of
duty to the nation at arge and he spoke length
show that was isolated question: connected
with the tariff question; just Of complaint
with those who desired the duties to be removed from
other articles that ought be judged and decided by
itself, &c. When Mr. B. concluded, il being half after
| o'clock,
Mr.. vinton moved an adjournment; and the Speaker
having appointed tellers to count the House. they re-
ported 90 in favor, and 10 against the motion; and
I The House adjourned.
y "WEDNESDAY, MAY IL.
THE TARIFF QUESTION.
The House resumed the consideration of the bill 10
regulate the collection Of the duties imports with the
pending amendments.
Tho question under consideration when the House adj
Journed yesterday, was the motion of Mr.. Gorham
to reconsider an amendment agreed to- concerning the
duty on iron, &c-whch motion grew out of the adop
ton of the other amendment for REDUCING n. J,,,,, ~,
/ Salt. IVY -"
Mr. Gorham OF Massachusetts,, briefly explained the
object In making this motion. He considered the vote
upon the Salt Duty as breaking in upon the present
system oil reveRue, instead Of regulating its collection
which was the object Of the original bill now under
consideration. He appealed gentlemen whether it
was possible to pass on this subject at this ses
SION II the whole field OF debate thus thrown OPEN
Mr. g. concluded bysayng that, under this view of the
case' II any gentlemen would move TO reconsider the
vote upon the Salt Duty so as to make it possible to
agree upon upon this subject he would TO make
had made.
Mr.. Doddridgc Of Virginia, having intimated dispo.
uoh 10 make the motion suggested by the member from
Massachusetts,, Mr. Gorham toithdre,o his motions and
| MT. Doddridge moved to reconsider the vote upon
Mr.. Barringer's amendment for reducing the duty on
Mr.. Wayne, of Georgia, asked whether il was the
intention of the gentleman from Massachusetts to re-
now his motion IL the pending motion was rejected
/ .nrh d., li.n
point
Mr. WAYNE. taking it for granted that such wa. the
intention OF Mr. Gorbam, made de ced spec against
the course now proposed considering IL prop
oson, call II by what name would of
and sale; against which he inveighed with considerable
| warmpth and zeal.
traced debate on this question Of had
expressed great regret that much difficulty should
exist in obtaining reduction Of the duty this neces-
ay OF me- lie dwelt the OF the State of
Norh carolina in reference 10 this duty to the Tariff
generally and made very strong appea to the magma.
nmty and spirit OF cancellation of Members from other
states to grant this little boon State which had he
toore asked for so little, and submitted so 10
the laws regulating the duties on imports and IN tho
genera iesis'aon oil Congress. Mr.. b. concluded his
speech by motion for the previous question (Which
would have been upon the que s,ion i'm n.
| ing, viz: reconsderaiion.)
The House refused to second the previous question,
MIR Reed of Massachusetts,, then presented his views
on the SUBJECT OF the Duty on Salt. He reviewed the
history OF the Salt manufacture from its ginning the
commencement OF the Revolution, and ifs present
tie expatiafed the value OF this and the
cheapne's OF the article produced Nv the Eastern
MANUFACTURES; and Showed the very different state of
Things exiting now om that which existed when the
duty was hxeda state Of things which in his view af.
iorded strong argument against the proposed reduce
;,on o. guy. tie rePeIed the suggestion of bargain
IN this matter, remarkng that all legislation found
Ell on compromise and that giving il i'll name did not
| change ts general principle
MT. vinton oil Ohio, addressed the House at consd-
ha al If ft,a Hat.
| gainst the reconsideration. When he had concluded
MT. thompson OF Georgia rose and observed that in
ali 'he debate he had heard nothing the ques.
ion and as further debae could be of USE he NOV
cd 10 lay the motion Tor reconsideration the table
ana demanded the yeas and nays on the questionable
| withdrew his motion, at tie request of
MIR. Mccoy, who promised to renew IL when he had
made lew remarks in favor Of adhering the reduc-
ton OF the salt duty Having done So he renewed the
motion made by Mr. Thompson; and
The question being pat laying the motion TO re-
Ayes 95. noes IO2
Mr. Polk, made some remarks in favor Of the reduc
ion and explanatory Of the history of the duty ON salt
iaid from time to time and believing that enough had
heen said, and CON- and much az tho time of the
| vious que stion. " r
Mr.. Wayns msved call of the House; but the mo.
ton not sustained
The motion for the previous que stion was seconded
by majority Of the House; and
The G"esi'on being taken by Yeas and Nays on the
call OF MIR. Cambrelsng, it was carried, I'll to 25
ma" queston, loeng on the motion TO reconsid-
or the vote on the amendment reducing the duty on
sait) was then put and decided in the Affirmative
Yeas l02, Nays97.
The question then recurring on the amendnent nro
posing to reduce the duty salt,
Mr. McDuhie modified the amendment so as TO de.
Ter the reduction TO Is cents to the Ist of September
1881 and the reduction 10 10 cents from and after the
3lst December, 1892.
lhe debate was now renewed, and continued with
undated animation and occasional pungency during
several hours. e
Messrs. CambreIeng, Drayton. Barringer, Angel
oemmes' Craig OF Va Jennings, Wilde and Lea advo.
ated the amendment, and the propriety OF reducing
me duty; ard Messrs. Spencer OF N. Y. MaIIary
Storrs OF NJ Y. Irwin Of Ohio, Test Davis of Mass ,
anu Keed opposed the amendment for various
some because they were opposed to the reduction as
impolitic and would not diminish the price 10 TIE con-
sumner; others that improper connected with this
bill; others that il would put the bill itself in jeopardy
though they we're not opposed to the repeal OF the du-
", u Il were an uneonnected proposition For the
reason last mentioned, Messrs Ramsay and Miller stat
ed they should vote now against the amendment, al
though they yesterday voted for X.
The question at length being put on the anne ndm mt
II was nega'ivsd by the following vote:
YEAS-Messrs Alexander, Allen, Aston, Anderson
Angel, Archer, Armstrong, J. s. Barbour. P p B.r.
bour, Brnwell, Barringer, Baylor, Bell John Blair
James Blair, Boon, Bouldn, Brodbead Brown Cam.
breleng, Campbell, Carson, Chandler Chiffon CIai.
borne, Clay, Coke. Conner, Robert Craig, Crockett
Crocheron, Davenport, Warren X Davis, D,berry
De,ns Drayton, Dudley, Duncan, Findsy, Foster Fry
Gahher, Gordon, Hall, Hammons, Harvey, HAYNES
Kinds. Howard, Hubbard Ihrie, I.seks Jennings
Csve Johnston, Lamar, Lea, Lecompte, Lent, Lewis,
Loyal, Lumpkin, Lyon, Martin, Meow McDum.
tire NJ Ill