Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-01-11
Constitution Of the Proposed State Of
Utah With a Memorial for Admis-
sion Presented to the House.
TRe Bill to Psy the States The MOrey
Collected Under the Pax Act OF 81
Discussed in the Senste.
n h",s ncy pprnprtstion BIZ Reported to
the House- Lamsl's NomIB alton Placed
Before the Senate.
EifIisth Cor E-ase.
THE SENATE.


WASHINGTON. J&Y. I0.-Ir. SAWYER
from The postofice committee reported
with TecommeIt atien Of ind,foite post
poLemenG Mr. Buffers resolution for al
appointment Of select committee OF
postal telegraph. TEE resolution was
indefinitely postponed with the remark
By Dir. Einunds th.t he should rot wish
that action to be understood as delerm-
nation that tae prcpriety Of special in
curry into the subj CT st some futurs
session had been decided adversely.
Among the bills introduced and referred
Were the following:
By Teller-fo grant the right of way
through Inc Indian reservation 10 the Rio
Grande, Pacific and Denver and the Rio
G:ande Railways.
By lmunds-To incorporate the Mar
atime Ship Canal Company Of N.csragu&.
TIE bill to credit snd pay 10 the sew
eTsl states snd territories and the Dis
trict OF COlumbia all the moneys
collected under the direct tax OF
by Mr.. Morrill, from the committee or
finapce on the Is h of December, was
taken from the calendar and considered.
rectiDg in cases where taxes were cob
lected from citizens, either directly or by
the sale o; property, that the amount
shsll be psid to the governor Of the state
in trust for such citizens, whether the
state be or be not indebted to the United
States.
Mr.. Sherman argued that the amend
msnt would c,eate grave embarrassment
II the execution of the mill
Mr.. Berry explained the purpose Of the
Amendment ana advocated It's adoption.
Mr. B OK said the assortment had
been II ked over Informally among
the members OF the fIauce com
mittee aGd that they were gen
orally opposed 70 l., thinking il
would be IN the way Ct fnsl settlement,
.nd that the better way was 70 have the
money Paid to the states a0d leave the
citizens to pursue their REMEDY against
them.
Mr.. Salisbury opposed the bill. It pro-
posed to take $l5, 600 geo out of the tree-
snry and TO distribute 1t rot 70 the people
CT the several States, bas 70 the owners Of
real ests,e. VINO paid this direct tax. Re
WEB opposed 20 any distribution
ct the surplus in The tres
su7y IL order TO keep a higher
protective tariff, but his observation
taught him that where there was money
in bill and where the people Of the
states were TO be benefited by the DILL, It
WAS perfectly useless 20 oppose its pas
s.ge.
Mr.. Sherman withdrew his objection to
TIE smeGdmsnf, but it ~as further OPP
pysed by Mc Plumb &Hd BIZ. Mcpherson.
Mr. CnaIdier wished 10 know whether
thc purpolt CT TIE bill was 70 credit and
pSY to each state not only the amount
when it paid directly from It's own treas
ury fer lis proportion OF the
direct tag, but also Iae amount
collected oy the Udited States government
from iEdivlduais as in many of the south
err stGtcs, by the seizure and sale OF their
property. Il occurred 10 him that il the
government vent into the business Of re-
fuE dug the direct tax st all it should go
10 the southern stSes end fad the heirs
Of these from whom it had collected the
tax and Day them back the money instead
OF turning the amount over in gross to
the states and leaving the individuals to
bear the remedies agsinst the states.
The resolution was rejected; yeas II;
NAYS 49,
Mr.. Berry said that as his amendment
bill was just one, and be hoped it would
not pass.
Mr.. Beck stated that ell direct taxes
must be uniform. Il would DE necessary
either 10 collect the direct tax from the
states which had not paid it Or TO refund
TO those states which had paid 1t the
amounts respectively paid by them. The
latter WAS what the bill proposed to do.
Mr.. Gray favored the passage Of the
bill, but argued that SIS
the states had dealt din city
with the general government
so the general government should deal
directly with the states In refunding the
amount, and he moved to strike out the
proposition in the third section, that
where the tax was collected either di-
rectly or by the sale Of property, the sums
so paid were to be held in trust for the
Continued on Fifth PAGE