that is so in New England, I want to ask those Senators what they suppose will be the state of things in the West, where a few friends of temperance have been struggling not only to execute the laws but to discountenance in every way possible the retailing and drinking of ardent spirits. What does this do for us? The Senator from Connecticut thinks it will operate to help the cause of temperance in Connecticut. Perhaps it will. I hope it will. But with us, where the laws on this subject are not enforced to any great extent, and in communities near us where they have no law in regard to it, but where the only restraint is public sentiment, where associations from New England have gone, and by a healthy public sentiment have so discountenanced the traffic that they have drawn it out by the moral force of their example, what is to be the result? Now we have no law to protect us, and here comes a man along who applies to the assessor under this law saying, "I propose to sell intoxicating liquors here, notwithstanding the moral sentiment of this community is against it; give me a license."

The assessor tells him, "put down your name, and tell me the place where you propose to sell, and pay me twenty dollars." He goes through this form, and the assessor delivers to him a written document. The Senator says it is no license; but he delivers a written document, and the liquor seller pays twenty dollars for it, and upon that document, in the face of the community, he sells with impunity, there being no State laws to prevent him.

Mr. CLARK. Could he not sell with impunity before?

Mr. POMEROY. He could sell before, but the moral sentiment of the community was such that he did not choose to face it. Now he is backed up by a permit from the Government of the United States, and the brass, which was not very thick on him before, becomes thick enough now.

Mr. CLARK. Twenty dollars worth of brass. Mr. POMEROY. Twenty dollars worth of this support from the Federal Government enables him to face down and frown down the moral sentiment of the community. I tell you men will walk through our communities with this license in their pockets, and this bill will send more desolation into our communities in the West than any law passed by this Congress.

I think it is clearly open to another objection; but I do not desire to occupy the time of the Senate. I will merely say that in my opinion, by this mode of licensing, not only is there a sanction given to it, but in many States, where the law is loose on the subject, this is a law for it. Where we have no State laws or municipal regulations in regard to the traffic, this is a law for it; and it will operate so in all the communities of the West. I hope the provision will be stricken out.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Howe.) The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. POMEROY called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted -yeas 5, nays 32; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Harris, Pomeroy, Wilmot, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wright-5.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kennedy, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Latham, McDougall, Morrill, Powell, Sherman, Simmons, Summer, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, and Wilson of Missouri

32.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CLARK. I propose to amend section sixty-three, on page 77, by inserting after the word "thereof," in the sixth line, the words, "or in violation of the laws of any State;" so that the section shall read:

That no license hereinbefore provided for, if granted, shall be construed to authorize the commencement or continuation of any trade, business, occupation, or employment therein mentioned, within any State or Territory of the United States in which it is or shall be specially prohibited by the laws thereof, or in violation of the laws of any State.

Mr. CHANDLER. I ask the Senate now to go into executive session for a few minutes.

Mr. CLARK. Let us take the vote on this question.

Mr. CHANDLER. It is very important that we should have an executive session. I withdraw my motion in order that this vote may be taken, but I give notice that I shall renew it. It will

take but a few minutes to accomplish what I

want.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me suggest to the Senator from New Hampshire what I think will effect what he desires. Let the section be made to read in this way, after the fourth line:

Within any State or Territory of the United States in which it is or shall be specially limited, regulated, licensed, or prohibited, in violation of the laws thereof.

Mr. CLARK. It amounts to about the same thing.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Might not the words, "in violation of the laws thereof," in the Senator's amendment, be construed to refer to States where the law was specially prohibitory? That was the difficulty in my mind.

Mr. CLARK. I will modify the amendment so far as to add "or Territory."

Mr. SUMNER. If I can have the attention of the Senator from New Hampshire, I wish to call his attention to this point: whether the object that is sought could not be reached better if the provision were, that the license should not be granted in any such State? I throw it out for inquiry; I am not sure about it. According to the language here, the license may be granted, but then it is said that it shall not operate within any State or Territory of the United States in which the business is or shall be specially prohibited by the laws thereof. Now, the point to which I wish to call the attention of the Senator is,whether the provision would not be more stringent, and his idea and also the idea of my colleague, more completely carried out if it was declared that the license should not be granted? For instance, if that section should read in this way-I have drawn up a few words to carry out the idea:

That no license hereinbefore provided for, shall be granted for any trade, business, occupation, or employment, within any State or Territory of the United States, in which it is or shall be specially prohibited by the laws thereof.

