The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-06-23
CONGRESS-.

| In the House, on "Wednesday, Mr.. CASEY
moved that the Committee of the Whole should
be discharged from the further consideration OF
the bill in relation TO pre- emption rights in the
State of Illinois After some debate, the ques-
ton being taken, II was virtually negatived.
| Mr. GoGGIN, who was entitled TO the floor on
the business OF the morning hour, addressed the
House at length on the question OF the Virginia
land warrants He was interrupted by the ex-
piralon of the morning hour-when the House
went into Committee of the Whole and resum-
ed the consideration ofthe Revenue bill.
| Mr.. PlcKENs opened the debate. He would
consder, he said the question only in hnan-
cial point OF view. The constitutionality OF
| protection, he would not touch, the inequality Of
its burdens he would pass in silence, he would
examine merely whether, under the assump-
tons and calculations Of the Chairman Of the
Committee of Ways and Means sufficient re-
venue could be raised According to the Chair
man, there would be taxable imports to the
amount OF S77,000,000 The proposed revt-
nue. of 1927 900, 900 would be 36 per cent on this
sum. Such per centage, in the present state
of the currency and the country, could not be
raised. Twenty per cent. import now would
be equivalent to 80 per cent. under the expanded
currency of 1928. SO high revenue could not
be raised, aud the attempt to do it would lnJure
the commercial interests of the country would
break up entirely the commercial marine. That
interest he was unwilling to sacrifice for The as
cendancy of manufactures. Fo the effect of
the manufactures on the morals, the com
forts, the prosperity Of the People, he was
willing to refer to England, which is so Of
ten referred to by the friends Of protection. The
picture presented by the condition of the opera
tives in the British factories should be sufficient
10 answer all arguments in favor cf an over
grown manufacturing system.
The argument that protection prevented the
importation of specie answered itself. If such
were its results, tmust produce an expanded
currency, the mischevous effects of which now
needed but little cucdation. Instead Of pro-
lection, what we want must be economy in the
expenditures of the Government, low duties
and hard currency.
Mr.. SNYDER was opposed to the distribution
he was opposed to the tax on sugar, coffee, and
salt He commented, in a speech replete with
practical details on the misehlets OF Incorporate
ed capital on the price of produce, and the ne
cessity it apparently produced for protection.
Pure home labor, he argued, needed such aid bot
litte-but, considering The state of interests a
ready established, he did not oppose judicous
tariff provided the poor mans necessarles OF
salt &c, were excluded.
Mr. HuBARD followed in an argument against
the protective system.
| Mr.. SMITH, of Virginia, obtained the floor.
Tut gave way for motion of Mr.. Wise to post
none the consideration of the Revenue bill and
take up the Naval Appropriation bill. The mo-
ton was ntgativrd.
! Mr. SMlrn yielded the floor 10 Mr.. Gushing,
who maintained that the question for discussion
had been abandoned. The question was not Of
( protection or no protection-not Of principle, but
Of detail--no Of tariff, but of finance. 1t was
necessary to raise certain amount of revenue
To effect that object, two bills had beenleft fol
consideration. All argue that the revenue must
be raised by imposts. The question is whether
either of the proposed bills would produce the
revenue required, and therefore cannot be dis
q Gu sed as general thesis The examination
of details--of the clauses Of the bllls-must de
eide There is no doubt limit to the taxation
which commerce can bear if we have reached