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


4
paying into the United States treasury certain amount OF
du,ies-$i5 or S5o--but whether we shall subtract from
1aaa made 70 religious association what would
reader II burden, wihoa easing our treasury other
Wise man by the recovery OF few dollars The econ
9my attempted TO be effected is hardly worth the time we
nave been spending In discussing IT,
now lei us apply principles they clearly are exem-
phed by the practice and rule prevailing ia matters of
similar Kind II we land from foreign port any port
10 me unled States we are permitted TO enter free from
dulles all articles comprising baggage Even articles
OF iurnuie II used any time in our service. admitted
10 the Denen oil the exemption. Upon what consdera
ton Is predlcaled this discrimination Might il moi be
asked why is that traveller under such
IS exempt from all charge when those who may choose
to remain al home would be charged with dues, and be
compelled 10 pay them into the treasury Yet il the
principle be correct IN one case why should in the
olhera The pretended grauity made in this case NAV
strictly be beyond the rule but certainly s no. beyond
the spirit OF that principle. For suppose that these
very persons for whom the exemption is asked had
would you deny them The right OF introducing them with
out paying duties TO The government II the exemption
would apply 70 such case, tell me why and how it
Understand that the power the exemption is
not contested The presented is peculiar
into the merits of which we look which we can fairly
appreciate; and if tdoes violate any principle il is
strictly within The spirit OF the prevailing law, sureyI
cannot see the strength OF the Arguments which have been
urged TO exclude il from the favor of this house.
Mr. BAYARD | still think that the senator from
Louisiana Mr. SouLEl misundersiands in respect 10
lne view lake oil Inc and conviction has be-
come stronger from the tone of his illustration which be
has just given than it previously My objection is
not founded upon the fact that il IS discriminating be-
tween particular creeds secs II we were to remit
duties by this bill all the churches in the United Sates
instead OF having particular church exempted from
paying duties upon vestments or furniture imported,
should vote against II. Upon my principle, II would
make no difference whether i applied to one religion or
to another whether il applied 10 one individual to
another Now the illustration given by the distinguished
senator from Louisiana is this He kens it TO the case
of travellers whom you choose to exempt by your gem
eral laws from paying duties upon their luggage, and
then he wishes 10 know why do not apply the
principle in this particular instance. Sir in lieu of that
will give you parallel Suppose you attempt 10
exempt a clergyman from the obligation to pay duties
upon his uggagethat is TO cay, exempt indvid-
ua from the payment OF duties which were enjoined
upon every other citizen in the nation This sir would
this BILL you for the violation OF this principle, pre-
csely in the same manner as have just represented
consider il unfair and unjust TO support the religion
OF any particular class and it upon this principle that
Mr. BRADBURY The honorable senator from Lou
sana, [Mr SouLE.] in the remarks he last submitted.
based the claim upon the ground that it remis-
sion OF duties upon donation. The ground upon which
the bill was originally advocated BY the honorable sen;
alor from Maryland, lMr PRATT,1 who takes deep
interest in the subject, was that the articles imported
were for benevolent purposes, and that they were
sion has turned upon The ground that we ought 10
nit the duties, because the articles imported designed
for the use OF religious community, and for benevo-
lent purpose. Such the course OF the remarks OF
the honorable senator from Louisiana, when he first ad
dressed the Senate, as i understood him.
Now, il said that discrimination is made by remit
ting the duties this favor OF this denomination
will suppose there is another denomination that has need
OF similar articles, and that chooses domes
tic industry about the protection Of which sometimes
hear great deal said, and suppose they purchased the
articles the cost which these would come TO il
imported without the exemption OF duty; would not that
denomination, then, have claim TO before Con-
gress, and ask Tor Donation saying, " You remlted
the duties upon certain articles because they to be
used for a religious purpose similar articles OF
1 domestic
addition OF the duties and we ask you therefore, to re-
fund the duties 10 us I" Would not the demand be on
| the same principle, and be correct one
II the application made TO remit the duties account
OF the to be made OF the articles, being imported
donation by denomination, then every other demon
ination would have right to and make application
Tor money from the public treasury.
IL is said that the amount in this case is small. in
fer from that circumstance that the bill rather
with view OF settling the principle because any gentle
man would cheerluy take this amount from his pocket
and pay the duties, he at all interested in the well
fare OF the society and hence infer that this bill is in
tended to settle the principle whether, in OF this
kind, we will change the general law in consequences of
the 10 which these articles to be applied not
think that in this il is donation; but | cannot
consistently vote for IT, although think in this the
bill is strong as can be IN any case. And as the
discussion has assumed such aspect as 10 place IL be-
yond power regard the bill remission oil duties
upon donation, | shall feel constrained to vote
against IT.
gumen OF this question; but, intend to vote for the
passage of the bill, perhaps ought 10 give two
that Congress has moi the constitutional power TO inter-
pose II that be true, OF ought to vote against
the passage of this bill II is alleged general law,
that imporatons OF this kind into the country
laid. Permit TO say that il is Immaeria whether
they are imported by church by individual The
principle is precisely the Have RENTED
duties upon mportations made for Individuals Ofien-
how many times, cannot tell you; but the instances
innumerable Have not RENTED duties upon railroad
iron imported into the couniry Nobody denies it Have
not changed the general law by extending the time
for the payment OF duties required TO be paid in cash
Certainly have Have permitted the colleges
taxaon and then RENTED the duties upon them Have
we permitted books to be imported into this country
under the general law subectng them TO taxation, and
then RENTED the duties upon them
But gentlemen say that all that had no connexion with
religion II you remit duty upon article imported
into this country by who is religious, or by
bnaon of persons protesting 10 be religious, thereby
becomes unconstitutional act because ntereres and
does something for the establishment Of religion trust
that will be sustained by nobody upon this floor
after mature examination II it be, Mr. President let
me refer you three directly in point--one
in louisiana another in Kentucky, and another in the
State of New York. | find that, as early the year
1916, Bibles for certain churches, subject to duty had
the duties remitted Then sr on the 20h OF May, fs25,
wAs passed for the relief OF Benedict Joseph foge
Bishop OF Bardslown, in the State OF Kentucky for du-
ties due and payable certain vesIinens, iutn-
ture and paintings imported into The United Sa,es ior
the OF the church which ne presided, ana
entered at the house 10 the city of New York
Was that unconstitutional In that day o. excitement
upon nuhcaiion and strict construction, and when
some of The brightest lights IN the country were upon
this hoor did any rise here and call Tor the strict
of the constitution and deny the exercise OF