Mr. CLARK. I suggest to the Senator from Massachusetts that that does not reach a class of cases which it is desirable to reach; and that is a class of cases where the business is carried on within a State under special licenses, according to the laws of a State. If it was simply to reach the case of those States where the traffic was specially prohibited, it would do, because you would not be obliged to grant your license; but you want to grant licenses in those States where there is a license taken out under the laws of the

State, and to get your tax from those. I understand that by the laws of the State of New York licenses are granted to the retailer. You make him take out a license under this bill because you want to tax him; and it would not do to say it should not be granted; because then they would say they should not be taxed. 'I think to reach both classes of cases, my amendment had better stand as it is. It would reach only one class, if put in the form the Senator from Massachusetts suggests.

Mr. SUMNER. are seeing how this a common object. form:

Here is another form. We can best be stated; we have Suppose it were put in this

That no license hereinbefore provided for shall be granted for any trade, business, occupation, or employment within any State or 'Territory of the United States, except to such persons as may be authorized by the laws thereof.

It seems to me that that would carry out the idea which we all have.

Mr. FOSTER. The Senator will allow me to suggest that then, in all the States where the liquor trade is prohibited, and persons are still selling it, they would go on and sell without paying a cent to the national Treasury, because, of course, if we do not issue a license we cannot prosecute them for not taking one.

Mr. SHERMAN. How would it operate in a State where there is no law on the subject; where it is neither prohibited nor allowed?

Mr. SUMNER. Then, I take it, they would be authorized, where there is no law on the subject.

Mr. SHERMAN. In some States the liquor traffic is left, like any other traffic, to be governed by the public sense of the community, to the municipal laws of cities and other corporations, and the State laws do not affect the business at all.

Mr. CLARK. I think my amendment is right. Mr. SUMNER. I do not mean to propose mine; I merely offered it as a contribution.

Mr. CLARK. I am obliged to the Senator. I

understand his object; but I think this answers all purposes.

The amendment was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Mr. CHANDLER. I now renew my motion to proceed to the consideration of executive busi

ness.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to ask the Senator if he states on his own responsibility that it is a matter of very pressing importance.

Mr CHANDLER. I do state that I consider it so, and that it will not occupy three minutes. Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope you will not risk an opinion as to the length of time to be occupied. I never knew one in that way that was correct. Mr. CHANDLER. I think the business is very pressing.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not object to it, but I give notice that if I do not consider it so, I shall move to come out again very quickly.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After twenty minutes spent in executive session, the doors were reopened.

EXPENSES OF PUBLIC LANDS.

Mr. HARLAN. I ask the Senate to take up the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 187) to reduce the expenses of the survey and sale of the public lands of the United States. There is no objection to them, and they can be disposed of in a minute.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The tax bill is properly before the Senate, but if there be no objection it will be laid aside temporarily for the purpose indicated by the Senator from Iowa. ["Agreed."] The Secretary will read the amendments of the House of Representatives.

The Secretary read the amendments. It is proposed in the third and fourth lines of the fourth section to strike out the words "until otherwise ordered by the President," and to insert" upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the President may order that;" so that the section will read:

That from and after the 1st day of July next, and upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the President may order that the Territories of Utah and Colorado shall constitute one surveying district, &c.

It is also proposed to add the following proviso to section seven:

Provided, The provisions of this section shall not be held to authorize preemption and settlements of mineral lands, which are liereby exempted from the provisions of

this act.

The amendments were concurred in.

THE TAX BILL.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 312) to provide internal revenue to support the Government and pay interest on the public debt.

Mr. HARRIS. On page 95, lines two hundred and thirty-five and two hundred and thirty-six, is this provision:

On oil dressed leather and deer skins dressed or smoked, two cents per pound.

