The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-12-07
MI. Oates, of Alabama, as Strongly
Opposed to 1t as Ever.
He Contends It Is Contrary to Con-
stitutional Principles.
He Wants to Have the Illegal Cot
ten Tax Of o2-66 Refunded.
Mr.. Barnes, of Georgia, Makes an
Earnest Plea in Favor OF the Cot
ton Tax Feature-Enloe's Plan
Proceedings In the Senate.


munication from the Hon. Perry Belmont,
informing him that he had sent TO the
Governor Of New York his resignation as
member OF Congress from the First Con-
gressional District OF New York. The Clerk
was directed to drop Mr.. Belmont's name
from the roll Of the House.
The resolution for the distribution Of the
Presidents message 10 the appropriate
committees, was reported from the Com
mittee on Ways and Means by Mr.. McMil-
lin, OF Tennessee, and adopted by the
House the only debate upon it being a
sarcastic query from Mr.. Grosyenor, OF
Ohio, rs to what portion OF the message
had been referred TO the Committee ON
Civil Service Reform, and the reply from
Mr.. Spinola, Of New York, that that sub
ject would be referred TO the Chinese.
The order relative TO the consideration
Of the direct tax bill was 80 modified as To
make the measure a special order for to-
day, Tuesday and Wednesday next, II be.
ing the desire of many members that an
adjournment be taken over Saturday.
An effort was made TO reach some agree
msnt touching the offering and pendenry
OF amendments, but II proved futile, and,
without any understanding on this point,
the House, on motion OF Mr. Caswell, OF
Wisconsin, went into Committee OF the
Whole-Mr. Springer, OF Illinois, in the
chair-on the direct tax bill.
MIR. Caswcll explained that the simple
purpose OF the bill WIS TO refund TO the
States and individuals who paid the tax
that portion OF the direct tax which was
collected. After careful computation he
was able 20 state that the bill carried Sl5,-
231 o y. This did not include the 10 per
cent commission allowed the States or par.
tics who paid the tax. The amount TO be
cancelled, NV uncollectcd, was q, 562, I0l.
Mr.. OHcs, OF Alabama, said that the
first ground Of his opposition to the meas.
ure Was that there was no authority con.
ferred upon Congress BY the Constitution
10 pass The bill or 10 make the appropria-
ton provided for. lie coniended not for
strict construction OF the Constitution,
but for an observance OF il. The only way
the Constitution could bc preserved In iis
original integrity WAS for Congress Ia keep
carefully and squarcly within the grant Of
power
lie sent TO the Clerks desk and had read
for information series of amendments,
which he proposed 10 oilcr ut the proper
time. The first refunds the cotton tax, the
second permits persons who paid that tax
to bring suit in the Court OF Claims TO re-
cover the amount paid, the third reyiycs
the right OF action Ia the Court Of Claims
under the provisions OF the captured aud
abandoned property act, and the fourth
directs the Secretary Of the Treasury In
making payment aud settlement OF the III.
rect tax 10 take into account and set oil
any amount due by any State 10 the United
States under the Get Of June Is, 1885, ito
regulate the deposits Of public money"
Mr.. Barnes, Of Georgia said that the
purpose of the hill was 20 execute arcleaso
as 20 the tax unsolicited and 10 refund the
tax collected to those who had paid H.
Considered In this mere statement Of the
question, without regard 10 the constitu-
tiona principles, there was an appearance
OF equity in the scheme. lie wanted 20
call attention TO the cotton tax. In 1889 a
tax Of One-haltcent u pound WIS placed on
cotton; In 1864 u was increased b. . cents,
and in 1866 Il was further increased 10 3
cents, and great bulk oi the cotton tax
was paid upon this last act. The direct
~ ~
general tax, a Constitutional tax, laid In
accordance with the forms and rules pre-
scribed by the constitution. The tax on
cotton was u special tax, an illegal tax, an
unconstitutional tax. II was special
land tax on the cotton lands VI the South.
lie proceeded 90 make an elaborate legal
and constitutional argument b. show that
the tax on the product Of the land was
g. tt0,t, tl.. land tall uuI L.. s.u.f.I
from declarations by the trainers Of the
Constitution 10 prove that In their opin-
ion direct tax was tax upon land aud
per capita tax on slaves. II the labor
which gave fruit 10 the land WIS 10 DO
taxed rs a part Of the realty, the conclu.
sion was irresistible that the product, which
was the joint fruit Of the Land and the
labor, was part Of the realty. Land was
Of no value without IL product, and a tax
on the product was tax on the land.
Mr.. Caswell inquired, what was the
distinction between the tax on cotton aud
tho lax on tobacco2
Mr.. larncs replied that there was no
distinction whatever. So far as raw, un.
manufactured tobacco wis taxed, the tax
WIS Illegal and unconstitutional. lie lid
not believe that Il had ever been contem.
]
that the products Of the land should ever
be- taxed. Il was proposed by the pending
bill 10 refund the direct tax ou account Of
certain inequalities. aud vt, gentlemen
refused n refund tax which was clearly
nn illegal, unconstitutional and special tax
"A tax imposed on the cotton lands II the
South, over and above the land tax Of 1851.
Mr. EnlDc. OF Tennessee, sent 20 the
Clerks desk aud had read ior information
proposed amendment rciunding tho cot
ton tax aud providing that such amount
AZ cannot be- paid 10 the persons who paid
the tax shall DO turned over 10 tho school
funds Of the States interested.
Mf. Kerr II Iowa, said that one of his
objections 10 the refund Of the cotton tax
was that during the years when the tax
was collected the producers received W
large q price for their cotton that the tax
was really 10 their advantage.
Mr. Millken could zee no analogy be.
tween the cotton tax and the tax witch
/ II was now proposed lO refund. The cot
ton tax had been paid. There WIS no de-
iaut about 10. n Il icll upon one section
mor5 than upon another, u WW beclus1
cotton was produced Ia that section. As
iar ~ the direct iaX was concerned, either