Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. GARFIELD. I move to amend the proviso by inserting after the word "engines" the words "or cars;" and also by inserting after the words "finished engine," the word "or car."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BALDWIN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] has moved the very amendments I desired to propose; and therefore I have none to move. [Laughter.]

The Clerk read as follows:

On boilers of all kinds, water tanks, sugar tanks, oil stills, sewing-machines, lathes, tools, planes, planing-machines, shafting and gearing, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem.

No amendment being offered,
The Clerk read as follows:

On iron railings, gates, fences, furniture, and statuary, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to strike out the word "iron" before the word "railings;" and also to insert the words "made of iron" after the word "statuary.'

[ocr errors]

The motion was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

On copper and brass tubes, nails, or rivets, sheet lead, and lead pipes and shot, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem.

No amendment being offered,

The Clerk read as follows:

On goat, calf, kid, sheep, horse, hog, and dog skins, tanned or dressed in the rough, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem.

No amendment being offered,
The Clerk read as follows:

On goat, calf, kid, sheep, horse, hog, and dog skins, curried or finished, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem : Provided, That all goat, calf, kid, sheep, horse, hog, and dog skins previously assessed in the rough, and upon which taxes have been actually paid, shall be assessed on the increased value only when curried or finished.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend by striking out the words "previously assessed in the rough" and inserting after the words "upon which taxes" the words or duties."'

66

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

On patent, enameled, and japanned leather and skins of every description, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem: Provided, That when a tax has been paid on the leather in the rough, the tax shall be assessed and paid only on the increased value.

Mr. DAVIS. I suggest to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] that the words or duty" should be inserted after the word "tax," as in the preceding paragraph.

[ocr errors]

Mr. MORRILL. The gentleman is right.
The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

On oil-dressed leather, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem.

No amendment being offered,
The Clerk read as follows:

On leather of all descriptions, tanned or partially tanned, in the rough, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem.

No amendment being offered,
The Clerk read as follows:

On leather of all descriptions, curried or finished, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem: Provided, That all leather previously assessed in the rough and upon which duties have been actually paid,shall be assessed on the increased value only when curried or finished. No amendment being offered, The Clerk read as follows:

On wine made of grapes, a tax of five cents per gallon.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to strike out this paragraph.

Mr. MORRILL. Before the question is taken upon that motion, I desire to move to perfect the paragraph by inserting after the word "wine" the words "further advanced than juice or must."

Mr. McRUER. I desire to oppose that amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Is it not better to strike out the whole paragraph?

Mr. McRUER. I am willing to have that done.

The motion of Mr. MORRILL was agreed to. Mr. MORRILL. I move to further amend by adding the following proviso:

Peovided, That grape juice, or must, when sold im

mediately from the vineyard to vintners, shall not be taxed.

The amendment was agreed to. The question recurred upon the motion of Mr. STEVENS to strike out the paragraph.

Mr. STEVENS. This is one of those agricultural products which I think it is the interest of this country to encourage. It may become a very ruling interest in some of our States, especially in California and other States, but it requires some encouragement. We get but a small amount of revenue from this tax, I believe some thirty-four thousand dollars only. And yet this tax is quite an annoyance to that interest, and I hope, therefore, this paragraph will be stricken out, and allow these producers to go on for the present at least without any tax until they get a foothold.

From what I have heard and read there is no country in the world better calculated for the production of grapes and wine than the country upon the Pacific coast. And if we give this interest the proper encouragement I look for our native productions of wines to take the place of those of Italy, France, and Madeira. I hope, therefore, that for the present we will not put our heavy hand upon this infant lest it should become deformed.

Mr. MORRILL. I trust the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] will not prevail. I think the amendments the committee have already adopted will remove all the just or legitimate complaints of vinegrowers in this country. We have provided that wine shall not be taxed until it passes from the hands of the grape-growers, if they sell it in the form of juice or must. If it shall be sold when it reaches the stage when it is called wine, or when it has passed from the condition of juice or must it is to be taxed. Certainly there is no article upon which we can more properly levy a tax. We are giving this interest a great amount of encouragement. We are levying extraordinary duties upon the sale of beer, and upon spirits of all descriptions, and I am perfectly willing, for one, that we shall levy such import duties as shall give the growers of grapes and manufacturers of wines any amount of encouragement in the home market for the sale of their products. But it does seem to me that, when we levy a tax of fifty cents or a dollar upon a gallon of foreign wine, this small pittance of five cents a gallon can be legitimately and properly borne by the makers of wine in our own country. I think, Mr. Chairinan, that we have met in the proposition as it now stands all just complaints on this subject; and I may say that we have no complaints whatever except from California. In Ohio, a State producing probably half as much wine as California, no objection is made even to the existing form of the tax. There are others of the western States which, I suppose, are destined to become large producers of wines from grapes.

Now, sir, it strikes me that there are no men who can be more properly subjected to a tax than those who buy this juice and must, and manufacture it, selling the wine for the high

prices which we know they demand and obtain throughout the country. I know that the wines made in California and in other parts of our own country are very pure, and are much more desirable in many respects than foreign wines now introduced into the country at a low rate upon an ad valorem duty. For one, I am willing to give our native wine all the protection that it requires; but in order that we may do so, trust that no gentleman will come here and claim that this article should be entirely exempt from bearing any of our present great burden of taxation.