There is in the State of New York a small community residing in a single small county, excellent, patriotic, useful citizens, engaged in the manufacture of leather mittens and gloves. It is the only manufactory of the kind in the country to any extent. There is very little of the thing done anywhere else. It is in the northern part of the county of Fulton, on the border of which is Gloversville on the borders of a great wilderness. known in that State as John Brown's tract. That community have engaged in the manufacture of this article, and they manufacture and sell abou ₺ a million of dollars worth a year. It furnishes employment to the women and children of that community. They purchase all the deer skins they can find, and goat skins, and some sheep skins, and some elk skins-animals captured in that wilderness; they dress them, they manufae ture them into gloves and mittens. Here is a ta imposed on the skins that they use of two cents per pound. That constitutes the principal artic brought into the manufacture. Labor is added it, which is about fifteen or twenty per cent., ara el then it comes into the market as gloves and mar tens. They find great competition with another

THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION.

article which is made of yarn, knit gloves and mittens. They sought to introduce their manufacture into the Army, but the Quartermaster General took two hundred thousand knit gloves, and only seven thousand of theirs. They cannot, therefore, enhance the price to meet the tax, and, as this bill now stands, they are taxed two cents a pound upon their skins, the oil-dressed skins which they work up, and it is the only, article of that kind in the market.

There is not probably one thousand dollars worth of this kind of leather used anywhere else but by these glove manufacturers. They are charged two cents a pound on these skins; then they are charged three per cent. ad valorem on their gloves; thus making about six per cent. tax. I have been hesitating as to what relief should be furnished to them. It will break up their business, I am satisfied, if this bill stands as it is now. The business has greatly decreased within the last few years, as it is. They had some hundred manufacturers there, individuals having establishments engaged in this work, in 1856. It is now reduced to about twenty-five or thirty; and unless Congress means to really break down the business, it is necessary that there should be some amendment. I had thought at first of striking out these two lines that I have read, imposing a tax of two cents a pound on deer skins and oil-dressed leather. That would answer the purpose, for then they will pay three per cent. ad valorem on the gloves and mittens they manufacture. That is as much as they ought to be charged with. That they are willing to pay. I had thought also of allowing this to stand, and then to propose to except them from the three per cent. ad valorem; that would do, but I have concluded to offer an amendment which I think will answer their purpose, which seems to be equitable and just. On the 98th page, at line three hundred and ten, I propose to include them in a class of manufacturers who are provided for in that place, by inserting after the word " prepared," the words "on oil-dressed leather and deer skins, dressed or smoked;" so as to read:

Provided, That on all cloths dyed, printed, bleached, manufactured into other fabrics, or otherwise prepared, on oil-dressed leather, and deer skins dressed or smoked, on which a duty or tax shall have been paid before the same were so dyed, printed, bleached, or prepared, the said duty or tax of three per cent. shall be assessed only upon the increased value thereof.

Mr. FESSENDEN. That is out of order. The clause which the Senator proposes to amend is an amendment that has been adopted, and cannot be amended in committee.

Mr. HARRIS. We have been considering such propositions.

Mr. FESSENDEN. No not to amend amendments which have been adopted.

Mr. HARRIS. Then, sír, I shall get at it in another way.

Mr. FESSENDEN. You can get at it when the bill shall be reported to the Senate.

FRIDAY, MAY 30, 1862.

tories of this kind struggling for existence. The thing has not come into very extensive use, not nearly so much as it ought to be in the agricultural districts, and I hope there will be no disposition to embarrass this useful manufacture by imposing any tax upon it. I hope, therefore, the words, "draining tile" may be inserted in this clause exempting articles from duty.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SUMNER. I offer an amendment as a new section, to come in on page 128, before "stamp duties:"

And be it further enacted, That any person who shall claim the service or labor for life of any other person under the laws of any State shall pay, on account of such person so claimed, the sum of ten dollars.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will state to the Senator that the Committee on Finance have agreed upon an amendment to provide for that matter, but it will be drawn with more care than that. Mr. KING. Where is it?

Mr. SIMMONS. It is the last section of the printed amendment which I submitted yesterday. I should have offered it if I had got the floor this morning. I suppose I shall have to make a pretty long speech when I do get the floor.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know why the Senator from Rhode Island put it into his own private amendment. He was authorized by the committee to offer a section on this subject; that is to say, the committee agreed that the amendment might be offered, but they did not settle upon the amount to be imposed for each person. I do not see why the Senator should have taken it and put it in a very large mass of material. Mr. SIMMONS. Not a very large mass. I have put in nothing but what the committee did agree to, except to strike out certain sections.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator has an amendment that strikes out about two thirds of the bill.

