Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1894-02-01
THE TARIFF ON wHIsKEY,

THE TARIFF ON wHIsKEY.
It Was the Subject of Considerabl
Debate In the Rouse-Amendment
Made and Several Points OF Orde
offered Against Them.
WASHINGTON, Jan. Slater the read
ing of yesterdays journal and the callin,
| of committees for reports and the trans
action of some other important matters
the house went into committee of tn,
whole to consider the Wilson tariff bill
and Mr.. Richardson, dem of Tennessee
took the chair.
Mr.. Tate, dem, of Georgia, offered ar
amendment to the internal revenue bill
proposing to strike out the last three sec
tons Of the bill, which includes the tax OF
81 per gallon on distilled spirits, and also
the clauses referring to the bonding Of
distilled spirits and their withdrawal from
the warehouse.
The adoption of 1t lis said to leave the
existing law as to spirits In force.
Mr.. Montgomery, dem, of Kentucky,
defended the proposition of the ways and
means committee. In reply to the ques-
tion of Mr.. Cultivate as to who demanded
the extension, Mr. Montgomery said that
there WAS long list of petitioners for the
change.
Mr.. Bowers, dem, of North Carolina,
favored the amendment which provided
for the reduction of the tax from 81 to 90
cents and to the bonded period from eight
years to three.
Mr.. Bynum was granted two minutes
and spoke in favor of Mr.. Outhwaite's
amendment.
Mr.. Holman, DEM, of Indiana, epoke
for three minutes in favor of the Oath
waite amendment. Mr.. Ellis, dem, of
Kentucky, addressed the committee In
fsxor of the extension of time.
Mr.. MeCreary, dem. of Kentucky, said
the distiliers of his state did not ask for
this increase of taxation, but they did AK
Mr.. Outh waite, In defending his substi.
tute, said he would be, glad to hays the
question 60 back to the ways and means
committee for more careful consideration
The clause providing that the increased
tax should go into effect one month after
the passage of the bill did not specify
whether that applied to the whiekey in
bond, but be was inclined to think 1t did.
The extension time allowed the distiIlers
Eve years more in which to pay the tax on
whiskey in bond, thereby giving them the
use of the money for that time. Another
feature which he objected to was the pro.
vision for leakage and evaporation, which
was too favorable to the distillsrs.
Mr.. Henderson, rep, of Illinois, inquired
whether congress had the right 10 impose
Z nal additional tar tho Uhiakau
featured under the existing law.
Mr.. Outhwsite replied that that was a
question which the whiskey people were
even now TAXI steps to bring into the
courts. Moreover, their rights were we'll
on the floor of the house.
Mr.. Outhwsite's substitute for the whis-
key sections of the revenue bill was defeat
ed-yess 10, nays 81.
The amendment retaining the three
years. bonded period was adoptsd-yess
105, nays so.
MI Bland, dem, of Missouri offered an
other substitute providing that whenever
any whiskey had remained In bond three
years the owner could have the time ex-
sum which it would cost to export and re-
import 1t.
The amendment offered by Mr.. Tate,
striking out the last three sections of the
bill, thus leaving the law as to spirits as
1T present, as amended by Mr.. Dingley'e
was voted on after the chair
man had with some difficulty made the
question clear to the house. It sp-
peared that should the amendment be
adopted 1t would leave the period of bond
1t three years, while raising the tax from
20 csnts to 81. Mr.. Tate thereupon modi-
ied his amendment by decreasing the tax
from 81 to 80 csnte, but subsequently
his modification. This did not
'eem to clear the atmosphere In the least.
Mr.. Dipgley endeavored to make his amend
is adoption would simply be to continue
.he provisions of the existing law as TO the
extension of time, while not touching the
question of increase of the tax.
Mr.. Everett, DEM, of Massachusetts,,
7oiced the sentiments of many members
when he rose in his place and stated that
ne could not get the legislative effect of the
amendments clear to his mind,
and asked the chair to elucidate the status
IF affairs.
The chairman informed him that 1t was
not the duty of the chair to explain the
legislative effect of measure. Ali that he
was required to do was to explain the par
ismentary status of the amendments.
ASAAhSooCSt
that it was not the province of
the chair to supply the deficient intelli-
genoa of any member; and the chairman
thsn explained to Mr.. Everett end the
house in general that If they would observe
order, Mr.. Dingley would explain every
thing to the satisfaction of the members.
Mr.. Dinglsy succeeded in somewhat
Clarifying the hsziness of the committee,
but this was scarcely accomplished before
matters were again muddled up by q sub
stitute to the pending amendment offered
by Mr.. Montgomery making some verbal
changes in the text of the bill.
Mr. McCreary, dem of Kentucky, also
offered an amendment to this substitute,
changing the per! ID of bond from three to
five years.
Several points of order were made agsinst
these amendments by Messrs. Dingley,
Terry and Cultivate. but the chair over
ruled all the points of order and ordered
the substitute and amendment read.
After this was completed Mr.. Outhwaite
again made tbs point of order against the
amendment offered by Mr.. McCreary hold
ing that the house had already acted on
tbs paragraph covered by this amendment
when It acted fsvorsbly on the amendment
of Mr.. Dlngley.
Mr.. Springer, dem of Illinois, aud Mr..
Enlos, dem, of Tennessee. spoke In oppo-
sition to the point of order. The latter
commended against Mr.. Dinelsy's asserva-
ton that the house could not sgsin sot on
the proposition to reduce the period of
bond from eight to fvs years after having
voted to reduce 1t from eight to three
years.
Mr. DIngley asserted that the house
could not accomplish by indirect methods
what 1t could not accomplish by direct
methods; but Mr. McCresry commended
that while the house was in favor of q
period of three years IS against eight, II
had never voted on q proposition to eI-
tend 1t from three to dvs years, and Ii was
now competent for the house to do 90.
The chair cut the G0rdian knot by hold
ing that 1t was not competent to strike out
what had Just been inserted, but the houst
might strike out the erIire paragraph In
which the inserted words appeared. Tit
amendment of Mr.. McCreary wss In effec
q proposition to undo what had Just beer
DONE He, therefore, sustained the point o
order and ruled out Mr.. MeCreary's amend
ment.
The question then recurred on the sub
stitute of Mr.. Montgomery, which wa
very similar to the one recently offered b.
Mr.. Bland, and which was promptly votes
down.
An amendment was offered by Mr.. En-
los, dem. of Tennessee, which was adopted
extending the operations of the law to tn
distilled spirits in bond ct the time the Ia,
should go into effect.
Mr.. Walker, rep, of Massachusetts,, of
fered an amendment increasing the to,
from 81 to 81 so per gallon and maxim
| some slight changes In regard to the tim
l at which the law should take effect. tn