The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-09-11
WHOLE NO. las

entered equally into the consumption Of all classes
the poor well as the rich. He should vote for this
amendment If the Senator wished, he would vote
TO amend the proposition that il should not taks
effect till the 30th of june 1912 and they would pre-
vent its interference with the Compromise. He hoped
the experiment would be made, and be ascertained
whether sufficient for the expenses Of Gov
eminent could be raised by taxation other articles
which could better bear it, He should vote for the
amendment.
Mr.. BATES said the duty on salt affected two
great portions Of the community in very different
manner-the interior of the country which derived
their supplies from the domestic manufacture, from
salines and those parts the seaboard which were
supplied with imported salt The price Of salt for the
interior of the country which supplied with do
nestle salt, of which there was great abundance
would he affected by imposition Of duty the
price was regulated by the law of nature, and could
not be repealed modified but the price ofsalt the
sea board, which supplied by imports, and some
from marine water, would, however gen
temen might be disposed to disbeeye IT, be increased
II the duty taken off the manufactures OF
salt from marine water would be entirely suspended
since none would continue the investment Of their
capital in so uncertain businessthe foreign supply
being quite irregular. Thus perhaps, third of the
supplies being cut off, greater demand would arise,
and the prices be increased, the sea-board, while
the interior would not be affected.
Mr. SEWER wished to know how much revenue
collected from salt he had heard It stated that the
drawbacks amounted to than the duty If 30, 1t
would be better to leave it among the free articles.
Mr.. CLAY did not recoect positively he believed
the duty was about 100000, and the drawbacks near
Messrs. WOODBURY. and BENTON advocat-
ed the amendment. 1E.' ..l |."" '.' p. ."e
Mr.. CALHOUN agreed with the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Huntington that this amendment
would infringe on the Compromise Act and he should
vote against it, A. ''.'' .'. ..."
Mr. WALKER said salt was used as much by the
poor as the rich, and tax it would operate I'M
equally and unjusty. He should vote for the
amendment.
Mr.. ALLEN, in order to remove this amendment
beyond the reach of objection violating the Com
promise, modified it so to take effect after the Both
June, 1912. ......, ....,.......... ..... .a.
Mr.. SIMMONS would like to know Of the Senator
if there any force in the Compromise Act, whe-
Their it did not extend beyond the 30th june 1927
Mr.. CLAY said duty on this article was one o
the most just, equal, and proper duties There wa,
no civilized country in the world that drew any rev
enue from taxation that did not tax salt. The hes
article for duty was that on which every body paic
something; he denied utterly that the poor would
pay as much as the rich on this article. 1t tax
which the Compromise Act covered and secured, and
the Senator fiom Ohio Mr. Allen) was much mis-
taken if he supposed that beyond the Both June 1912
the Compromise did not continue to act-t continued
forever behalf of those articles that to be pro-
tected from foreign competition If the duty We're
taken off il would break down the domestic manufac-
tories and increase the price of salt He opposed the
amendment, and believed the rate of duty, as il now
stood, for the advantage of all classes, rich and
poor. . 4 .A W. ..s"#N -..'.. - 7@s T.. "'@
: Messrs. WALKER, WOODBURY., and
BENTON advocated :he amendment. ..r
Mr.. PRESTON said duty on this article ought to
be avoided if possible Under the financial difficult
ties of Government was necessary to impose duties
as high could be- consistently with the Compromise
act He considered this act excessively deformed
by striking out tea and Coffee the duty which was
he n Sdiffprent
portions of the Government and equalizng the yari
GUS taxes. They could select one article of tariff
which would amount near TO capitaton this arti
Gle |; ]. therefore should be avoided if possible. He
should vote for this amendment as be believed duty
might be better levied on other articles
The question was then taken, and the amendment
rejected, by the following vote
YEAS essrs Allen, Benton, Buchanan, Clay
of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, King, Linn, Nero.
berts, Mouton, Nicholson, Pierce, Prentss, Preston
Sm W, Of Gem, TaPPan Wsker' White, Woodbu
NAYs-Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Berrien,
Calhoun, Choate, Clay, of Ky, Clayton, Dixon Ev-
ans, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, Man
gum, Merrick, Miller Porter, Simmons, Smith, of
Indiana, Southland, Sturgeon, Woodbrldge-23. CIV
Mr.. WALKER moved to insert among the free
articles "gunny bags" @Ha."@ iNis .-,##as
He briefly advocated the amendment. The
Of the article in this country some
lines entered into combination, and raised the
price of this. When this the csse he wished the
oregn article to be admitted duty free. s " .,
Mr.. CLAY said no such combination had tax en- or
Gould take place. The amendment went to violate
he Compromise act. '.'' '''. "a
The amendment was further advocated by Messrs
WOODBURY. and KING, twas then rejected
cas- l3, nays 49,
Mr.. CLAY moved an amendment, which he said
would benefit the cotton interest to add proviso tu
he end of the secoud section, that duty in virtue
# its provisions should be levied beyond 20 per cent
ID valorem.
This was adopted without division.
Mr.. CALHOUN moved to strike out in the 1st |
ection, 9th and 9th lines the words (which are
Omitted free ofduty or" He said it was to limit the OPP
ration of this act to articles paying duty Of
esq than twenty per cent and 10 exclude articles now
uty free. He maintained that under the Compro-
mise, article duty free could be taxed till the
9th june 1912. The Sd and 9th sectious Ielated to
he imposition of duty to the limits of twenty per
ent articles bearing less rate of duty; but free
rticles not to be taxed under it. ... r..
Mr.. CLAY, of Kentucky, differed in toto with the
Gentleman. In the first place, the Compromise related
ntrely the protected artclesit did not relate
vines, silks, &c. Suppose under economical admi
stration sufficient could not be collected
hen he would 60 for duty beyond twenty per cent.
he spirit of the Compromise was, that they should
lot 90 beyond 20 per cent duty if possible in the
rcise of an economical administration The Com |
romise only applied to dutiable articles and not to
hose free of duty If this amendment prevailed the
i'll would not produce more than a half million dol
ars He hoped the Senator would perceive this lite
al Interpretation of the act beyond all practical
urposes, and would reduce the revenue by this bill
rom ten millions dollars to half million.
Mr.. CALHOUN was glad to hear the Senator |
rom Kentucky admit that the literal construction of
he Compromise act supported his Mr.. Cahoun's)
round. He held that il also the manifest spirit |
nd object Of the act and that provisions for this pur
Use, were expressly contained in il.
The whole of this bill was to throw the whole |
urden certain interest. We were in no condi- |
ion for the consideration Of the subject The Sena-
or from Kentucky ha begun at the bottom instead
f the top and they were now called upon unprepa-
ed to vote upon this most complicated measure He
vas willing and DESTROYS to transfer this bill over to
he next session, and then unite in re-adusting the
Compromise act. The country was involved by mis-
Management in most disastrous state, and he hoped
he Senators would be led to repeal the distribution
I'LL before it went into operation.
Mr.. BERRIEN said if the articles now duty free
emained thus, hwoud inevitably tend to an increase
# duty on protected articles, which he wished to
void be contended that neither the letter or the |