Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1842-08-25

l These provisions were violently sssAiled by the
protective tariff interests in the House, as designej
TO withdraw protection snd operate un.avorably to
/ the manufacturing interests. Mf Huntington, now
of the Senate then ofths House, IN concluding his
remarks sganst this bill, and particularly this tea
ture OF Il, said
.lIe would make motion which would test the senseof
the committee ON the expectancy prcposedb BY this b Of
Withdrawing all protection from the domestic industry Of
the country by reducing tho productions Of foreign labor
competing whh aud ad hing the dudes articles
which II not compete wiih own industry Ellis Oh
these two articles t,cs and ec and he therefore moved
TO erase the two ra.seaphs OF the bll which Imposed
duty on tea and ccnee -CSce Congressional ncb Vol
part D, page SOD
You, sir, mir Nicflennan, Of Pennsy lvania. was
in the ehsrl in your remarks this bill held simi-
lar language. why, you inquired, ID the propo-
sitiou made by the committee to impose a duty Of
about 80 per teas and flee, which. hy the
law Of 1881, are to lie imported Tree :" You an
swer this question by saying. that
The reason Obvious and slarnr that he who
read death blow must he given io the manuo,ur
protection to ~ and 10 per cent"
O,hcr quotations might bc given from the debate,
on both sides, showing what the true Southern poll
ey then was; but these arc enough for my purpose
The question on Mr. Huntinstoh's motion TO
strike out tea and coffee, and make them free art
cles, was taken in the Committee of the Whole
aud carried. On the twenty first OF February, 1883
in the amendment of the Committee of the Whole
House first, on striking out coffee, and then. on
striking out tea. The Journal is as follows: ISee
Journal, page S90.l
"Thc question put that the House eoncur in
the amendment ~ the Committee OF the Whole House,
which proroses suke out the following item OF the rs
"zHfriyfrst On coffee from and afer the 81 of Sep
ten,6er s duty Al and amer the rate Of one cent the
pound weight"
On this the yeas and nays were called. and among
the nays, that is among those who voted against
striking out coffee aud making 1t free article,
stand tho conspicuous names of Mr.. James 4. Poik
and my colleague, (Mr CAVE JoHSsosD
The question on striking out teas was next put
and the Journal reads as follows: lSse Journal,
page SOIL
THE question then put that the nouse DO concur
in the amendment Of the Committee OF tho whole House
which proposedto sirke out the following item the 6rst
section, VIZ
March, 1884, duty aud amer the rates following. that
70 say on imperial, gunPowder and gomez, dyson ans
aud Other green, souehons and black except boea
four cents the pound weight; and bolea and half
cents the pound weight
On this, too, the yeas and rays were taken; and
among the nays, that is, among ihos, opposed to
striking out teas and making them free, are again
to be found the conspicuous names OF Mr. James n
Polk. and my colleague, (Nr. CAVE JOHNSON
Nov, sir, when Governor Polk and others with
whom he acted, gave these votes, according TO his
own showing, the tax IVES not needed for revenue;
on the contrary "the fact was staring them in the
lace" that there was large surplus, and the Pre-
slceni and Secretary had recommended its reduc-
ton. The Bill! was introduced for this purpose. Its
very title declared its object was TO "reduce" the
amount ct accruing revenue which was not needed
IN carrying on the Government. Now, sir, my
purpose IS 10 inquire If II was right TO lay duty
on tea and coffee under these circumstances would
It have been wrong for this Congress at the extra
session TO have done SO, when there was a public
debt TO pay, and we had STARING in our face" not
an overlooking, but an empty treasury, and sink
ing and almost dishonore5 public credit Ii it was
right 10 tax tea and coffee in "bil 10 reduce revc-
nue., is 1t wrong do the same thing in bill TO rails.
revenuef 1T is right TO tax and coffee TO raise
revenue for an Overlooking Treasury, is il right to
DO so to save an empty one from total dsgrace1
Mr. Laushlin's resolution, in the next place
charges that San incrtaTed AID heavy taxi was inns
posed on salt and sugar. Now, sir, this is wholly
untrue. No"nereased" or heavy duty was laid
on these articles at the extra session. On the con-
tIary, they were not touched but left TO stand pre-.
SIseiy as taey stood under the Compromise act.
me act OF the extra session raised the duties on
articles, with exceptions named in the act, that
were below 20 per cent. up 10 that rate. Salt and
sugar were over that per cent by the provisions OF
TIE compromise act, and were in no way changed.
he last specification IS, that the of the extra
session contains an unjus, discrimination in the
duty on iron, in favor Of certain corporations" Sir
this, like the last, is wholly unfounded. The eds
elimination" which is referred 10, whether right or
wrong, was not made by the act of the extra
session. but that of eighteen hundred and ,hiry>two
which passed both Houses without opposition or
division, and was signed by President Jackson. IL
was entitled ian act 10 release from duty iron pre-
pared for and actually laid railways or inclined
planes" This &C; provided that any "Siate or in.
eorpoEated company" might import iron free OF du-
~, provided /; was actually laid down on railways
or inclined planes" The fifth section of the act of
the extra session repealed this act but il provided
that such repeal shall not operate nor shall such
duties be imposed on any railroad iron which shalt
be imported under the provIions Of said act Tor to
the third day OF March, eighteen hundred and forty
three, and laid down any railroad or inclined
plane, Of which the construction has been already
commenced. and which shall be necessary to COM
Pete the same"
This IS the mighty offence. The law of the
extra session repealed the law Of 1882 but the 70.
peal did not take effect until 1913 in cases where
roads had been commenced under the provisions OF |
The law, and where good faith required they should
not Oc deprived OF the benefits conferred by that |
act These roads belong chiefly to States, bu. as
Corporations" may own them, it, Of course, is a
proper subject Of democratic" eenslse. But the |
49, the falls not on the act OF the
extra session, but on the &C. Of 1882, passed With.
out Opposition, and approved by Pfe:ident Jack