The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-03-07

Il
honorable senator But what coming al when
Ispoke of this Illegal mode OF getting this money was
that this Illegal corrupt or impure means o. source
IRON which this money derived could not Dc Legal
zed for The purposes OF the general treasury ~ shouu
not be legazed for The purposes OF California That Is
what me ant-not charging the senator the officers
who had collected this money any other person. with
any corruption or impuIty, but simply that u was
not leg tmate nor legal. and lhs money 90 derived
moi legitimate But If called upon TO log TINA
ze this money, TO legaze IT, we might do II for the
easury OF the United States well Tor the purposes
OF The treasury of the single State OF California That
/ what mean Now. should like 10 know if the
tor from California feels any disposition, after this expa-
nation, TO say this is an argument OF statement whchis
Alr GWIN Mr. President. stated IN the beginning
that il the senator meant no mpualon upon the State OF
The PRESIDENT. The Chair cannot permit senators
| TO be interrupted g
Mr. GWIN. Very well II was only in to
Mr.. WALKER II may well be said now for ii
bears upon The subject. .s
Mr.. GWlN. Alter what the senator has said | have
Mr. WALKER Then am to understand The senator
to say that he now understands ne as mpanng no cor
motive Ia the officers who collected the money ~
Mr.. GWlN. OF course not. now. H
Mr.. WALKER. And now TO answer his argument
this money to be egalized and paid to the Stale OF
California is be pad her. of course in her corpo
capacy-her political capacity New, IN that capacity
has paid dollar OF revenue. and this money
who contributed to the fund which sno proposed TO be
disposed Of Now, what is the state OF the here be-
fore II proposed by the bill that this fund shall 20
TO body polite, while the amendment proposes
that it shall go 10 another body polite. While il pro-
posed by the amendment that this fund shall 10 that
other body. argued by the person who offers it that
The treasury OF the United States Now, the amendment.
it seems to conemplaes the legalzaton OF Il Tor the
benef, of the people OF California We are called upon
TO egaze this transaction in the case, and not in
the other Now, it this revenue has been paid by the
merchants by the people, there is no reason why the
State of California in their corporate capacity should be
| the at 4 rnA IA
States where would be applied for the benefit OF the
people of California. in common withthe people OF all
| Mr. PEARCE. | understand the senator from Cali
forna asking if can point TO any statutes which
forbid the introduction OF goods into California refer
the SENATOR then, 10 the first act for the collection OF duties
in the United Staes,he act of March 2, 1899. In that
! act it says: sa@ #.
"That it shall be lawful to make any entry OF any
ship vessel which shall arrive from any fore gn
place within the United States, of the cargo boad
sach ship vessel elsewhere than at one OF the ports Of
heeinbeore established uade the SAID
thereof elsewhere than at one OF the ports OF
delivery herein established 4. ...., .-
| That is the general principle of the law Now, am
of those who think that that revenue law OF the
United States extends 10 any and all OF the acquired
Territories oft he United States, propro ugors know
that sometimes acts have been passed which might look
otherwse-ihat with regard to California itself we
passed the act OF March g. s49 by which we provided
that the revenue laws OF the United States should be
extended to California. know, however. that ,h. has
not always been done know thai in regard to Texas
contented ourselves with passing statute to estab
lsh collection districts Texas, and did not by any
press language extend the revenue laws to that new
State The revenue laws extended over that
Try propr,o ugore But, from abundant caution
other reason-I do not know what-we thought proper in
March, 5i9 to say that the revenue laws should be
tended to California We did not need such provision;
for hold that the general law contained in the act OF
1893 would have prohibited and made illegal the intro.
brought in under the laws OF the United States
Mr. GWiN. would ask the senator from Maryland
if there any collection districts within that portion
| If he tied
i MIR PEARCE, They were established by the same
act TO which have referred.
greater nisapprehenson than the deduction which the
senator from California would make from the last in
qqy tina, he put The district: only Apply to The e waters
interior all But find by looking at the law which
is now before me. the act OF March, Isi9-by which act
of Congress the laws of the United States were in terms
extended over this very ,ertoIywasa law making the
operations OF the laws OF the United States
that day, establish collection districts &c. think the
tanned the opinion expressed by the from Mary
land, [Mr. Parcel think | may bear testimony, in
which you will concur, Mr.. Pfesdent, that there was
some considerable discussion here whether the consiu
ton by its vgor and terms was not extended
this very Territory And the uniform opinion so far
heard that question discussed here, was. that the con
stuon did extend the coany and carried the laws
of the United States with IT. and made them applicable 10
that country, and what by the laws OF Congress
lawful here would be unlawful there.
4 II il were not so, wha, very extraordinary position
we would be in! For example, here is a ship that ar
rves at New York She enters and pays duties upon her
goods there She ships with part OF these goods to
California, and when she gets there she is entitled to
make entry and to unload without paying duties because
she is then engaged in the eoas'ing California is
part and parcel OF the United States and being part and
portion of the United States territory, vessel running
from here to that country is treated as coasng vessel
Notwithstanding ii makes very long voyage Then 1t
would turn out TO be this vessel sent from New York
pays no duty there because she has already paid II
here-which TACT is applicable TO large portion OF the
trade Then according TO the view Of the senator from
California, vessel from England or rance put upon
a favorable footing than vessel that sails from
any portion OF the United States, the vessel from the
foreign country subjected 10 no duty at all while the
vessel that goes California from any other part OF the
United States must pay duties there. This the dilemma
in which his reasoning involves him. That is The result
to which il all tends Now, | do not think the law is
chargesble with anything quite prepos,erous that is
The laws and constitution extend 10 the country and
brace il from and after the adoption oil the treaty. which
becomes law OF the land, OF itself
Well, then. without entering into that dscussion we
may consider the laws extending over and compre
bending this counry and II they do, then the law IN re-
aton to and the importation oil goods in force
there Now, the says, what very true, that the
country not organized into collection DISTRICTS and
not having organized the eIaeton OF revenue by
military officer is unlawful act That, strictly speak
ing, correct But, vessel eniercan she unload
her goods there Not without violating the laws OF the
country II is impossible for her to DO SO How, them
does she get permission to do III Why, by the induI
gence OF the military government which il established
there she permitted because there house
officers TO unload her goods, upon this condition tina, she
should pay the duties exaced by law in other parts OF the
country. Now, what are you called upon 10 here ,
Simply say whether you will or will not confirm these
acts OF the officers of your government, placed in
power there by lawful authority although specially
authorized to do this thing bat they having done IT,