Mr. SIMMONS. That I propose myself.
Mr. FESSENDEN. So I say.

Mr. SIMMONS. It is very difficult to tell what the committee did agree to. I do not know that a majority was for anything that is reported.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts withdrawn?

Mr. SUMNER. My own proposition is very simple, and is different in form from that to which the Senator from Rhode Island alludes, and the suggestion is made to me by Senators about me, whose opinion I value, that I had better adhere to it now.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I have no objection to the Senator offering his amendment and discussing it. I merely made the suggestion as to the form in which it should be presented.

Mr. SUMNER. A tax of ten dollars on account of each slave will give $40,000,000. And in putting the tax at ten dollars, I follow the precedent of the Constitution, which taxes slaves im

ment is withdrawn.

I cannot disguise that on this question I have shared the doubts of others. Of course, no tax would be tolerable which gave any sanction to property in man; and it has been feared that a tax on slaves might be interpreted as giving such sanction. Perhaps this fear is natural to persons who are shocked by the idea of slavery. It was early avowed by Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, whose sensibility is thus recorded by Madison in his report of the debates in the Federal convention:

"He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse, because it implied they were property." -Eliot's Debates, vol. 5, p. 461.

Again, a few days later, when the same clause of the Constitution was under discussion, Mr. Sherman repeated his objection, and the following debate occurred, which seems to exhaust the argument on both sides:

"Mr. SHERMAN was against the second part, acknowl edging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

"Colonel MASON. Not to tax will be equivalent to a bounty on the importation of slaves.

"Mr. GORHAM thought that Mr. Sherman should con

NEW SERIES.....No. 151.

sider the duty, not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them.

"Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS remarked, that as the clause now stands, it implies that the Legislature may tax free men imported.

"Mr. SHERMAN, in answer to Mr. Gorham, observed, that the smaliness of the duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation.

"Mr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea of property in man. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not, like merchandise, consumed. "Colonel MASON, in answer to Mr. Gouverneur Morris. The provision, as it stands, was necessary for the case of convicts, in order to prevent the introduction of them.”— Eliot's Debates, vol. 5, p. 47.

After this discussion, the clause as it is now found in the Constitution, laying "a tax or duty on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person," was adopted nem. con. Thus it appears that Sherman, Morris, Franklin, and Gerry, to say nothing of Madison, all known for their opposition to slavery, and their determination to give it no sanction, concurred in this proposition. It is clear that they felt that a tax or duty, thus arranged, was not a sanction of slavery.

But the same question is now presented to us. Clearly there can be no such thing as property in man. The whole idea is offensive and odious. There is no revenue, whatever may be its amount, which could compensate for this recognition. Better be poor, better be pinched in means, better forego much-needed supplies, than obtain them through any such sacrifice. But the same considerations which induced our fathers, with all their avowed scruples, to sustain such a tax or duty, may properly influence us.

It is the boast of the Constitution that it knows nobody as a slave. All are " persons." But at the same time it does not assume to interfere with a well-known State institution by which "persons" are degraded to be property. The condition of the slave is anomalous. He is property by the local law; he is a "person" by the Constitution. But nobody questions the existence of slavery. It is a monstrous fact, beyond our reach in the States, except through the war power, and yet none the less a fact, which taxation will only recognize, and not sanction. It is an intolerable nuisance intrenched in State lines; but we shall not treat it otherwise than as a nuisance when we tax it. In taxing it we do not assume its rightfulness. We only assume its undeniable existence as a fact, and nothing else.

If our tax were in the nature of an encouragement, it would be clearly immoral. But it will be a discouragement. Exemption from taxation is encouragement. Taxation is discouragement just in proportion to its extent, until, in the progress of events, it becomes destructive. Looking at the present question in the light of this principle, our course is plain. It is not permissible that we should encourage slavery, while every principle of economy and every sentiment of justice and humanity urge its discouragement.

