The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-01-19
RFPAYING DIRECT TAXES
VAIN ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE
COTTON TAX INCLUDED.

and NaVaI OlICCl9 ASsuA AAON' A0
Bill Passed.
y,sH1HGToN, Jan. 1S.-In the Senate to-
aoy of tine close of the morning business,
tbe hill for refunding the direct tax Of
rs6l was taken up, the question being on
NJ Cbandler's motion to recommit the bill.
rha motion was rejected. The question
,ros then taken on the amendment offered
hv Mr. Edmunds requiring all claims to be
ajed within six years, and it was agreed
n Several amendments Of verbal char
.cter were also agreed to.
Mr. Berry offered an amendment provid-
inc that no part of the money collected
tron individuals shall be retained by the
United States as set off against any State
indebtedness. The amendment was agreed
10.
THE COTTON TAX.
Mr. Vance offered an amendment extend
trg the provisions of the bill to the cotton
ta9 collected under the law Of 1862 and sub
saouent laws He said that if the direct tax
was TO be refunded, this cotton tax, which
was also direct tax. ought to be refunded.
If one was a hardship, the other
was equally hardship. The
oot+on tax was a tax on exports, and was
levied on peculiar product of one section
NJ the country, so that there could be no
comnensating tax on any other section.
Nh George advocated the amendment.
The constitutionality of the cotton tax had
bapn referred, he said, to the Supreme
Court. and that court, consisting then of
only eight members, had been equally di-
vjled upon it. Being a tax upon raw
product it was virtually tax on lands, and
therefore direct tax which should be,
under the constitution, apportioned accord
ing to population.
GIVE ALL FAIR PLAY.
Mr. Berry also advocated the amendment.
FoIr-ifths Of the money under the bill to
refund the direct tax would 60 to North
ern States. and it was but equitable and
lust that the cotton tax, which had fallen
wholly on Southern planters, should be re-
funded
Mr.. Brown believed that the cotton tax
should be refunded, and whenever that
question came up in such shape that he
could properly vote for it he would do so.
BIT the adoption of the cotton tax amend
ment would. he was convinced, defeat the
pending measure, which he believed ought
topass He should therefore vote against
the amendment.
MORGAN AGREES WITH BROWN.
Mr. Morgan expressed his concurrence
with the views of Mr.. Brown. The question
Of cotton tax had not been considered by
the Committee on Finance 1t was a very
grave question, aud there would be serious
difficulty found III refunding the cotton tax.
The effect Of the pending bill would be to
remove all causes of heart burning that
might be lingering in the minds of the
people Of the two sections. He supported it
because Of its merits, and he did not desire
to have it connected with any other great
proposition which would embarass its pass
age. The proposition offered by the Senator
from North Carolina was a very much dis
puted one If the people of the South had
constitutional right to claim the retunding
Of the cotton tax he would support
the claim, but he would never set up an
equitable claim to it, for, after all, it was
the right Of the United States government,
from its standpoint that dissolution of the
Umon by the secession of States was i'm
possible, to tax the people of the South. He
was not prepared to give a definite opinion
on the constitutionality of the cotton tax,
and would therefore sustain the position of
tne Senator from Georgia (Mr Brown
NOT INTENDED FOR \ CRUsHER.
III dllOt Sdilu IlldU Itlt dfleiluuleUl udtl
not been offered by him for the purpose of
defeating the bill, but he could not see why,
one tax were refunded, the other should
not also be refunded.
Mr. Call, while advocating the amend
ment, opposed the whole bill.
Mr. Beck said he favored tie bill as
measure OF justice, but argued that it should
not be encountered with anything else
MI voorhees, also regarded the amend
ment as one which, if adopted. would de-
ieat the bill, which he regarded as an en-
trely Just measure, and very creditable to
yle gentleman who had been most active
ana prominent in bringing it forward. He
"oull look upon his vote for the amend
menu as beng vote against the bill
MI. Hampton stated some facts to show
| olaI the state OF South Carolina had been
aclually made to pay some S700, 600, while
| 600. '''0 VII GU '''N was 0iiJ S''0''
mr. Sherman admitted the facts, but
sah that the Finance Committee had
ttmougnt 1t best not to deal with the matter
isneI than reiunding actual money re-
'eiVed by the United States.
VANcE's AMENDMENT DEFEATED
Ar; Hampton asked to be, and was ex-
@ ouatu rom voting on the amendment be-
m 'e+o VII cCllN IlleIHSlCu Ill IL.
on vote was taken on Mr.. Vance's
sainltedadment, al and it was rejected by 16 yeas
~ 10 nays, as follows:
DaniaiS deSsrs Bate, Berry, Butler Call, Coke,
ppcle peL George, Harris. Jones of Arkansas,
ao5 an T.X quay, RANSOM Reagan, Vance, Walthall
"Hson OF Maryland.-16
RIoG1alSs,-- 9Ssrs Aldrich, Allison. Beck Blair,
Coclrou' brown. Cameron, Chace. Chandler,
Fsrgriagnn Cullom, Davis Dawes, Dolph Evarts,
iev TgiL VIZ Faulkner, Frye, German, Hale. Haw-
dersonS otSc9cK' Hoar Ingalls, Mcpherson, Man
Paw NltcheH, Morgan, Paddock, Palmer,
Sberp,',tr 'att, Plumb, Sabin, salisbury, Sawyer,
briJI,an man u Spooner, Stanford Stewart stock
Son Of Iowa-46. '0''' w N0e' ''-'' " -
striot; -ta, Chandler offered an amendment re-
nonorg the terms of the first section to
sertinyS pald by State Treasures, and in
tho ras III the third section a provision for
bv taClih TO individuals of the sums paid
ID vool Soeli This amendment was rejected by
=, THE INCOME TAX.
Nc, nt; Flumb offered an amendment to re-
spd vne income tax collected from military
sroT,d5 laval officers during the war, and
yo1noida nrgu against the bill as unfair to the
b. Sei rosS,i states. The amount that would
the bbiiHlued KIN lC to the State of Kansas under
share would he about $7l 900, while its
the Vi the tax necessary to pay
bill 'yuneiy wa,,iy, appropriated by the
and f.. would be over $500, 900,
motino. w1atf Not under the guise of pro-
philorS5, education not under any assumed
10 t6a Tu oplc idea, but because some clerk
! On the tnreasnry Department had got stuck"
M S,IIaUUer OF bookkeeping.
Mr. Ta3i man opposed the amendment.
thougbit' i'lier u argued against the bill. He
l.