The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-05-26

52!2-Wm. j. Davis v. II. L. Davis, Re |
versed only for purpose Of Diminishing |
bill without prejudice.
Letter From Hon. C. E. Hooker.
JACKSON, MISS, May 2lst, 1886.
EDITOR CLARION:
In reply to letter published in THE
CLARIoN of 10Th inst, and the comments
of that journal thereon, have to say that
my speech in Port Gibson, referred to in
said letter, was made in the presence of a
large audience of ladies and gentlemen
that there is not man, woman or child in
all that audience, who will say that there
was the slightest reference or allusion TO
Major Barksdale of a personal character.
1t had been industriously circulated in
various paris Of the district, that Major
Barksdale was opposed to the sale OF
whisky, and l was not. 1t was discussed
purely as a tar question, and therefore one
in which the people had an interest and
his record in Congress on the bonded
whisky law, of March 9th, 1854, was re-
ferred to, to show where he stood and how.
He says that his nomination AID election
in 1892. makes it question res adjudicatd
as to him. But he says he will not avail
himself of that plea. Neither will l.
Now let, US go to the record, and see
what was the character of the bill passed
in 1873, and how it differs from the bill for
which he voted in 1884.
On the ith March, 1878, Milton Sayler.
of Ohio, a true, tried and consistent DEM
ocrat, as ever served in Congress- called
mp the joint resolution, reported from his
| n
resolution to eriend 10 The domestic monufdc-
turer of ,ghisky, as was accorded under exist
ing laws (which had been on the statute
book for years., to WHISTLES or brandies
imported from foreign countries. Mr..
Sayler said:
''The object of the joint resolution is to
extend the bonded period of whisky to
three years, instead of one, as now pro-
vided by Law ; or, i'll other words, to give to
alcoholic spirits, manufactured In this coun-
try the same privileges that are giuen to liquors
imported from Europe, and put in the bonded
warehouses of the United States" (See 45th
Congress, "a SEES C. r. p. 1872 )''
Now it is said by the honorable member
| from the 9TH District of Mississippi, that
this was done without interest" On the.
contrary, the Sd section of that law,
| (Which, as Mr.. Sayler says, was intended
/ TO put the uOlue pTOuuCST OH precisely the
same plane and footing with the foreign
importer,) expressly provided if the tax
| was not paid within one year on all bonded
WHISTLES, they should pay FIVE per cent.
| interest. Mr.. Conger, OF Michigan moved to
strike out five and insert seven per cent.
This amendment was defeated Mr.. Con-
ger then moved to strike out five and in
sert six per cent. The vote stood, ayes II,
nays IS, and this amendment was defeated,
(See 45th Cong. ID session G. r. p. 1870,
and the law passed with the five per cent,
as reported. 1t was supported by such
Democrats as Atkins, of Tennessee, Morri-
son, of Illinois, Buckner, of Missouri, and
Cox and Hewitt, of New York. 1t was a
simple proposition to accord to the home
producer the same privilege as the law
had long given to the importer from
foreign countries, and was intended to give
protection to the grain producer and
manufacturer at home, and not to the
monopoist and speculator.
This question did not again come ND
until the bill regulating the removal of
distilled spirits from the distillery ware
houses to the special bonded warehouses
of the Government, or TO the manufacture
ing warehouses, or for expectation, and
fixing amount of bond 10 be given, and tor
the re-gaugiug, etc.
1t was a very rigid law in all its require
quirements against the parties who owed
the tax on whisky in bond. Why did the
honorable member from the 9TH District
not give his friend and the public the vote
on this law? l will furnish it for them.
IL passed by vote of 123 yeas and 30
nays. (See Cong. Record 47th Cong, 1st
session. p. 254l.) There was not even
sufficient opposition to call for the yeas
a,,I l.af.
Dunnell, in introducing the bill from the |
Committee on Ways and Means, announced |
that it was an unanimous report of the |
committee; and yet the gentleman from |
the 9TH Congressional District evidently |
left his friend and the public to infer that |
this bill gave an indefinite extension to |
the boaded whisky, and that, too, "without |
interest" Major Barksdale SAYS that INV |
support of the measure of 1873, which had |
for its object the placing of the home pro-
ducer on the same plane with the foreign |
importer, and the law of 1882, which in no |
way or mi nner changed this law OF 1873. |
preeludes me from criticising, as citizen, |
and one oil his constituents, his vote on the |
bonded whisky law, attempted to be passed |
IN 1884, and for which he voted Is this |
so? That there was no change by the law
of 1882, is shown by the remark of Hon.
supporter of the measure for which Mai.
Barksdaie voted in 1884. He said:
The severe exactious TO which this
branch of industry has been forced to sub.
nit, have been ameliorated time and time
again, when the purpose of the penal statute
Ito suppress whisky frauds) had been ac-
when the frauds had been sup
pressed, in 1878, Congress without serious
opposition passed joint resolution ex-
tending the bonded period from one year
to three years. 1t has gone on that plan
from then till now" Gong. Record, 4Sth
Cong, LIST session, p. 2346.)
This shows there was no change made
by any act after passage of general law of
1878.
Mr.. Sayler, in reporting the bill of 1878.
designed to place the home producer on
par with the foreign importer, and to re.
1uire him to pay, like the foreign i'm porter,
only when he put his commodity on the
market for safe. said:
THE United States government occupies
q peculiar relation 10 whisky. The article
is worth about Is cents per gallon But in
every gallon the United States has an in
Ierest Of so cents, as tax" See 45th Cong.
ID session, G. R.; p. 1927
Mr.. Foster, of Ohio, said, on the bill Of
1878:
The fact is, Mr.. Chairman, We are treat
ing whisky to-day, as we treat no other
article we tax. We allow an importer two
Years on conditions stated by my friend
rom Illinois, to pay the tax and hence it
now happens, that a man may import a
barrel of whisky from foreign country,
ind hold il in bond for three years, while
he man who makes it here, must pay for [
1 in one. (45th Cong, I'd session, c. r.
,. 1875.
Mr.. Burchard said on this same law of !
1878:
II put my support of this proposition
N the general principle, which 1 think
lltogetber defensible, that the producer of
IN article should not be compelled to paw
Ak until he puts the article on the n arket | !
OK consumption or sale." (See Cong. Rec. :
9th Cong I'd session, p. 1775. b
cits thess various reasons expr~med | i