The national Republican., 1867-12-04

sidered at once, and speeches upon IT were lin
lied TO ten minutes each.
Mr. Farnsworth asked II an amendment to re-
peal the sugar tax would be germane to the sub
Mr.. sehenck said that the tax would be con-
sidered in committee at the proper time.
In discussing the matter, Mr.. Schenck said the
committee had had various propositions sub
mitted TO them, one OF which was TO relieve the
people by refunding the tax already paid, but II
was deemed best to make the relief perspective,
in view OF the fact that the rcfunding Of the tax
might open the door to great frauds. MT
Schenck gave at length the reasons that had
actuated the committee in making the tax per-
spective, and eontended thatit could do no injury
to any one.
spects, with Mr.. Schenck, and thought now was
the proper time to afford relief. He was OPP
posed to the perspective relief He believed that
now was the accepted time and the day, and he,
therefore, offered, as a substitute for the bill
bill to repeal the tax of2, per cent on and after
the passage of the act. The substitute also de-
ciares that no drawback should be allowed on
American cotton manufactures, Mr.. Brooks
read letters SC, showing the necessity of imme-
niared the House to repeal the tax at once In
order to extend this much needed relief to so
large a number Of our population.
Mr. SUrS&s nd PtRc @on 1a'
suits would follow. He agreed that the removal
of the tax on wool had Iroyen, disastrous m to the
the cotton interest. The tax of AZ per cent. was
protection to the country. Another argument
used that thls WAS removing n DuTutn from
the rebelious states to place It on the people OF
the loyal States. He thought the tax should be
retained.
and said the object should be TO relieve the poor
man and producer, and not benefit the speculator.
He did not think the immediate repeal would
benefit the producer, while the lifting of the tax
from the next crop would be an advantage. The
removal OF the tax now would benefit the specu-
the purchaser, and not in the hands OF the pro-
ducer. "
recently he fell in with some India cotton mer-
chants, and who cordially admitted that they
would establish the cotton cultivation In India
on firm basis II the United States kept collect
Ing the tax on cotton and this was the hope of
All these India merchants that the tax might be
retained. He regretted to see that the Pennsyl-
yania delegation seemed to put The tax against
as he did upon all products of agriculture, and
advocated the repeal OF all such taxes.
Mr. Barnes, of N. Y, said all the business cor
porations OF the country had petitioncd for the
rcpeal Of this Ubiquitous tax, and II was now time
that Congress should do something In the mat
taxed, its production would have been stimulated
and the country would have reaped advan'
tages a dozen-fcid over The principle Of re- re-
taIning the tax was admitted to be wrong by
most OF the members OF the House.
Mr. Mullins, OF Tenn, contendcd that II thl,
bill was passed the laooring man would be inJnteS
| and he then proceeded to argue in favor OF th'
| retention of the tax as a measure OF protection.
IA. N Hal
| II proposed to strike one fifteenth of the who'll
| revenue Of the country off without making pro
vision for the gap thus made. Remove the tax
| and the manufactures will be yet more depressed
| than they arc at present. Strike of the cottol
tax and II is doubtful whether the south VII
have resources enough to pay for the COLLECTION
of the internal tax there, and It's repeal VIII nav
| a disastrous effect.
Mr. Garfeld, OF Ohio, said 1t was never con
ePiitt move Il at the earliest opportunity, as it wa
designed as a temporary measure to help us In
great emergency, and on the general ground
Justice he was in favor of removing the tax.
| MIR Butler, OF Mass, said this tax gave us
revenue of 90, 900, 900, and he wanted TO Know o.
what other article this amount must be raised !
| to raise that amount, and he maintained agai
that the tax was only exceptional, and that tn
time for its removal had now arrived. The i'm
position of the tax was ruinous, and was giyin
other nations an advantage over us, and he wa
therefore in favor of the repeal, for unless TN
growing country. He hoped, however, that MI
Schenck,s bill would pass, and that the subst
tute OF Mr.. Brooks would not be agreed to. I
law to repeal the tax at once would open IN
door for claims for taxes already paid, and whic
claims would certainly come up here. Cotto
passsre Of an Immediate bill for repeal.
Mr. Niblack, of Indiana, doubted whether tn
tax could be repealed at once, unless provisio
was made to refund the amount paid on thi
Mr.. Allison, Of Iowa, said the only question
here was as to the time OF the remoyal oi IN
tax, He was not only surprised nt the gentle
man from New York tMr. Brooksl taking tn
poaition he did, because his constituents wer
largely Interested in the immediate repeal. l
was for the interest Of the country that the ta
be repealed, as he was satisfied that cotto
| could not be successfully grown here II this ia
remained. 1t was because the country d.
manded 1t that he favored the repeal OF the tn
without regard to other branches of industry. II
was in favor OF taking the tax of OF otht
| branches Of industry as soon as II could be don,
| but the cotton interest demanded the relief. ii
was In favor OF the perspective removal, how
ever.
Mr.. Pile, of Mo-, said the only question was a
to the time of removal, and II the House was sa
ish ed that the grower would be benefited, the
the tax should bc removed at oncei but II thl
was not the case, then the repeal should be mad
perspective.
Pending further consideration, the House,
| 4 O'Clock, adjourned until tomorrow.