But it may be said that the Constitution prohibits a capitation tax, "unless in proportion to the census. "But the tax I propose is not a capitation tax, any more than the tax on auctioneers, or lawyers, or jugglers, or peddlers, or slaughterers of cattle is a capitation tax. According to lexicographers, a capitation tax is a poll tax, a tax on each individual. Now, this tax makes no pretension to be a poll tax, or a tax on each individual. It is a tax on a person who claims the service or labor of another for life, proportioned to the extent of his claim. In other words, it is a tax on a claim of property; and when I tax this claim, surely I do not recognize its morality; nor do I accord to it any sanction.

If it be said that, at one time, I insist that the slave shall have all the rights of "persons" under the Constitution, while I now insist that his master shall pay a tax on a claim of property in him, I reply that there is no inconsistency, but perfect harmony. By an unquestionable rule of interpretation, applicable to the Constitution, every word is to be construed in favor of liberty, so as most to promote liberty. According to this rule, every presumption is in favor of liberty. But while insisting upon every such presumption, it

1862.

suggests that the tax of ten dollars proposed by me is too high. In proposing this sum for the tax I followed the Constitution.

Mr. COLLAMER. In the clause relative to importations?

Mr. COLLAMER. Permit me to make another suggestion.

Mr. SUMNER. Certainly.

Mr. COLLAMER. When they imported slaves they imported those that had value. They would not bring off and import those that were not valuable. The tax now proposed covers all-aged, infirm, infants. It seems to me that on that account the cases are not entirely parallel.

Mr. SUMNER. Perhaps so. I shall not stand on the parallel. I accept the suggestion of the Senator absolutely; and therefore, as the amendment is now entirely within my own power, I ask leave to substitute the proposition of the Senator from Rhode Island, being what is now numbered section sixty-six of his amendment.

Mr. SIMMONS. I have modified my printed amendment by putting in "the service or labor of" after the words "on account of" in the third line. I think I will suggest another modification. When I drew up this clause originally, I had a proviso in that it should not apply to service or labor due to parents or guardians; but the Senator from Maine thought it unnecessary. Other legal minds feared that it might be construed to embrace service due to parents by children. I think, perhaps, it would be as well to add that proviso.

Mr. SUMNER. Will the Senator kindly give || me the words!

Mr. SIMMONS. At the end of the section, add:

Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to service due to parents or guardians.

I do not think the section would cover that now; but perhaps it may be as well to exclude the idea of taxing children. They are the last thing I should want to lay a tax on, I have so many myself.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I think it is as well to exclude the conclusion.

66

ians by law.

sons, you violate the Constitution of the United States, which declares the mode and manner in which you shall levy a tax on persons. You may tax employments, trades, occupations, and property; but when you levy a poll tax, or a direct tax, the Constitution prescribes the mode and manner in which that tax shall be apportioned. Are these slaves persons? The Senator says Then I say if they are persons, they they are. cannot be taxed in the mode proposed at least by his original proposition, nor would it be expedient to tax them. If they are property, they can be taxed as property, and in that way only. This is an effort to tax them by evading the principle and the spirit of the Constitution. So it looks to me. I cannot regard it in any other way. I have heard the Senator many times this session state, and I have once stated the proposition here myself, that under the Constitution of the United States slaves are persons. As such they are represented in Congress. As such, they are unithe ground on which we stand. They are menformly mentioned in the Constitution. That is tioned in the fugitive slave clause, they are mentioned three times in the Constitution, and everywhere as persons. So the Senator contends, and so do I. And yet now he proposes, for the purpose of getting a little money or to stamp opprobrium upon a class of citizens, to disregard this doctrine, upon which we have all stood, that slaves are persons with certain inherent rights. In order to get money from their masters, he proposes to treat them as property owned, held, possessed. I say the principle is worth more than the money. The same principle which induced the framers of the Constitution to be careful in choosing their language is now about to be sacrificed with the hope of getting a little money in the way of taxation, or rather to gratify a feeling of resentment against a class of persons who are not here. That will be the effect of it. I do not charge the Senator with such a motive.