To be sure, we received last year only about thirty-four thousand dollars from this source. But I suppose that the receipts of the Treasury this year from this source will be very largely increased. I have no douht that this year the amount will be at least double the sum received last year; and I expect that within a year or two a very large revenue will be derived from this source. I think we should not now set

the precedent that wine manufactured in this country shall be entirely exempt from tax so long as we impose a heavy tax upon all other liquors and beverages.

Mr. BIDWELL. I move to amend the amend ment by striking out the last word. No gentleman upon this floor is more anxious than I am to see our taxation fall upon precisely those articles which can best bear it. On this subject I can only speak in regard to California. Understanding well, as I think I do, the condi tion of the wine-growing interest upon that coast, I can say that the smallest tax that you can impose upon the wine-growing interest in California would be burdensome, for the rea son that that interest has not yet attained a self-sustaining position. Those in possession of vineyards most advanced, those who are manufacturing wines upon the largest scale, are not doing it at a profit upon their investThe reason is plain. They have to contend there against many expenses which are not encountered in other sections of the country. In the first place, the cost of labor is much higher. All materials out of which are made the casks in which to keep this wine must be imported from this side of the continent. It will not do to put the wines into old casks, for wines spoil very quickly. When a cask has been used for other liquors, it is almost impossible to purify it sufficiently to make it fit to keep wine in.

ments.

Besides, it is impossible to draw the line of distinction between the condition of the grape juice in the form of must and the condition in which you would call it wine. When it is first expressed, it is grape juice or must, after it is perfectly fermented it ceases to be must. But when does that fermentation cease? With some kinds of wine it may cease in two years; with other kinds it may not cease in five years. So long as the wine contains impurities which continue to be fermented and it requires to be racked off and the cask purified, it is liable to spoil upon your hands. It is not a wine that

you can pronounce a merchantable article, and
which should be taxed.

Let me make one further remark. Vineyards in California are even now only in their infancy. When a vineyard is planted, from four to ten years must elapse before it even pays expenses, much less produces any profit. Hence the smallest tax which you may put upon that interest must be onerous. In California last

year some seventeen thousand dollars of tax was collected. Now, there are some five or six revenue districts in that State, and the collection of the revenue must require in each district perhaps two persons, each at a salary of not less than $1,000 per annum. Hence the revenue collected scarcely exceeded the cost of collecting it.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. MORRILL. I will merely say, Mr. Chairman, that we have by our legislation largely increased the price of all descriptions of domestic wines, and it appears to me no derive some revenue from what is produced more than fair that the Government should

here at home. I am not convinced that the prosecution of this business throughout the country is not one of the most profitable that can be engaged in.

Mr. BIDWELL. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. HIGBY. I renew it. I wish to draw the attention of the chairman of the committee and of members of the House to a portion of this bill. It is true we have not yet reached it, but I have no doubt the chairman of the committee and others will press its adoption with the same tenacity that they have shown in regard to so large a portion of this bill. On page 164 of the bill I find this provision:

That on all wines, liquors, or compounds known or denominated as wine, made in imitation of sparkling wine or champagne, and put up in bottles under the label, name, designation, or similitude of any imported wine, or wine of foreign growth or manufacture, or with the appearance or pretense of being imported wine. or wine of foreign growth or manu facture, there shall be levied and paid a tax of six

dollars per dozen bottles, each bottle containing more than one pint, or three dollars per dozen bottles, each bottle containing not more than one pint.

I suppose it is a well-known fact that there are no wines raised in this country but what are classed or classified as mentioned in this section, which I believe is an addition to the original law upon this subject, and no doubt it is intended to be a tax and would be a very heavy tax on all wines that are raised in this country. I am looking to the action of this House with regard to that section. Probably it will be adopted. If it is, it will certainly be a very heavy burden upon the culture of the grape and making of wine in this country.

It is a well-know fact in the State of California that grape juice in its first stage is a very cheap article, selling at from twenty-five to thirty-five cents per gallon by thousands and thousands of gallons. The small jobbers are those who will have to bear this burden of five cents a gallon. It takes time to become valuable. One year adds to the value of the wine one or two hundred per cent.; two years doubles it, and so on. The man who has money can purchase at great advantage because the tax, amounts to nothing against capital invested for a number of years. But the small men are to be burdened and distressed by that little tax whereas the provision on page 164 is the one that will come upon the capitalist.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. MORRILL. I desire to correct the gentleman from California so far as to say that the wines provided for on page 164 are not wines made from grapes at all. They are merely wines manufactured in the cities from a small portion of spirits, sugar, and some other articles. If the gentleman will notice the commencement of the section he will see that it refers solely to imitation wines. It does not include the real wines that we are considering at all.

Mr. HIGBY. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I move to strike out "five" and insert "ten;" so that it will read: "on wine made of grapes, a tax of ten cents per gallon."

We all desire to get this bill into a shape in which each product of the country will render its just tribute of taxation. Now, I think there is no one product which pays better for the amount of capital and labor invested than does the article of grape wine. It is not an absolute necessity. It is a luxury; and the theory upon which this bill, to some extent, proceeds is, that it is not our policy to tax sources of productive industry except so far as they produce luxuries. This is one of the luxuries which will bear more, I think, than five cents tax per gallon. We tax leather five per cent., candles five per cent., and many other articles the same. We tax wooden screws which enter into the manufacture of a great many other articles, five and ten per cent.; and we tax matches one cent a box, while we propose by this provision to tax this article of luxury, indulged in as a general rule only by the wealthy, a thing not essential to life or to comfort, five cents a gallon. That is less than one cent a bottle. We propose to tax wine one cent a bottle, while we tax matches one cent a box.

