The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-05-10
For the Union,
REFUyDIYG DUTIES ON GOODS.

For the Union.
aa.s REFUNDING DUTIES ON GOODS
When congressman appear to be oblivous plain truths
in politics it may not be entirely improper for their con-
stuens to tender them reminder Such tender ia the
due to honorable members when it is remembered
how exposed they to the bewlderng influences of
anoise and confusion" and Of inermnabe lobbying,
well to the ntoxcatons of fatery the hand and
party drill on the other.
proposition is now before the House to refund the i'm
port duties collected certain goods which have since
been destroyed by fire. trust that obedient to
the hehess OF duty responsive TO the petitions of char
y, any others; but query is this of either
duty charity If the applicants be truly objects of
charity made by the fires in question: feel deeply for
henl and would fain give my individual mite towards
their relief but the federal government is not should
not be- encouragement oppose the bill now under
consideration. Ma
This BILL it stands proposes to gipe away flor
that's the word) uncQpputed millions of the common
fund.- But the depletion, if once begun, cannot will not,
should not stop with the ument of the provisions of this
particular bill writer from th. cityone usually we'll
informed-says:
"The bill does embrace all the cases which would
within its principles and therefore, it is presumed
that the parties have in view another act follow the pas
sage of this" ....
reasonable and just presumption indeed for il would
not do to buf" Congress The game is neither to "buf
get Congress to see0 them and then to Ego better" ad inf
nitum II Congress to-day mpcae itself in precedent by
refunding John Smith the duties goods destroyed yes
terday by fire. it should itdeeine the day
after tomorrow refund Tom Jones the duties collected
on goods destroyed tomorrow
The writer already quoted says here is general
the principles of the bill just and equitable" If the
claim of John Smith is just and equitable" so will be
that Of Tom Jones. The claim Of the latter standing
the basis Of the former Congress cannot after having salts
fed the one repudiate the other without itself failing TO
be ust and equitable" Thus not only untold millions
be squandered the past but still larger recamatons
cntailed against the future
The writer speaking Of other minor objections
the part of honorable members this BILL says "But the
fatal objection is general impression which prevails in the
House that the original and bona d claimants not the
parties concerned" Why this impression, IL we'll
founded should be fatal objection any objection, TO
the proposition IT, alleged "the princs Of the bill7
are by general assent held TO be Gust and equitable Is
more than my logic my ethics account FOR.
Qui fact per alum dct per and what's assignee
but attorney IL these claims be Just and equitable
they much due legitimate assgnees as they could
be due the assgnors If A. having just and equ
table claim against b. assigns to c. should and must
pay to O. Congress If itself Just and equitable has
more right either legal moral decline recognising
assignee than has the individual d. Then, IT, is the
impression these claims fallen into the hands of
ointstock company Of speculstor the only effect which
these Impressions" which the fact-if fact Il be-
ought TO have upon honest investigation should be TO still
confirm the fact that they neither JUST
equitable" IT. by any idches tort of government the
goods lost these claims would be truly just and
equibbler but since they lost and govern
ment nsuraucer the claims but mendicant nvo-
cations OF federal bountypetitons of greed for aims
Goods in store the representatives Of all the moneys
which the has expended TO get them there All Of
these moneys expended, are in fact purchase-moneys
The manufacturer Of whom he bought them had in theory
no other title to them than that OF possession and lien
upon them for what the material and their get
ting up had cost him. The shipper and the drayman
bad had the title TO them Of possession and a lien
upon them for transportation Government had had The
title to them Of possession and of lien upon them
for services resdered work done; which services or
work the protection from capture sea- and robbery
ashore furnished them by is police and that from wreck
furnished BY its beacons buoys boats brcakwater har
bors, and cutters. a.
Thus 1t is clear that the title had passed from the manu-
eturer to the last owner not direct but incidentally
through the shipmaster the drayman and the govern
ment These intermediate persons had had good title
to the goods before vested in the last ever had
the manufacturer Then any moneys paid these three
persons by the importer virtually as much apur-
chasemoneys those Paid by him 10 the manufac
tnrer He then had purchased the goods not from the
manufacturer alone but from the shipper and the drny
man yet from these three parties only bat from
fourth party-the government
Now If the goods be burnt upon The hands of the inn
porting purchaser and claim be preferred against one Of
the four vendors for bis share of the pross purchase
moneys why should like demand be made of each of
the other he1 The latter would be no less lust and
equitable than the former No honorable member wond
far stutfy himself TO intmaieeven In the n
vaey Of his family circehat such claim upou the man
ufacturer the shipmaster the carmau aiust and
equitable yet daily hear them predica,ng this Of
that now made upon the goyernment--rceratng II in
halls whose pressechoos reyerberae their qualification TO
a wondering world
But grant them that these claims such It's said
general assent allows them to be Then what fclows2
This principle established and having enured the
advantage Of individual members Of class Of sufferers
u cannot be otherwise than Gust and equitable that
only should other members Of the class but that all
individuals Of ether though similar classes Of unforu
mates should, as well they reap likewise its benefits
Thus must government IL consistent and impartial be-
come universal nsurancer or an abene6cep aluoner
II then, In either capacity she is to protect from loss
those whose goods destroyed while yet Gin the original
packages why should she not protect those whose lost
property had left said packages2
II will hardly be claimed for "the original packagesp
that they endowed with any sancty virtue or value
not possessed by the goods themselves when opened and