Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-02-21
REBUILDING OF COTTON TAX.
Speech 0f'Hen. J. M. Bright, OF Ten
nessee, i'm the House OF Represents
tives, Feb. III. 1873,

Speech 0f'Hen. J. N. Bright, Of Fem
nessee, i'm the House of Representa-.
ttves, Feb. III, Isz3,
On the bill III. r. No. 390l) to refund certain
taxes collected by the United States on raw
cotton during the years 1868, 1854, 1865, 1860,
1861, and 1868, and to create a perpetual COM
mon-schocl fund, and for other purposes.
CONTINUED FROM YESTERDAY
Inow return to the original trail Of the
cotton tax, and can follow it into the
Treasury vaults of the United States-all
the tracks going in, none coming out. All
the executive, legislative, and commercial
departments in the cotton States unite in
earnest but respectful appeal to Congress to
restore the tax to the legitimate owners.
And let Congress give it back-in justice,
in magns nimisy, in fraternity, give it back
and, like smoking offering on the altar OF
our common country, it will Gil the land
with the sweet odor of the deed.
Those who did not see, nor feel, nor
know, can little imagine the blightlng curse
of the cotton tax on q peeled, impoverished
and desolated country. A continuance OF
it three years longer would have compelled
q general exodus of all the laborers from
the cotton fields.
Little did Commissioner Wells think that
the cotton tax was the nightmare which
paralyzed Southern industry when he
penned that significant paragraph In his re-
port Of 1869, page s:
''The first efforts of the people in the South to
improve their condition were also in the highest
degree discouraging. During the years 1866 and
and 1867 the crop OF both cotton and grain were
to very great extent failures. The freedmen
were not disposed TO work for hire, demanded
excessive wages, and after accepting them, too
often rendered aprvinas- The GENERAL re-
suit of all attempts to revive production seemed,
therefore, up to 1858 to leave freedmen and
planter in a condition more destitute and dis
couraged even than at the close Of the war. But
the year 1859
the year the tax was taken off,
"the third year of free-labor experiment, at last
brought an improvement"
Nav mark, the industrial failure of 1856
and 1867 is not laid to the parsimony of the
season, but ii is laid at the door of the
freedmen. But, marvellous coincidence, no
sooner is the cotton tax removed than the
desolated section became buoyant and
prosperous! cannot undertake to answer
all the specious arguments which have been
urged against restoring the tax. The mere
fact that there was large number Of arti-
cles taxed under the uniformity rule and
were reimbursed in the general consump-
ton of the country, and may have been
properly taxed, is no evidence that the cot
ton.tax was constitutional. Because the
Government may have needed money fur
nished no reason to violate the Constitu-
ton to get it. Because cotton cannot be
taxed under the uniformity rule is no rea-
son why it and all other farm productions
cannot be reached by tax on land, as be-
fore shown. Because cotton may have
borne high price in consequence of scare
ity produced by its destruction is no reason
why the government should confscate the
remainder by taxrtion.
THE COTTON TAX AN EXPORT TAX.
pass now to my last proposition, and
l shall endeavor to show that the cotton
tax is obnoxious to the export provision of
the Constitution. "No tax or duty shall
be laid on articles exported from any
State" This provision is general, and, as
l am persuaded, is intended TO limit the
powers both of the Federal and State Gov
ernments. No subject is more intensely vi
tai to American industries than freedom of
exports. The American colonies were
taught disastrous lessons by the British nav
igaLion act which required American pro-
auctions to be first shipped to Great Britain
before they could be exported 10 other
countries.
Mr.. Bancroft says:
american independence, like the great rivers
OF the country, had many sources; but the head
spring, which colored all the stream, was the
navigation act"
As TO the design and policy of the pro-
vision Mr.. Rawle says:
at has been repeatedly observed that the lead
ing principle Of the whole Constitution is uni
formity in respect to the several States far as
it can be ascertained. The natural or artificial
products of States are different to lay a gen
eral duty on the exports of rice, or cotton, or
tobacco, would only affect the Southern States;
on flour or grain, principally the central States;
and on the domestic manufactures would oper-
ate chiefly on the Northern and Eastern States
engaged in them. Yet without this restriction
perhaps, it might be DONE" ION Constitution,
115-116.)
Justice Story says:
"The obvious object of these provisions is to
prevent any possibility of applying the power to
lay taxes, or regulate commerce, injurously to
the interest Of any one State, SO as to favor or
aid another. If Congress were allowed to lay a
duty on exports from any one State it might un-
reasonably injure, or even destroy, the staple
productions or common articles of that State
The inequality of such a tax would be extreme
In some Of the States the whole of their means
great portion is derived from other sources; from
external fisheries; from freight; and from the
profits of commerce in its largest extent The
burden OF such tax would, of course, be I'M
wholly taken away to interfere with the subject
OF exports" (Oonst. S. 1011.)
Again he says:
'The prohibition extends not only to exports
but to the exporter" rs. 1922
Again he says:
eff there is wisdom and sound policy in res
training the United States from exercising the
power of taxation unequally in the States there
is at least equal wisdom and policy in restrain
ing the States themselves from exercising the
same power injuriously to each other" Is. 20l3;
see also Sergeant Const., 346, Curtis Hist. Const
Halls Law Jour, 255.)
If the prohibition is not absolute on the
Federal Government as to the power to
levy export duties between the States, as
well as export duties TO foreign States,
then, surely the Constitution has failed in
giving effect to its pleading principle, uni
formity in respect to the several States"
Under such construction the seaboard
States might send out all their productions
free to foreign countries, while the interior
States, 10 addition to large freight charges
on their productions, might havse tn EN-
charged with an interstate duty, and, with
such cumulative distractions, the Western
States might truly find it more profitable
''to burn their grain for fuel' than to send
it to market. On the contrary, those saIu-
tary provisions were intended to secure free
vent to our commerce, internal and exter-
nal. Under this exemption from taxation
our internal commerce, embracing the
coasting trade, intercommunication by
lakes, bays, rivers, creeks, canals and rail-
roads, exceeding our foreign tonnage by
one thousand per cent, has grown to a
magnitude and grandeur unsurpassed by
the internal trade of any other country on
the globe.
The Constitution intended to sweep, as
with bosom, all the channels of internal
commerce clean of all obstructive taxation,
except "inspecsion fees" and quarantine
regulations. And not only 50, but to pro-
vide for the prophetic redundanee of the
great internal valley of the continent, head
ing in the lakes, and encompassed with the
Allegheny and Rocky mountains, the one
kindling with the first dawn of the morn
ing, the other illumined by the dying splen-
doris Of the evening, our Government.
strained the Constitution to verge Gas
charged at the time) and lavished its mil
lions in the purchase of louisiana, that the
export laws of no foreign Government
should be thrust like mighty "bung" into
the mouth of the Mississippi, to prevent
the free egress of our commerc3 to the
Hax,oJ ol:lro H. oroa@ oo,,,,~,o-