Now, sir, I am perfectly willing, when the tariff bill shall come up, to impose such a duty upon foreign wines as will give to our home manufacturers command of the home market. But I am unwilling that this article of luxury should escape with less than ten cents tax on cach gallon manufactured in this country. There is no article that can endure a tax better. It is a mere article of luxury; and the theory of this bill is that luxuries should be required to pay large revenues to the country. I hope my amendment will prevail.

Mr. SPALDING. I rise to oppose this amendment. I represent a district which is very considerably interested in the production of wine. But my constituents are entirely willing to bear their share of this internal tax levied upon wine or other articles, provided

the people may not be distressed thereby. There are certain articles of prime necessity in regard to which the taxes should be light; but so far as regards this duty of five cents a gallon upon our native wine I have no objection, so far as our producers are concerned, to its imposition. I object, however, to the amendment offered by my colleague to raise it to ten cents. I agree with the committee as regards the rate imposed.

to indicate the extreme poverty of a laboring man, "Why he is so poor that he does not drink wine for his dinner." We make a great mistake when we impose any tax on a new, branch of industry that connects itself in so important a way as this does at once with the sanitary condition of the people, and with their morals. Sir, the American people are more afflicted with that terrible disease dyspepsia than any other; and why? Because almost every other people on the face of the globe, at least within the bounds of Christendom, indulge in acid wines, and they are cheap. Instead of that, here such wine is a luxury. It is continually prescribed to the rich dyspeptic, while the poor laboring man on the shoe-maker's or tailor's seat cannot get the specific, because it is so expensive. I would cheapen it by remov

Mr. McRUER. I move pro formâ to insert seven instead of ten cents. It is with some reluctance that I rise to say that I am in favor of striking out the tax proposed in this bill, which applies particularly to my own State. I probably have the honor to represent the largest wine-growing district in the country, and I desire to say that I have no intention nor desire to relieve my district from its fairing all taxation from it. share of public burden. I consider it not only a duty, but a privilege, for them to bear what is justly imposed upon them.

Mr. Chairman, the production of California wine is an exception to all other agricultural pursuits in this country. Perhaps it is not generally known that a person who plants a vineyard has to wait patiently for five long years before he can get the first remunerative profit on the culture of grapes. It is entirely different from all other agricultural pursuits, where in a few months you can realize on your products. The wine-grower has to wait many years, and this, in a country where capital and labor are very high and where winegrowing is in its infancy, is an important consideration. Though our soil is admirably adapted to the cultivation of the grape, it does not necessarily follow that we can make as good wine as is made in Europe. It is yet an experimental thing, and must often result in failure.

It may not be generally known that what is termed wine in California, the product of the grape that has undergone the process of fermentation and is recognized as wine, although technically it might be known as something else, sells there for about thirty cents a gallon. That is about the current price that the manufacturer of that wine realizes for the raw product. The present expense of package in order to transport it to market is, this last year, ten cents a gallon. The average cost in placing it in market at San Francisco, for export or consumption, is almost equal to the cost of bringing it from France. And although this is an interest that we think very highly of and desire to cultivate, and which the State of California exempts from all taxation, still it is a fact that the people who have cultivated the grape there for the last five or ten years have not made it a profitable investment.

THere the hammer fell.]

Mr. KELLEY. I rise to oppose the amendment. I consider ten cents to be an inordinate tax on this article. Indeed, I think wine should have had no tax upon it. I understand a tax of five cents a gallon is equivalent to a tax of fifteen or twenty per cent. upon the article. That is a higher rate than we have proposed on most other products.

Gentlemen say it is an article of luxury. It ought not to be an article of luxury, and if we look to the health and temperance of our people we will not treat it as a matter of luxury. Could our home-grown wines abound so that || all our people could drink them, as they do in France and Germany, we would present in our morals a blessed contrast to our present condition. Wherever wine is cheap-pure native wine the people are temperate. It enters into their daily use. Wherever it is dear, as in England and Scotland, intemperance marks in an important degree the life of the lower orders of the people.

This is a new branch of industry. Its machinery, its customs, are not yet established. I would take the whole tax off until we shall have vineyards in every part of the country and our manufacturers shall be so skilled in the production of wine that we will say in this country, as they do in France when they want

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. McRUER. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. CLARKE, of Ohio. I move to strike out "ten" and insert "three."

The gentlemen who have spoken in regard to this tax seem to assume that this is an article produced without any expense. Now, sir, there is no article produced from the ground that costs more money in producing it than wine does. Almost everything used by the producer of the grape requires the expenditure of money. Nor is that all. There is no business so precarious as this in the region of country where I reside, which is the wine region of Ohio. The crop is by no means a certain one. In two out of five seasons the grape cultivator may expect a failure.

Now, if you wish to tax the cultivation of this article out of existence a proposition to tax it five or ten cents a gallon is well enough. But if it is to be encouraged, as it ought to be, especially on the grounds suggested by my friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. KELLEY,] then such a tax is manifestly excessive.