Now, sir, I prefer to stand fast by the principle. I regard slaves as persons entitled to certain rights, held to subjection by State laws, and by State laws only. The Congress of the United States in legislation must regard them as persons, and as persons only; you have no right to treat them as property. In the Constitution, which we have sworn to support, they are universally regarded as persons. It is only by the local or municipal law within the States, and within the limits of the States only, that they are regarded as property. Now, you propose that Congress stamp upon them the character of property, slaves, serfs, whose masters must pay taxes because they own them. I will not abandon the principle for the

tax.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, I will not Mr. President, I intend to put the proposition to tax cotton and the proposition to tax slaves Senator from Massachusetts, in which he denounced slaveholders. My opinions on this sub-against each other. Before I close, I will propose to amend the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts by substituting a modified tax on ject are well known. I think that slaveholders have certain rights under the Constitution of the cotton. They are connected together, and the United States; and while I never could be one Senator cannot disconnect them. Our purpose is myself, and have as deep a repugnance to any law to levy a tax upon the people of the United States which authorizes the holding of slaves as any to suppress this rebellion. If you go to the West, other man, yet while I am here under oath, I will the West is taxed on an article made from one of respect their constitutional rights to the fullest the leading productions of the western States; our extent. We are bound to legislate for them, and cattle and all our other productions are indirectly they are entitled to the protection of the Constitaxed. We bear it without complaint, and you tution of the United States as fully as if they were may put on more if you desire. In New England, here, all of them, to speak for themselves; and manufacturers are taxed, and they do not comespecially I do not think it proper or courteous to use such language applied to a whole class of plain of it; they bear their share without murmuring. In New York and in the commercial people, when Senators on this floor are with us, States we have heavy stamp duties, and we tax commerce in various ways. Now, I desire to tax associating with us, who are included by the appellationslaveholder," so obnoxious to the Senthe southern States. They ought to pay a large ator from Massachusetts. Certainly, I cannot portion of this tax: their heresies have involved characterize so harshly any one who is a memus in the necessity of creating a large public debt ber of the same body with myself. and expending a large sum of money. I desire to tax them; and that tax may be levied on a production of which they have the monopoly in the world-a monopoly which has caused this war. Mr. FESSENDEN. What is it?

But, sir, that is neither here nor there. The Senate desires to levy a tax. The purpose of this bill is to get revenue, not to punish sins either of It is to get money to intemperance or slavery. support the Government. How do you propose to do it? Here a proposition is made to levy a tax on slaves. Language by which you seek to conceal your meaning, and yet accomplish your purpose, will be swept away; the proposition is to tax slaves. Are these slaves persons, or are they property? If they are persons, you cannot tax them in this mode. The Senator from Massachusetts admits that. If you tax them as per

Mr. SHERMAN. Cotton.

Mr. FESSENDEN. How much shall we get in Virginia?

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not care about getting any from Virginia, except what she will pay in consumption. Thank God, she is destined within ten years to be a free State. I have no doubt of that. I have heard Virginians, many of them,

declare over and over again that that would be the result. The tax you now propose will be a burden on the loyal people of Virginia who own a few slaves; but it will not affect a single planter in South Carolina, because you know they will not pay your tax. If they will not, do you propose to seize the slaves? Will you sell them for the ten dollars? Not at all; you would make them free.

Mr. FESSENDEN. We can seize their real estate.

Mr. SHERMAN. We can do that by other provisions of law. We can do that under the confiscation bill, or under the bill proposed by the Senator from Vermont. No, sir, it appears to me that the practical intent, if its result is to be at all efficacious, is in an indirect mode to promote emancipation. I do not propose to levy a tax in that way. A tax on cotton being the production of slaves, being the production of that region of country which is most involved in this war, is a tax perfectly legitimate, because it is a tax on property. But the argument was yesterday made that you must not tax cotton, because you do not tax any agricultural production. There is, how

ever,

this peculiarity about cotton, that we substantially have the monopoly of it in the world. The cotton of India and all other countries is never brought in competition with ours; the quantity produced in India does not affect our market. Besides that, it is an article which can only be used in manufactures. It is not consumed by the people of the country in the same way in which corn and wheat and other agricultural productions are. It is purely a manufacturing product, intended for manufacture, and only valuable as a manufacturing product. There is an element of taxation that you can reach without difficulty, and four fifths of it, as I said before, would be paid by people outside of the United States.

