The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-12-23
rho Debate ON tho Bill to take the
Tax of Cotton.
In the Senate, Friday

Mr.. SHERMAN called up the unfnish sd
rosineSs-the bill to repeal the cotton tax.
lie said the first tex on cotton was but one
ncr cent. Of the value. Nearly all indus
rial products had been partially relieved,
while here was a tax of twenty five per
cent. on the product of the richest form Of
erricultural products.
Nr. CONFESS said he would vote with
,he Senator to reduce the tax proportion
atcIy with others now, and in future to
throw it of, altogether when other burdens
could I've removed.
Mr.. SHERMAN continued his argument
fo- the Justice Of the repeal. The House
had paSscd the bill without debate, rccog-
r;zinr its necessity, in view Of the fact that
cnough wonid not be left to the producer,
after paving the tax, to provide the neces-
sarieS of life.
Mr.. SHERMAN earnestly opposed the
notion tC postpone, saying it involved q
noStponemcnt Of the bill until the whole
question OF revenue should be decided,
While il was indispensable to the laborer
s2d planter to know Immediately the tax
70 be paid on next years crop. More than
oac-hair Of the cotton crop, perhaps, was
pIcigcd to the laborer. They were really
rartncrs but the planter was obliged in
the mean lime to support the labOrer. No
one denied that the tax was onerous, alb
s5rbing one bale Of cotton out Of four
ore-foIrth of the product-one- fourth of
his corn dodgers "a tax that could not
br endured, and one that was laid on no
other product. 1t was not q question Of
po.iticS. Those people were not repre-
,cn,ed here, and he spoke as much in the
interest of loyal black men as of rebels.
Political feeling, therefore, should be kept
on, Of the discussion. The already de-
o,orable condition Of poverty, broken in
Spirit as they were, should appeal to sena-
tors not 10 heap Goals Of fire on their heads.
He took up and replied to the arguments
that other kinds Of products bore an equal
burden, as alleged by Mr.. STEWART, Mr..
FERRY, and others, and asked what other
bore such a tax.
Mr.. FERRY. The sale Of manufactured
goods.
Mr.. SHERMAN. How much is that?
Mr.. FERRY. Five per cent. on sales.
Mr.. SHERMAN. That is undoubtedly
paid By the consumer.
Mr.. FERRY explained that his argument
bad been that the tax on his constituents
should be removed to some extent. He
thought all interests should be partially re-
ieved, not cotton alone.
Mr.. SHERMAN continued, contcnding
4 hat the internal revenue tax had been
r4.tially removed from manufactured
Goods, and urging the immediate passage
o. the bill.
Mr.. STEWART briefly replied to Mr..
SnERMAN's remarks in regard to mining in
terestS.
Mr.. CORBETT followed, quoting stats
ties in support of the bill.
Mr.. MORRILL,, of Vermont, denied that
the tax would work oppression. At all
events, to postpone the bill until February
or March, when the report Of the Revenue
Commissioner came in, was not oppressive.
Why should not the exports of the South
be doubled he asked, arguing that such
would be the result Of the continuation OF
the tax.
Mr.. GRIMES gave the reasons why he
should vote against the pOStponement,
in order 10 vote for the suspension Of the
tax.
Mr.. SPRAGUE spoke at some length in
favor Of the repeal, saying that he was
bound again TO express the alarm he felt
in regard to the commercial interests Of
the country, especially Of the North. The
fact that English labor had made India
cotton equal to the best Sea Island was
the true reason Of the fall in price. He
denied that the country was richer now
than before the war; it was poorer to the
extent of the $1,000, 100000 spent during
the war. If the amount produced during
the war were deducted from this, they
should add TO it what Sl,5O0,OO0 had de-
stroyed.
Mr.. DRAKE contended that while, from
the impoverished condition Of the South.
the tax should be suspended, cotton should
still be made to bear a portion of the
COuntry's burdens. That the manufac-
turers Of the North, enriched by the war,
were now burdened somewhat, did not
Justify the entire removal Of those bur-
lyns. But he urged strongly that help
Ing hand should be held out to the South,
10 lift it up TO comparative prosperity. Ii
was the dictate Of wisdom to suspend the
, tax now--not TO keep them in suspense
the production of cotton requiring COM
mencement st the beginning OF the year
lie would oppose the postponement.
Mr.. THAYER was surprised to hear
from the Senator the same argument thai
lad been used at the South-that congress
sional legislation was dictated by malice
Mr.. DRAKE denied that bis words coulc
bear such an implication.
Mr.. THAYER. understood the Sena
tor to say that he would not be actuatec
by malice. What is the inference! Thai
il We do not repeal it, we are actuated by
malice.
Mr.. DRAKE. I intended none such.
Mr.. THAYER would not misrepresent
the Senator, but would take his explana
ton. He went on to say that the Soutl
had shown no contrite spirit, but dlspo
Sit0u TO abuse Congress, and did not really
deserve any special favor.
Mr.. NYE asked the chairman OF the
committee Mr.. SHERMAN if the INTENTION
was not to place on Northern industry the
burden taken from the South.
Mr.. SHERMAN referred him to the
report Of the committee.
Mr. NYE accepted the reply as con
lcssion. He referred to the various cries
Of poverty from the woollen interests, the
iron interests, and the mining interests
which last he said was true. 81 endorse
it," [Laughter.l He especially wanted to
know whether the Committee on Finance
had arranged to supply this deficiency
The South had given no evidence OF thank
fitness for the magnanimity of Congress
but the contrary. To ask the soldiers who
lad done SO much for the nation to bear
this additional burden from the South was
loo much. In the name Of humanity, he
objected. If the tax was too onerous