This is one of the most important interests in my section of country. In some portions of it we can raise nothing else. We go upon the hill-sides and make them contribute to the industry of the country. The amendment moved by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means taxing this article while in the condition of must at five cents per gallon, really amounts to ten cents, for every run after it passes the press it is losing and wasting, and when ready for the market in the character of wine it has lost one half of the capacity it had when taken from the press. I ask gentlemen

to consider these facts.

Mr. WRIGHT. It is the first duty of the Congress of the United States to provide a system of taxation that will enable us to pay the interest upon the national debt, and to fund a certain portion to meet the principal of that debt upon some future occasion.

A proposition is made here to tax native wines, and I desire to call the attention of the House to this consideration. You are well aware that the introduction of lager beer into this country has done a world of good in aid of the temperance societies of the nation. We are manufacturing wines in this country, and intend at no distant day to manufacture them so cheaply that they may be a substitute for whisky, to the end that there may be a greater degree of sobriety among the people, while the masses of the people may enjoy their creature comforts.

Now, what is the effect of this bill? The gentlemen of wealth can afford to pay the duty imposed, for after all the tax comes out of the pocket of the consumer. If you impose a tax upon these native wines it of course has to come out of the consumer. Where are you then? You are denying the masses of the people those beverages in which you indulge yourself. In this remark I am not to be understood as speaking personally. You first put a duty on foreign wines, and raise the price of them so high that no poor man can enjoy them, and then, when you come to our native wines, that should be enjoyed by the masses of the

[blocks in formation]

I have no desire to occupy the time of the House. I only desire to say that by taxing the people on all sides, and then taxing the man who has an income, you are putting on too heavy a burden for the country to bear.

I have no interest in this matter, except to call the attention of the House to it.

Mr. CLARKE, of Ohio. I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. MORRILL. I renew the amendment, pro formâ, for the purpose of saying this: that after we have proposed a tax of two dollars per gallon on whisky, such as is consumed by the laboring men, the men who get out the coal and make the iron, and then come to an article that is consumed only by gentlemen who can afford to pay a tax, I think our law would not look very well if we should make such a luxury free. I move that the committee rise for the purpose of terminating debate on this paragraph.

The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. DAWES reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration the

Union generally, and particularly the special order, being bill of the House No. 513, to amend an act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof, and had to come to no resolution thereon.

CLOSE OF DEBATE.

Mr. MORRILL. I move that when the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union shall resume the consideration of House bill No. 513, all debate upon the pending paragraph and the amendments thereto terminate in three minutes.

Mr. BIDWELL. I suggest to the gentleman that he make it ten minutes.

Mr. MORRILL. To accommodate the gentleman from California I will modify my motion, and say eight minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

TAX BILL-AGAIN.

Mr. MORRILL. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order.

The motion was agreed to.

So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. DAWES in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the special order, being a bill of the House (No. 513) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof.

Mr. MORRILL. Iwithdraw my amendment. Mr. BIDWELL. I renew it. I feel persuaded that if the true condition of the wineproducing interest of California could be understood by this House no tax would be imposed upon it, unless it was done with the purpose of crushing that interest. After wine is made in California you then have to transport it seventeen thousand miles around Cape Horn in order to find a market. You have to pass twice through the tropics, during which time the wine is liable to spoil on your hands. You have to pay interest and insurance upon the risks of the ocean, all of which accumulates immensely the expense.

I have already said that even the smallest tax would be a burden. It takes fourteen pounds of grapes to make a gallon of wine. Those grapes at the vineyard where they are raised are worth perhaps a cent a pound. When you have expressed the juice it is worth from twenty to thirty cents a gallon, including all the cost of labor.

But that is not the cost of the wine. The labor upon it, the cask in which you have to put it, the cost of transporting it to San Francisco, a distance of four or five or six hundred miles oftentimes in California, in many cases where there are no railroads; all these things enhance the cost. And taking everything into consideration, labor, transportation, &c., you cannot produce wine in California for less than from ninety cents to $1 25 a gallon. Now, if Congress wishes to crush this interest then im pose this tax. Five cents a gallon, as low as it appears, is one third of the value, after deducting the cost of labor, &c. I think that we ought rather to encourage this interest in order to do away with strong drinks and substitute for them a beverage pure, healthful, and invig. orating. I am not a wine drinker myself, nor am I an advocate for wine drinking. But if you will foster this interest upon the Pacific coast in a short time we will be able to produce all the raisins and all the wine and all the brandy that will be required in the United States or upon the American continent. But put your tax upon it at this time and you will crush it in its infancy just as it is struggling into exist

ence.

out.

I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] will prevail, and that this paragraph will be stricken The entire amount of tax upon wine collected in the United States during the past year, I understand, was but a little over thirtyfour thousand dollars. Now, is it worth while to crush out an interest that may become one of the first interests of this country for such a small sum as that? I really think not; and I hope, therefore, this paragraph will be stricken

out.

Mr. PRICE. We started out upon the supposition that we are to tax luxuries in this bill. I suppose no one will object to that proposition. It is admitted on all sides that our taxes ought to be levied mainly upon the luxuries of the country. If wine is not a luxury, then we do not want to tax it. But if, as has been supposed heretofore in the history of this country, wine is among the luxuries of the country, then we want to tax it.

Now, if I had not thought it would have been a work of supererogation, I would have moved to increase this tax to twenty-five cents a gallon. You have imposed a tax of two dollars a gallon on whisky; yet wine will make a person as drunk as whisky will, though it may require a little more of it perhaps. But I am told by those who have tried it that being drunk on wine is the meanest kind of drunkenness. I speak from information only, for I have never had any experience in that matter.