In levying taxes we have a right to regard the interests of our own people. When the God of nature or our own favored position gives us a monopoly of any production whatever, we have a right, according to the custom and laws of all nations, to levy a tax upon it. We can collect this tax from cotton without any difficulty. It may raise the price of cotton slightly. The comparatively small portion that is used in New England would, in the first instance, pay this tax of one cent a pound, but afterwards it would be distributed among the great mass of the people who consume cotton fabrics, while four fifths of the tax would be paid directly by the manufacturers in Manchester and Liverpool and other parts of the world. It is a practicable tax that you can collect in your ports and get the money. Now, suppose you should put this tax on slaves, how are your collectors to get at it? Look at it as a practical question if you want to get money, and that is the only principle on which you can justify it. How are your collectors to collect this tax? You know they cannot do it except in those slave States where the flag of the United States is now respected; you cannot do it anywhere else. The only operation of the tax would be to emancipate the slaves of those people.

Now, Mr. President, I think we ought to hesitate before we levy this tax, or if we desire to do it, let us do it in a different way. Let us confine this tax bill to the legitimate purpose for which it was framed, and tax the property, and let us never surrender the principle on which we have all stood, that slaves, being invested by Almighty God with the image of humanity, having heads and hearts and forms like ourselves, having wives and children and sensibilities and sentiments, shall not, for the sake of collecting a small tax, be degraded to the level of brutes, to be bought and sold, whose masters or owners are to be taxed for them as for horses and mules. I tell you, Senators, that this idea, this principle, is worth more than all the money you can raise from a tax on slaves.

Besides, I do not desire, especially at this time, or, indeed, at any time, to stigmatize any class of people as jugglers, or to apply to them the epithets which have been heaped upon them by the Senator from Massachusetts. I have, in my intercourse in life, mingled with a great many slaveholders. Some of them have been very bad men. I believe the tendency of slavery is to make men despotic, rude, violent, revengeful, especially in

the extreme southern States. I might point out some of the men who were lately associated with us here, men who had none of the characteristics of gentlemen, such men as Rust, Barksdale, Wigfall, and many others that I might name. They bear the stamp that I supposed absolute slavery would make upon white men-rude, revengeful, violent, passionate, appealing always to force, and never to reason. But, Mr. President, there are a different class of slaveholders, and Senators should distinguish between them. The slaveholders of the Revolution were men of the highest purity, of the greatest patriotism. At that time slavery was admitted to be an evil. They were men of gentleness, of courtesy, of kindness, good hearts and good heads, nearly all of them; and so are the great body of the slaveholders with whom you are brought in contact in the border States, men of gentleness and kindness and courtesy.

I have no doubt that the influence of slavery upon the character of men is more or less affected by the occupation in which the slaves are employed. When the slaves are employed on plantations, in gangs, where they are removed from the owner, where they are treated as chattels and as brutes, then slavery tends to degrade and demoralize the character of men; but it would be very wrong to stigmatize this whole class with any such epithets. Many of the most gentlemanly, courteous, kind, and patriotic men that I ever met in the world were slaveholders; and I think that, taken as a class, the slaveholders of the border States are men who are deserving of our commiseration, of our kindness, rather than of our reproaches. So it is with the great body of them, especially in all the middle States. I know in Tennessee it was the case, because Mr. JOHNSON, whom we certainly can believe, has said that a great many of them were drawn into this rebellion reluctantly and are now held in it rather by force than by their good will. I do not choose to select that class of men from among all the population of the southern States and tax them, and then to apply to them opprobrious epithets. On the other hand, I desire to frame a tax that will reach the people in the extreme southern States where this egg of secession was hatched-reach them rather than those who are now in a great measure loyal to the Union.

Mr. President, I move to amend the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts by striking out all after the word "that," and inserting the clause providing for a tax on cotton contained in the 96th and 97th pages of the printed bill as it was modified yesterday.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment to the amendment will be read.

