The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-12-05

)EO n M DEN =, lCOI.-l MI
diminished forty per cent He opposed the substitute
offered by Mr.. Brooks making the repeal OF the nx APP
Ply 20 ne crop 90 inc INA.
under IT,
Mr. KsLLxr spoke in favor OF the bin as reported,
and declared that u he thought the substitute ~ero
practicable he would give IL mis- cheerful support
Mr. ARCHER. tdem.j Of Nd, advocated the substitute
declaring that not more than ons-ih OF the presen.
crop has passed from the hands Of the producr al All
event he commended that the cotton now IN Inc nanos
OF the growers should be exempted
Mr. MAYNARD, Tep) Of Tenn, opposed the substitute
which, he said was merely aqucstion between the
ury ON the one hand and cotton spectators ana ncn
growers ou the other As 70 the original bill hs remarks
did not show him very clearly 10 be on either one sue "
the other
the Clerk circular oxtensyey circulated in the South
by Herschal v. Johnson Co., Offering 10 recover ~
the Court Of Claims all taxes that have been Or sna os
paid on cotton in consideration OF being eioWeo 70 To-
tain one-haf the amount recovered.
Mr. BAKER, lrspl Of H., favored the original bill and
for the benefit Of the small growers Of cotton.
Mr. CovoDE (repl Of Pa. gave notice OF On amend
ment to reduce the tax on cotton TO one cent per pound
Of the tax holding that did not operate premium
to Indian OF Egyptian cotton The American cotton he
held, able to bear from three To hve cents per
pound tax Half OF i, went abroad and this tax MADE
foreign nations contrbuts TO the payment Of the ma
tional debt The question should be held In allowance
how the deficit OF $50 600 600 that would result from
the passage OF the bill was 10 DO made good
Mr.. MUM, (rep.l OF Tenn gave notice OF an amend
the substitute by making the repeal OF the tar
apply TO all cotton on tho farms whore grown, ana
which is the property OF the producer the time OF
the passage OF the act He spoke IN support Of thai
Nj. BHoxwnr, yvp) Of III, opposed the Substitute:
one In . hundred held his cotton to-day without its
being subject such control ~ factors merchants as
TO take out OF his hands He doubted one-tentn OF
the covon crop Of this year was now in the hands Of
producsra Ne
any danger Of She House voting for the substitute
as had been 90 clearly shown that that would ssure 90
the beoe6t or specuaaos and not Of produccra was
with reluctance that he yielded 70 the removal OF the lax
ALL but he did because II connued, the American
cotton would be driven from the market OF Europe.
Even TAX Of oaecens per pound would interfere with
MT NnIss, yrep Of Pa. gave notice Of motion 70
recommt the h in order that the question may be n
corporated . regular BILL he did not know any
product that could bear tax better than cotton Tho
next movement would be 70 exemps nom taxasonsukar
Mr. PiIr, (rsp) q No. gave notice OF an amsAdmsnt
TO the original bill by removing the tar from all raw
be the property ana the possession Of the producer
thereof. eMAa
Nj. LAwRzscR trsp) Of Ohio. moved TO recommH the
BILL with instructions report back additional
that the Court Of Claims shall not have
tam jurisdiction Of any claim 70 recover back any tax
paid or that may be paid on cotton.
Nh. BURR tdem.) OF ILL.,. spoke favor Of the suhst-
tute, and argued against the constitutonay OF the
thai Congress would turn lis attention TO q
peace and repeal the military measures OF last session II
would savs from one to two hundred millions year
Mr.. MARSHALL, dem Of Ill., had always regarded the
tax palpable violation Of the constitution
and OF every principle Of sound policy The should
not emily be repealed far Affects future crops but
should take effect instantly. AZ 10 the argument that
thas would benefit SPECTATORS suggested that every
Mr. KHRa, dem, Of Ind, had originally opposed the
tar on cotton and was now In favor Of Its repeal II was
wrong and unjust had no warrant IN the constitution
and should DO repealed He in favor Of its
dnional repeal without reference 70 any collateral
issues In other words II too soon for Con.