But the most singular argument used upon this floor to-day is the argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] calling the attention of the House to the morality of France, which he says is to be directly traced to their habit of wine drinking, and my friend from California [Mr. BIDWELL] indorsed the proposition. Now, in all my reading and experience, this is the first time in my life that I have ever heard France held up as an especial example of morality. Now, I am willing to make a compromise with those gentlemen. If they can show that France is a more moral country than this because they drink more wine and less water there, then I will be willing to strike this out; provided they will agree that if the morality of France is not equal to the morality of this country they will agree to put a tax of twenty-five cents a gallon on wine. Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman allow me a moment?

Mr. PRICE. I cannot yield now out of three minutes, of course. But I will meet the gentleman any evening and talk over the matter with him for an hour.

Mr. THAYER. Over a bottle. [Laughter.] Mr. PRICE. A bottle of water. Now what does this bill propose to do? You propose to put a tax of two dollars a gallon on whisky, the beverage the poor man exercises the privi lege of getting drunk on, and only five cents a

[ocr errors]

gallon on wine, the beverage the rich man exercises his privilege of getting drunk on. I would like to know how much tax on a drink of wine that is. I know of no system of arithmetic by which you could tell what it would amount to.

Now, I think wine can bear a tax of twentyfive cents a gallon, or even fifty cents a gallon, just as well as whisky can bear a tax of two dollars a gallon. And I am not certain but it can bear a tax of two dollars a gallon as well as whisky can.

The question was upon the amendment of Mr. CLARKE, of Ohio, to the amendment of Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio, to strike out "ten" and insert "three," making the tax upon wine three cents a gallon.

The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to.

The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio, to strike out "five" and insert "ten," so as to make the tax upon wine ten cents a gallon.

The amendment was not agreed to.

The question was upon the motion of Mr. STEVENS to strike out the paragraph as amended.

Mr. MORRILL. I will ask the Clerk to read

the paragraph as amended, so that members

may understand it.

The Clerk again read the paragraph as amended, as follows:

On wine made of grapes further advanced than juice or must, a tax of five cents per gallon: Provided, That grape juice or must when sold immediately from the vineyard to vintners shall not be taxed.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for tellers on my motion to strike out this paragraph.

Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. PRICE and KELLEY were appointed.

The committee divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 40, noes 54.

So the motion to strike out the paragraph was not agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

On all other wines or liquors known or denominated as wine, not made from currants, rhubarb, or berries, produced by being rectified or mixed with other spirits, or into which any matter whatever may be infused to be sold as wine, or by any other name, and not otherwise provided for in this act, a tax of fifty cents per gallon: Provided, That the return, assessment, collection, and the time of collection of the duties on such wines, and wine made of grapes, shall be subject to the regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. And any person who shall willingly and knowingly sell or offer for sale any such wine made after the passage of this act, upon which the tax herein imposed has not been paid, or which has been fraudulently evaded, shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to a penalty of $100 or to imprisonment not exceeding two years, at the discretion of

the court.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend this paragraph by striking out the words "other wines or" in the first line, and inserting the word "grapes" before the word "currants" in the next line.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend the paragraph near the close by striking out the word "penalty" and inserting the word "fine.” The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I move to amend this paragraph by making the tax one dollar a gallon instead of fifty cents a gallon, as it now reads. And I desire to say a few words upon that amendment.

It will be seen that this paragraph proposes to levy a tax upon "liquors known or denom inated as wines" which are not manufactured from grapes, currants, rhubarb, or berries. It is, in other words, a tax upon that description of liquors denominated wines which are mere compounds, mere villainous compounds, generally a fraud upon the public, and a fraud upon all who drink them. We ought not to encourage the production of that kind of liquor. I hope, at least, that this paragraph will be so amended as to levy a tax of one dollar a gallon instead of a tax of fifty cents a gallon.

Now, it seems to me that the only objection that can be urged to this amendment is that it may be exceedingly difficult to collect so heavy

a tax as one dollar a gallon on this kind of liquor. The law will, undoubtedly, be evaded to some extent. But wherever it is possible to collect the tax of fifty cents a gallon, it seems to me it will be equally possible to collect a tax of one dollar a gallon. In the hands of vigilant and faithful officers the tax will be collected. And as well for the purpose of revenue as for the purpose of discouraging the manufacture of this kind of liquor, I hope this amendment will prevail.

Mr. MORRILL. I trust this amendment will not prevail, because we propose to derive some revenue under this provision. If the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAWRENCE] should prevail, this provision will prove utterly nugatory as an enactment, for we shall not collect a single dollar under it.

All that parties have to do, in order to make these wines, is to obtain the receipts, which every gentleman here has doubtless seen in temperance tracts and papers. Any business man who has whisky can make these wines, because the other materials are easily procured. They are easily mixed and easily rectified. The process requires no machinery, and the fact is easily concealed. We already tax the article of chief cost, in the form of whisky or spirits, a heavy percentage-two dollars a gallon. Now, if the committee is in favor of collecting any revenne at all upon this article, I hope the amendment as now proposed will not prevail.

