Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1872-03-16
BY TELEGRAPH
TO TIE
Daily Kennebec Journal.
Forty.Second Congress Second Session
WASHINGTON, 10.

w AohlNNIONt 40.
House.
The Central Pacific Railroad bill came up
for discussion.
After debate which was closed by Mr..
Stevenson of Ohio, denouncing the bill as a
speculation, the first vote taken was on mo-
ton Of Mr.. Eldridge to strike from the amend
ment reported by the committee, the sentence
forbidding the construction that the act grant
ed any lands in lieu Of which other lands
might be selected by the Northern Pacific
Railroad Company, or as granting any local
lands.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr.. Kellingers amendment requiring the
rails used on the road to be of American
manufacture, was rejected-52 to 1l2.
The next vote was on the substitute offered
by Mr.. Ketchum, providing that all lands
granted by Congress in 1856 and 1864 for the
construction of the st. Croix and Lake Su-
perior Railroad, such grants having expired
by limitation are declared forfeited to the
United States, and shall henceforth be SUBJ
Ject to the homestead entry and settlement
under the homestead act of the goth of MAY
1872. And that no part of such lands shall
be selected by or inure to the benefit of any
railroad company under any assumed grant
from the United States, and that no land en-
braced in the grant to the St. Croix Railroad
Company shall in case revert to the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company and repe aling all
acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this
provision. The last clause about the North
ern Pacific was added to the substitute on
motion of Mr.. Banks. The substitute was
then adopted-94 to 81.
The bill thus amended was passed, and the
title change on motion of Mr.. Ketchum to
read can act to declare forfeited to the United
States certain lands granted the State of
Wisconsin, &c" and to reserve the same un-
der the homestead act to actual settlers.
Mr.. Eldridge suggested that the correct
title would be "to grant these lands to the
Northern Pacific Railroad"
The House then adjourned.
The session tomorrow will be for debate
only.
Mr.. Sherman in opening the debate said ::
1t will perhaps be most agreeable to the Sem
ate that l should state the facts as to our f.
nancial condition that enable US now for the
sixth time since the close of the war, to large
ly reduce the taxes imposed upon the people
Of the United States, and will also state the
general principles upon which the reduction
of taxes proposed are based.
The taxes already repealed yielded $685.
1000, and our revenues still largely ex-
coed our expenditures. We are justified by
several causes in continuing the repeal of
taxes. The taxes that remain yield largely
more than the same taxes in former years,
and more than was estimated by the most
sauguine persons. The production of the
country has largely increased and industry
in almost every department has been actively
employed. The consumption of our people
w hiCh uOdor avatnrn Of taYatioD ia chiefly
the basis of taxation. has by the prosperity of
our industries been largely increased; at the
same time our national expenditures are
diminishing and our financial condition i'm
proving in every particular. We are slowly
but surely without contraction or expansion
by the increasing rises in our paper money
approaching the specie standard. The inter-
est of our debt is largely diminishing by the
payment of the public debt and reduction of
the rate of interest on that which remains.
All these favorable circumstances enable us
to approach further reduction of taxes with
more system and Information than formerly,
and trust to make the reduction in such a
way as to yield the largest possible relief to
our people. The questions are how much
and what taxes ought to be repealed2 Let
me first state how the subject now comes be-
fore US. On the 18th of March, 1871, the
House of Representatives passed three bills
to repeal the duty on coal, salt, tea and coffee.
The duties thus proposed for repeal yielded
last year $2l ,0OO,00 The committee of
finance was of the opinion that it was not
wise to consider these bills except in connec-
ton with the whole subject of revenue reduc-
ton. On the 18th of April, 1871, the Senate
passed the following:
"Resolved, That the committee of finance
are hereby instructed during the recess, to
carefully examine the existing system of tax
alton of the United States, with a view to
propose such amendments to the bill of the
House repeating certain taxes now pending
in the Senate, as will simply revise and re-
duce both internal taxes and the duties on
imported goods now in force, and SO that the
aggregate of such taxes shall not exceed the
sums required to execute the laws relating to
the public debt, and to pay the concurrent
expenses of the government, administered
with the strictest economy, and so that such
taxes may be distributed as to place the least
possible burden on the people"
In obedience to this instruction the COM
mittee during the recess did examine in de-
tail the different taxes imposed by the laws,
and agreed upon amendments to both the
tariff and internal revenue laws, but in re-
porting to the Senate our action, we had to
consider the power of the Senate over rev.
enue Dllls. Inc power OF the TWO houses
over revenue bills is regulated by article one,
section seven, clause one of the Constitution
of the United States, as follows: ''All bills
for raising revenue shall originate in the
House of Representatives, but the Senate
may propose or concur with amendments as
on other bills"
This provision has often been the subject
of controversy between the two Houses. We
had three bills of the House with unquestioned
power to proposed amendments to either of
them. 1t was clear that if the House pro-
posed to repeal or modify certain taxes the
Senate could propose instead to repeal or
modify other taxes, but as all the taxes pro-
posed for repeal by the House were custom
duties the question arose whether we could
as the amendments propose repeal internal
taxes? The Parliamentary law as well prac-
tice heretofore settled this question in the
affirmative, the subjects are germaine to each
other. They are both bills for raising the
revenue. The distinction is only as to sub
jects and mode Of taxation; the House has
itself repeatedly connected the two in one
bill and notably SO in the act passed two
years ago. The modification Of one compels
the modification Of the other. The logic of