The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-03-28

couDtry either at home OF in foreign country, should
transmit some personal giita snut box o.
guenee OF some good service you may have rendered.
civil military, il would be liable to iaxauon
thai one 81 Your Numerous isaas at be passed re-
mttiRg the duty upon thai walcn, o. una' h,
il might be- as compliment 70 you Wheie y the suic
eonsamctonst upon this floor who would rise and an
nonnee il to be Unconstitutional The question OF ex-
pedeucy Is always matter OF Judgment and discretion
But when bill is unconstitutional It's reectionis man
Now sir what is the difference between your case,
which have just supposedthat Of citzen-and that oil
n church None, sir. church is nothing more than
combination oil individuals. Then, sir let me refer you
10 The OF sword, presented by naval officers 10
Commodore McDonough, There was tax imposed
upon all such articles and yet the duties were RENTED
Was that unconstitutional Is II because the word rei
gion applies 10 the persons in this case No. sir In re-
laiion 10 importaons, all parties are upon equality
The law makes discrimination between church and
individual II is the article imported that the law
operates upon. and not upon the Tor which the a
Gle is designed, Then why distinguish this from the
case OF the sword the OF the veslments in Ken
lucky or the next which read. where there i'm
portaon by way OF Donation precisely like ths-cases
in which the duties RENTED Is il not exraord
nary, when the whole object Of these females Is be-
nevolence, and the increase of knowledge, morality
and all the virtues OF life, cooperating in little church
nunnery and when some kind friends the water
have sent 10 them veslmen for the purpose OF
ryng their organization, that we should so srenu
ousy demand 45 for duties after all these precedens
showing the conslulionaty of renting the duties
did not intend Mr. President, 10 say much but
thought due to the occasion and 10 the in
tend TO give that should state my reasons. | did mol
intend 10 argue the question. thought sufficient prece
dents had been established. agree with the senator
from Delaware mr. BAYARDl that precedens in parcu-
lar ought 10 operate controlling all future
cases; but each must stand upon Its own footing. But
this stands upon the principles, more clear fair
and more Just than any one which has preceded1it
Mr.. COOPER The senator from Georgia has informed
the Senate that the remission asked for by this religious
community presents precisely the same case if an ind
yidual had asked for the remission He then states that
nobody would deny that il would be right in such
That is what lawyer would call non Se9uifur An
individual do not think would be entitled TO any such
remission nor would an individual ask for such re-
mission There are many persons, no doubt, who use
articles OF foreign manufacture upon which high duties
are imposed who would be glad to have such duties
miited But the policy OF the law is impose duties
upon them
Now, sir, cannot agree with the senator from Mary
land that there presidents upon the other side
know very well that you take up the statutes you will
find precedents upon the other side because those
cases that are rejected carried into the statute
book. But If you take up the journals, you will find that
there in which remissons of this kind have
been asked for, and have been denied
Nobody denies the constitutional power Of Congress TO
remit such duties. The senator from Delaware did not
contend for any such principle that but he commended
that as the duty was in the teasury-and doubtless the
individuals have already paid into the treasuryt was
wrong by special Legislation TO withdraw it, should be
very glad 10 those ladies successfuto the
esls Of their institution advanced in every way but they
must be subject to the laws with other citizens and
other individuals therefore feel obliged TO vote against
The remission OF the duties
MIR. BORLAND. | very sorry that the senator
from Georgia, in the conclusion OF his remarks seemed
10 insist upon view OF the question which does great
injustice to those who oppose this bill He laid great
stress upon the amount OF money which proposed TO
be realiZedory five dollars. Sir, every senator who
has said one word in opposition 10 the bill has expressly
dsclamed any consideration OF the amount OF money
II has nothing at all to do with the merits OF the
Mr.. DAWSON. I am somewhat surprised at the re-
mark OF the senator, laid stress on the amount.
put il upon the principle involved Every man knows
that the amount of money is too small TO require
tended discussion. did not argue that because the
amount was only forty five dollars therefore it ought
10 be refunded trust my friend will not represent
me.
Mr. BORLAND. ! did not intend to do the senator
Injustice but surely he will recoec! that be did empha
size the ''amounf' very srongly--for what purpose
could not conceive, unless give that complexion the
opposition TO the bill II had considered the pecunary
amount and that kind OF economy. certainly should not
have contributed 10 proract the discussion every hour
perhaps every half hour, OF which the government
more than the whole amount proposed to be RENTED
Is no escape from the principle that is proper 10 pay
this because II is small amount; and the opponents OF
this bill ought no, 10 be put before the country basng
their opposition upon any amount whatever
But in the course OF this discussion something was
sand on both sides about determinations between religious
secis Sir object to the discrimination, merely be-
il is between religious denominations but because
tits between classes whether they be religious moral
scientific, literary, or anything else But to make H.
Illustration OF my view OF this discrimination, will sup
pose case. We know that other religious denomina
lions do not yestments of this kind Take the Metho
dist denomination, for instance which spread all over
county, ministers wear plan clothes Their
discipline requires ii Each minister, perhaps, who is
able TO buy IT, wears his black coat made OF cloth which
has been imported, and upon which duties have been
paid. Suppose Methodist conference in one OF the
States should before Congress its next session.
and memorabilia US 10 pay back TO each OF those in
divdna preachers the amount OF the duy-tbat is the
increased price which he had pay for his coat because
OF the duty levied the cloth when il imported
apprehend there is not senator here who would not
laugh out oil the chamber yet there no difference in
principle. II il be proper and lawful to remit duties on
yestments which the priests Of denomination may
wear and which they consider proper in the performance
OF their clerical functions IL surely be equally
proper and equally lawful 10 pay back TO the priests OF
every other denomination duties The vesments which
they hold TO be proper in the performance OF their clerical
10 mark my view OF the discrimination.
Mr.. MANGUM. This is a vastly important question
sir. This is resdentmaking session and understand
that this question is 10 operate powerfully upon the
success OF OF the great political parties laugh
teri 1t has already acted very powerfully upon private
individual claimants upon the public treasury and also
upon the funds paid by this body for these interesting dis
cussions Now, SIR II were full of money, would
pay this important tax myself rather than this de-
bale continued another half hours bat, that being rather
a article with me- [aughler,l will only for
IT, But do hope that we shall not continue TO play al
this game OF "push.pin" any longer.
do not see why we should feel so much repugnance
10 having aluson made upon this floor TO religion
To be sure, il is not senatorial work or senatorial
road nut sui we ought not 10 be appalled, al IT, shall
vote Tor this bill, II we come to vote upon H. |
with great deal OF pleasure; and, as have given the
philosophy OF the matter, hope shall come 10 a vote
immediately after very sensible remarks Laughter
The question being taken by yeas and nays upon or