I am as ready as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAWRENCE] to concede that these are villainous compounds. But I know that at the present time, instead of being made in this country, they are made abroad. Parties have moved their establishments into foreign countries where they can obtain whisky or alcohol at a much less price, and where they can manufacture these cheap wines and send them here at a less price than the duty which the gentleman proposes to place in the internal revenue bill. For instance, our tariff law imposes upon wines worth fifty cents or less a gallon a duty of twenty-five cents a gallon and twenty per cent. ad valorem. These wines can, therefore, be made abroad, and pay the duty here, and then be sold for less than a dollar per gallon. These articles can be manufactured in France or in Germany, and sent here at less than a dollar a gallon.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. We can provide for all that by a new tariff.

The CHAIRMAN. Debate is exhausted on this amendment.

The amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. DAVIS. I move to amend by striking out "one" in line two thousand and ninetytwo and inserting in lieu thereof the word "five;" so that the clause will read:

Shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to a penalty of $500 or to imprisonment not exceeding two years, at the discretion of the court.

I will state my reason for offering this amendment. I see that the term of imprisonment

authorized under this section is two years. Now, if the fine were increased to $500, I think that the court would in most cases impose the fine rather than the imprisonment; and I believe it would be wiser.

Mr. MORRILL. I see no objection to the. amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:

On cloth and all textile or knitted or felted articles or fabrics of cotton, wool, or other materials, before the same has been dyed, printed, or bleached, and on all cloth painted, enameled, shirred, tarred, varnished, or oiled, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem.

No amendment being offered,
The Clerk read as follows:

On thread, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem. Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend by inserting after the word "thread" the words "and twine.'

The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

On articles of clothing manufactured or produced for sale by weaving, knitting, or felting; on hats, bonnets, and hoop-skirts; on articles manufactured

or produced for sale as constituent parts of clothing, or for trimming or ornamenting the same, and on articles of wearing apparel manufactured or produced for sale from India rubber, gutta-percha, or paper, or from fur, or fur skins dressed with the fur on, a tax of five per cent. ad valorem.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to amend by striking out in line twenty-one hundred and six the words" or paper."

Mr. GARFIELD. When the Committee of Ways and Means agreed to recommend this amendment, the facts relating to the matter were not as fully stated, I believe, as they should have been, or the amendment would not have been recommended. The object in striking out the words " or paper" was to exempt paper collars from this ad valorem tax of five per cent. Since the action of the committee on this subject, I have learned that paper collars are manufactured by one very large establishment which has a monopoly of the manufacture, and there are very few things in the whole country that can bear the burden of a tax better than a manufacture of that sort. I think, therefore, that the amendment should not be agreed to. The object of the committee, in agreeing to present the amendment, was to help the manufacturers of paper collars; but I believe the amendment would not have been recommended had the committee known that these collars are manufactured by a monopoly that has the control of this entire business.

Mr. LAFLIN. The fact, as I understand, is not, as the gentleman asserts, that the manufacture of paper collars has become a monopoly. The truth, as I understand, is that there are two or three or perhaps seven or eight concerns that claim to possess exclusively a certain || patent for the manufacture of paper collars. Forty or fifty other establishments, representing a very large interest, are acting against those concerns. The competition has reached such a point that it is now almost within the power of this monopoly to destroy the other establishments. It is the interest of this combination or monopoly that this tax should be levied, since it would give them the power to crush all competition.

Mr. MORRILL. I withdraw the amendment. Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. I move to amend by striking out in lines twenty-one hundred and one and twenty-one hundred and two, the words, "hats, bonnets, and." I make this motion that I may move hereafter to insert these articles in the paragraph with readymade clothing, gloves, mittens, &c., which are subjected to a tax of one per cent.

Mr. MORRILL. I feel compelled to oppose cles should be reduced, or if they should be this amendment; for if the tax on these artiexempted, it will cause a very large reduction of the revenue. Every man wears a hat; every woman wears a bonnet. Of course, therefore, the amount of business in these articles is immense; and they are articles which can bear this tax as well as anything else. A hat that sells for ten dollars would not sell at any lower

price, if we should take off the tax. Then there is a large and very profitable trade in braid and straw bonnets. If the tax on these should be reduced, it would largely diminish the revenue. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will not prevail.

The amendment was not agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:

On boots and shoes, a tax of two per cent. ad valorem; to be paid by every person making, manufacturing, or producing for sale boots and shoes, or furnishing the materials or any part thereof, and employing others to make, manufacture, or produce them: Provided, That any boot or shoe-maker making boots or shoes to order as custom work only, and not for general sale, and whose work, exclusive of the materials, does not exceed annually in value $1,000 shall be exempt from this tax.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking out in line twenty-one hundred and sixteen the word "one" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "two;" so that the clause will read:

Provided, That any boot or shoe maker making boots or shoes to order as custom work only, and not for general sale, and whose work, exclusive of the materials, does not exceed annually in value $2,000 shall be exempt from this tax.

The Committee of Ways and Means have very wisely, in my judgment, sought to exempt from taxation those shoe-makers who do a small amount of business. I think, however, they have not carried this exemption far enough. There are, I am informed, many of these people who do a business the work of which amounts to $1,500 or $2,000 annually. I hope, therefore, that the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means will assent to my amendment. Although it may seem a small matter, it is a very important matter to these small shoe-makers.

Mr. MORRILL. I cannot consent to the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. If gentlemen will examine this paragraph they will find that this tax applies only to work, exclusive of all materials. A shoemaker or boot-maker doing work for custom purposes solely must be a very diligent man if he makes more than $1,000 worth of work annually, exclusive of materials. Besides, the committee will observe that we have reduced the tax upon these articles from six per cent. to two per cent. Hence the amount of tax is very small under any circumstances. I trust the amendment will not prevail.