The Secretary read the amendment of Mr. SHERMAN, which was to strike out all after the word "that," in the amendment of Mr. SUMNER, and insert:

On and after the 1st day of July, 1862, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, a tax of one cent per pound on all cotton held or owned by any person or persons, corporation, or association of persons; and sucli tax shall be a lien thereon in the possession of any person whomsoever. And further, if any person or persons, corporation, or association of persons, shall remove, carry, or transport the same from the place of its production before said tax shall have been paid, such person or persons, corporation, or association of persons, shall forfeit and pay to the United States double the amount of such tax, to be recovered in any court having jurisdiction thereof: Provided, however, That the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby authorized to make such rules and regulations as he may deem proper for the payment of said tax at places different from that of the production of said cotton: And provided further, That all cotton owned and held by any manufacturer of cotton fabrics on the 1st day of July, 1862, and prior thereto, shall be exempt from the tax hereby imposed.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to make a point of order on that. It has once been deliberately rejected and voted out of the bill by the Senate. My point is that it cannot be offered as an amendment to a pending amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. I can very easily avoid that difficulty, as the Senator may know, by changing a single word, and I have changed one or two. Mr. FESSENDEN. If the proposition is the same in substance, a change of a word will not affect it.

Mr. SHERMAN. A change of a word makes it different in a parliamentary sense.

Mr. FESSENDEN. What word does the Senator change?

Mr. SHERMAN. I strike out "May" and insert "July."

Mr. KING. I agreed with the Senator from Ohio yesterday as to the fitness and propriety of taxing cotton. I think that an effort should be made by Congress to distribute this heavy burden of taxation upon the country by giving to all portions of it at least some of the tax. Very little can be laid and collected upon many of the States, owing to the disturbed condition of the country. Cotton is an article which, I think, especially commends itself to us for a tax; but the Senate have deliberately decided that it will not put this tax of a cent a pound on cotton. I am free to say that I am willing to vote for both these taxes-the tax on cotton, and the tax upon the service or labor of persons claimed to be held as slaves. I had prepared an amendment on this subject, which I will read:

For every person claimed to be held as a slave there shall be levied and collected, from the person claiming to own one or more slaves, five dollars for each and every person claimed to be held as a slave.

There is no ambiguity in that proposition. I stated it to the Senator from Massachusetts, who told me he had prepared an amendment on this subject; and I also learned that the Senator from Rhode Island had an amendment proposing to levy this tax. I was content. It is immaterial from what quarter the proposition comes, I am in favor of it, and I have no difficulty as to the use of words that shall be understood throughout the country. The only object in the selection of words, in my judgment, and especially in a law, is to take those which will give to all persons the same idea; and this is one about which there could be no mistake. Congress and the Federal Government do not create slavery or sustain slavery; they do not even, in my judgment, sustain the right of the master to the service of the slave; but this right or claim exists by the authority of the State law, as much as the right of the tavern keeper to sell liquor and keep a tavern exists by the authority of the law of the State from which he derives his license. There is a substantial interest in such a grant to an individual under the authority of a State law. Whether right or wrong, in morals or in law, by the authority of the State government the master holds his slave to service, has the benefit of his labor, and enjoys its products. It is that claim to that service which is taxed, and not the person of the master or the slave; and it seems to me to be a distinct interest. We cannot deny the fact that these people exist in some of the States in that condition. It is against my idea of what is just. I never would have made a law to make a slave, nor would I continue a law to hold one; but I have not the authority to make laws in those States; the people of those States have made them, and they have given to one portion of their citizens the right to the service of other persons in their States; and it is a right which those people hold to be most valuable. It is the estimate they themselves place on this right to hold slaves that is the cause of all our difficulty. They have risked all their rights, their lives, and are assailing the existence of the country to preserve the claim which they hold to the service of these persons, and to extend it over more territory. Without that we should have had no difficulty. Shall we not tax a claim or a right which these people hold so valuable? It seems to me that it is as clear and suitable a subject of taxation as any which exists.

I think cotton should be taxed. As the Senator from Ohio well argues, and as I said yesterday, it is an article which specially commends itself to taxation, from the facility and ease with which the tax can be levied and from the certainty with which it can be collected. As he has proposed this amendment, I will now state to the Senate that I intended to try that question over again in the Senate, and I trust the Senate will yet adopt the proposition to levy this light duty, and, in my judgment, a tax of a cent a pound on cotton is a light duty. I think it could afford to pay more, but that was the amount adopted in the other House, and I would not boggle about a little more or a little less. A cent a pound is a pretty fair I hope still that the Senate will agree to levy that tax on cotton, but I hope the Senator from Ohio will not insist upon proposing it as a substitute for this tax upon the right to the service of

tax;