to take the back track on any and
Mr. scHxsck lrep) Of Ohio. to close tho debats
and moved the previous question on the amendment
He would not move thu previous question on the bill
because he wished to give his colleague r. Lawrence
| An opportunity Of Offering bis amendment
The motion 10 recommt was Withdrawn, and the pre-
vous question was seconded en- The pending amend
ment
tional argument The tax, he admitted, was sxeep
ona and departure from the rule Of the govern
sectional TAX, then, II it were coal would be
also sectional tax. He did not base his bill any
such arguments. but simply on the ground Of expedi-
and stated thai from S. to S. 600 Of tar had
| been already paid on tho years crop.
IL was not fact that had boon undsrssood in tine
South since November that the tax would be removed
| and therefore little cotton had been sold srcef
Mr. scHEscK replied in the negative and stated that
generally understood and believed that the cotton
had gone forward He argued that substitute
be benefit TO tho aborer, whose interest ended with
the gathering Of the CROP Il might operate benehciay
IN toe cases o. rev large ownsrs VINO combined the
ers, including freedmen, had been compelled TO sell
early II, therefore, tho repeal Of the tax applied
the present CROP the consequence would be relieve
neither tho laborer the small necessitous grower
but the merchant and broker He could mot vote for
rsfunding the already paid on this years. cotton
He becs Cd that 70 be and impraccab and
that instead Of It: snuring % the benefit Of those who
tax would be bought up By sharks He stated that IL
| would be one OF the attempts Of Congress At this
son and In which he would coincide, TO relieve
facturers OF great number OF small taxes which were
vexaous and annoying, and many Of which did not
and Means would perhaps recommend that the whole IN
,ernai should be collected from eight or
ten articles embracing spirits tobacco censes stamps
Mr. Brooks tdsIn.) Of N Y. spoke in support Of his
substitute, showing that had Retrospective effect
and would not take Of Treasury dollar Of the
tax already paid. He contendea that nothing more
destructive 10 The commercial interests Of the North
than the levy Of SIS 0000 600 Tar cotton. He read
statistics exports cotton from Bombay
up from S02 S bales in 1864 TOO bales
in 1867 and this be ascribsd % the premium which the
foreign countries Re erng TO the circular which Mr.
WINDOW had up had read and 10 insiauasions
that those who were In favor OF his substitute we've in
the OF speculaors sharpers shysers he said
that that gentleman from his position the head Of
| the COMMITTEES on Indian Affairs may have become
familiar with rascaiies bat himself no would say
"fioni SOFT que mai psne" Nobody had Q right 20
make sosA s.Ss. him wa The
constituents alone and not for cotton planters Of the
South, bat Tor the country q large
Mr. HARDING, lrepl OF H., opposed the bill. He
gued tho attempts % grow cotton 10 India had
proved aiures and that the prsss low price OF cotton
not owing TO the tax but 20 tbs TACT that owing
the high prices vi ch prevailed during the war the
markets were glutisd He also argued thai II this bill
passed Of the present crop would be
market but would be kept and commingied with tho
crop OF next year. 90 - 70 save the ax Of two and half
cents per pound
Mr. Romssox. dem Of N. r., asked Mr.. sehspck for
| . minutes time
Mr. scHRScK consented 70 allow him one minute, with
the stipulation that he would not say word about the
.grsen island" aughtcrl, but emily about the cotton
L tar.
NJ RoBSsoS accepted the condition, with the remark
that he serry that the gentleman mr. Schenck,
wanted exclude the higher subject He would, how
ever. conbne himself 20 the lower one. He merely
say that there would have been no need OF
this bill to-day, " the statesmen the republican sido
| Of the house had only sustained proposition 70 the
effect which he had brought forward In the House
1 on the lstn Of July last