,

Mr. LE BLOND. I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment, to strike out in line twenty-one hundred and eight the word "two" and insert in lieu thereof the word "five;" so that the clause will read:

On boots and shoes a tax of five per cent. ad valorem.

Also by striking out in line twenty-one hundred and fourteen to twenty-one hundred and sixteen, the following words:

And whose work, exclusive of the materials, does not exceed annually in value $1,000, shall be exempt from this tax.

This amendment will accomplish in part the same object which is sought by the gentleman from Pennsylvania in his motion. If "two" be stricken out and "five" inserted we shall adopt in this paragraph the same rate of taxation which is applied to manufacturers in the previous paragraph.

Then as to the second branch of my amendment, I will say that those who manufacture boots and shoes for customers alone, even in our small towns in the western country, certainly manufacture every year more than $1,000 worth of boots and shoes.

Mr. MORRILL. Not exclusive of material.
Mr. LE BLOND. I think so.
Mr. MORRILL. Oh, no!

Mr. LE BLOND. I think the work itself will amount to more than $1,000 even among the small shoe-makers throughout our country.

Certainly the shoe-makers are a class of persons who above all others ought to be exempt from any taxation. I hope that the entire paragraph will be stricken out. That will exempt the shoe-makers altogether.

The CHAIRMAN. Neither of the gentlement; and therefore neither is in order now. men's amendments is germane to the amend

Mr. MORRILL. I move pro forma to amend the amendment by inserting "$1,500" instead of "$2,000."

If the amendment proposed by either the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. RANDALL] or the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LE BLOND] prevails it would amount to a total exemption of the business of boot and shoe making. I suppose that the gentleman from Ohio may not be aware of the manner in which this business is done. Should his amendment prevail we should have no work but custom work. The men who are engaged in this business would employ every shoe-maker and bootmaker in the country to make their custom work to the full amount that they would be allowed to make under the law free of tax. The boss manufacturers would buy the work of their journeymen and we should get no revenue. Therefore I hope the amendment will be rejected and that the paragraph will be allowed to stand as it is.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I do not think my proposition is an unreasonable.

one at all. I want to exempt the man who does a moderate amount of business from all tax if I can. I want to relieve the men who do custom work as far as possible, the men who employ a few apprentices and perhaps two or three journeymen.

Mr. MORRILL. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. ALLEY. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania by inserting in the first line of the paragraph the word "one" instead of "two" as it now stands; so that it will read: "on boots and shoes a tax of one per cent.

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. That is not in order. It is not germane to the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The gentleman may move to amend by striking out "$2,000" and inserting "$1,500."

Mr. ALLEY. No matter about the amendment. I intended to move, and shall do so at the proper time, the amendment I have indicated, making the tax one per cent. on boots and shoes instead of two. I think that will satisfy the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. RANDALL.] I know it will satisfy those he represents. These parties have been to me from the several States and conferred with me on the subject, and I know what the feeling generally is in relation to this matter. in hopes that the committee will agree to that reduction. I think that the information that they have received must convince them that the reduction ought to be made.

I am

I see no reason why this should be put at two per cent. It seems to me the same arguments that induced the committee to reduce the tax on clothing to one per cent. should have induced them to reduce this also to the same. And if they do, I think it will satisfy the gentlemen who represent the interest of these small manufacturers or small shoe-makers who feel that they are greatly oppressed by this tax.

And now one word why this should be done. In the first place, there is a tax upon the hides of ten per cent. Then there is a tax on leather, under this bill, of five per cent. Then there is an additional tax of five per cent. upon the increased value in the currying; and then all the other materials that go into the shoes that are imported pay a tax of from twenty-five to fifty per cent. Now, it seems to me that there really should be no tax upon boots and shoes since they are taxed in so many forms upon all the materials that are used. The boots that are manufactured in the country to-day are paying, in various forms, a tax of nearly twenty per cent. Under all these circumstances there should be a reduction of at least one per cent. That, I think, would be quite satisfactory to the small shoe-makers who work upon the bench and employ a few apprentices and perhaps two or three journeymen, as suggested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. RANDALL.] If the gentleman will accept my amendment in lieu of his own, I think it will obviate the whole difficulty and satisfy the parties whose interest he represents.

CLOSE OF DEBATE.

Mr. MORRILL. I move that all debate in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the pending paragraph of the special order terminate in one minute after the committee shall resume the consideration of the subject.

The motion was agreed to.

TAX BILL-AGAIN.

Mr. MORRILL moved that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order.

The motion was agreed to.

So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. DAWES in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the special order, being a bill of the House (No. 513) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof.

Mr. MORRILL. All I have to say in relation to this matter is this: the Committee of Ways and Means are quite ready to admit that shoes and boots may be exempted with as much propriety as anything else, but we made as many reductions as we thought the Treasury at this time could possibly afford; and any reduction on these articles would make a very large difference. I do hope that the committee will allow these provisions to stand, as we reduce the amount of the tax from six per cent., as it now is, to two per cent., and that ought to satisfy all parties.

Mr. LE BLOND. I wish to ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means a question.

The CHAIRMAN. No debate is in order. The question was taken on Mr. ALLEY'S amendment, and it was disagreed to.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I move, in line twenty-one hundred and sixteen, to strike out the word "one" and insert "two." The amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. LE BLOND. I move to amend in line twenty-one hundred and eight by striking out the word "two" and inserting "five;" so that it will read: "on boots and shoes a tax of five per cent. ad valorem," &c.

I wish to call the attention of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means to this provision, and to inquire of him why a distinction is made between "clothing" and "boots and shoes."

[ocr errors]

The amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. MYERS. I move to insert after line twenty-one hundred and sixteen the following:

And where such work shall exceed annually in value $1,000, the tax of one per cent. shall be on the amount of work in excess of $1,000.

The amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. In line twenty-one hundred sixteen, to insert after

represANDALL, of Pennsylvania. I with thousand the words in five hundred, word

draw my amendment for the present, to see whether the gentleman's amendment prevails. Perhaps in the end I may be satisfied. If not I will ask the privilege of renewing mine.

Mr. MORRILL. I move that the committee rise for the purpose of terminating debate. I shall only ask the committee to consider these paragraphs in reference to clothing and boots and shoes.

The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. DAWES reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration the Union generally, and particularly the special order, being bill of the House No. 513, to amend an act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1861, and acts amendatory thereof, and had come to no resolution thereon.

[ocr errors]

that the provision will read:

Provided, That any boot or shoe maker making boots or shoes to order as custom work only, and not for general sale, and whose work, exclusive of the materials, docs not exceed annually in value $1,500, shall be exempt from this tax.

The amendment was disagreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

On ready-made clothing, gloves, mittens, moccasins, caps, and other articles of dress for the wear of men, women, and children, not otherwise assessed and taxed, a tax of one per cent. ad valorem, to be paid by every person making, manufacturing, or producing for sale clothing, gloves, mittens, moccasins, caps, and other articles of dress, or furnishing the materials or any part thereof, and employing others to make, manufacture, or produce them: Provided. That any tailor, or any maker of gloves, mittens, moccasins, caps, or other articles of dress to order as custom work only, and not for general sale, and whose work, exclusive of the materials, does not exceed annually in value $1,000, shall be exempt from this tax; and articles of dress made or trimmed by milliners or dress-makers for the wear of women or children shall also be exempt from this tax.

Mr. MYERS. I move to insert, in line

twenty-one hundred and twenty-nine, after the words "one thousand," the following:

And where such work shall exceed annually in value $1,000, the said tax of one per cent. shall be on the amount of work in excess of $1,000,

I think if the House understood this amendment they would vote for it. I speak in reference to both these paragraphs-both the one in reference to boots and shoes, and that in reference to clothing. It was the intention that a certain amount should be exempted, but it will be noticed that as the provision now stands, if the amount of work done exceeds by one dollar the sum of $1,000, the shoe-maker or tailor will have the tax imposed upon him for his whole work and his whole material.

It is for the purpose of explaining more clearly what I think was the meaning of the

committee that I offer this amendment. It provides, in other words, that material and work shall only be taxed over the amount which was intended to be exempted.

Mr. MORRILL. I hope that amendment will not be adopted.

Mr. MYERS. I move to amend my amendment by striking out the last word. I should like to hear some better reason from the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means than that he hopes this amendment will not be adopted.

Mr. MORRILL. The question has already been discussed sufficiently for every member of the committee to understand it, and if the gentleman is satisfied with his speech I am, and I do not like the task of discussing these matters over and over again.

Mr. MYERS. What I want to say is this: in many instances parties purchase materials for clothing and have it made up. And by this provision, without my amendment, if the work exceeds a thousand dollars, the tailor or bootmaker is charged not only for all his work under one thousand dollars, but also upon the articles that enter into that work; in many instances articles which he has not bought at all, but which have been bought by a third party and brought to him to be made up.

Mr. MORRILL. I find that it is necessary to say a few words. The gentleman cannot have read the paragraph. The amount taxed is to be exclusive of the material.

Mr. STEVENS. Do I understand that the $1,000 worth is to be absolutely exempt from taxation, or only when the amount is $1,000 or less? Suppose it shall amount to $1,005, is the whole $1,005 to be taxed, or only the excess over the $1,000?

Mr. MORRILL. Only the excess, according to an amendment that has already been adopted on the motion of the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. WILSON.]

Mr. STEVENS. I suppose the object of the committee is to exempt, at all events, the $1,000 for these small operators. But it seems to me that according to the language of this paragraph that the man who does $999 worth of work will be wholly exempt from the tax, while the man who does $1,001 worth will have to pay the tax on the whole $1,001. That cannot be the intention of the committee.

Mr. MYERS. If it exceeds $1,000, under the language of this provision, even the materials are taxed.

Mr. STEVENS. I am not attending to that point now, but I am referring to the fact that I suppose the intention was to exempt $1,000in all cases and to tax the excess. But it seems to me this paragraph does not effect that object; for if the amount exceeds $1,000 the whole amount is taxed; if it does not exceed that amount it is not taxed at all.

The amendment of Mr. MYERS was not agreed to.

Mr. DAVIS. I move to strike out at the close of the paragragh the words "and articles of dress made or trimmed by milliners or dressmakers for the wear of women or children shall also be exempt from this tax." I do not understand why this exception should be made.

Mr. MORRILL. I will answer the gentleman, if he desires an answer. If the gentle

« PreviousContinue »