must pay the tax himself; and, as such, it is perfectly fair, and I think no objection whatever can be made against it.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 20, nays 16; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Carlile, Chandler, Clark, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Grimes, Harris, Howe, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Morrill, Powell, Saulsbury, Simmons, Summer, Trumbull, Wilkinson, Wilmot, and Wilson of Massachusetts

-20.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Howard, King, Lane of Kansas, Pomeroy, Rice, Sherman, Wade, Willey, and Wright-16. So the amendment was agreed to..

Mr. HARRIS. I propose to try once more to do justice to the manufacturers of leather mittens. At the foot of page 97 the bill provides that on all manufactures of cotton, wool, silk, worsted, &c., embracing the great mass of manufactures of the country, there shall be paid a tax of three per cent. In my judgment, that is what should be done generally. I am not in favor of the ten or twelve pages of specific duties, discriminating taxes, upon certain manufactures which precede that provision. I cannot doubt that it would have been more wise for the framers of this bill to have provided that all the manufactures of the country, with certain exceptions that should be entirely acceptable, should pay a uniform duty or tax of three per cent.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Would you apply that to whisky?

Mr. HARRIS. No, sir; I would not apply it to whisky or to ale, but to the ordinary manufactures of the country. It has been thought better, however, for reasons which I cannot comprehend, to single out various manufactures and to increase the taxes upon them very essentially.

Now, sir, in reference to the article that I have mentioned, as I understand it, and as these manufacturers understand it, they are charged about six per cent. tax on their manufacture. It is going to operate with great hardship upon them. I had proposed, by the amendment I offered on Saturday, to strike out the tax upon the article that they work up into gloves, and to tax them three per cent. ad valorem on their manufacture. Without much consideration, the Senate rejected that amendment, and the tax now stands two cents a pound upon the leather that they manufacture into their gloves, and then three per cent, ad valorem on their gloves.

The competitor of this manufacture is knitted gloves. The Army have been supplied with knitted gloves, and partially with leather gloves. The framers of this bill have seen fit to exempt the yarn out of which the knitted gloves are manufactured from taxation. On page 96, those who take any interest in the subject will find that the yarn out of which knitted gloves are manufactured is exempted from taxation, and yet it is insisted that we shall tax the leather out of which the leather gloves are manufactured. I sought to strike out that tax, and to leave the leather gloves and mittens to be taxed just as yarn gloves and mittens are taxed, at three per cent. ad valorem. That was not satisfactory to the Senate. I thought it would be better to have one tax upon the article. But I now propose letting the tax stand upon the leather as it is, two cents a pound, to confine the tax to the increased value of the article by manufacturing it into gloves, and I therefore offer the following amendment; on page 98, line three hundred and fifteen, to insert:

And provided further, That on all oil-dressed leather and deer skins, dressed or smoked, manufactured into gloves, mittens, or other articles, on which a duty or tax shall have been paid before the same were so manufactured, the said duty or tax of three per cent. shall be assessed only upon the increased valuation.

The Senate will see, if they take the trouble to

look at it, that this amendment adopts the precise language of the Committee on Finance in reference to other manufactures preceding it, on page 98. The language there is this:

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

Now, I ask that the same rule be applied to this manufacture.

The question being taken on the amendment, there were, on a division-ayes 15, noes 13; no quorum voting.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas, called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 21, nays 14; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Browning, Clark, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Foot, Hale, Harris, Howe, King, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Nesmith, Pomeroy. Saulsbury, Simmons, Sumner, Thomson, Trumbull, Wilmot, and Wilson of Massachusetts-21.

NAYS-Messrs. Chandler, Davis, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Howard, Powell, Rice, Sherman, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, and Wright-14.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. I now offer the amendment I offered the other day, to come in after section forty-two, page 44. It is to insert as a new section:

And be it further enacted, That there shall be paid on all spirits of first proof held for sale on the 30th day of June, 1862, a duty of ten cents on each and every gallon, which shall be paid by the owner, agent, or person having possession of said spirits, and the quantity of such spirits in each assessment district shall be ascertained by the assistant assessor in the mode prescribed by this act for other property assessed by him, subject to the same revision and appeal, and all spirits held by any person or persons, whether for present or future sale, shall be deemed subject to said duty.

If this amendment should be adopted, it will yield about five millions of dollars to the revenue. I compute the quantity to be between forty and fifty millions of gallons. There is a great difference of opinion in regard to it, but that is the best information I can get. My chief object in offering the amendment is to make a kind of bridge to the heavy tax put upon whisky. According to the present bill, the tax on that manufactured after the 1st of July will be twenty cents a gallon, and this puts a tax of ten cents a gallon on that on hand. It gives the stock on hand a discrimination of about ten cents a gallon. According to the present market value, this article is worth twenty-four cents a gallon. Its intrinsic cost, as I stated the other day, is from fifteen to seventeen cents; so that whisky has advanced, in anticipation of the tax, about seven cents. It would, therefore, not be fair or just to put the same duty on the article on hand as on that hereafter manufactured, but it would bear a duty of ten cents. Indeed, the only question is, whether the person holding the liquor shall have the benefit of the advance, or whether the Government shall have it. If the tax is put on, as a matter of course the Government will get the benefit of that ten cents per gallon; if not, then the person who holds the liquor on hand will get the benefit of the rise. Whisky will not be manufactured to any considerable extent until the price has advanced to the cost of the whisky and the duty-about thirty-seven cents a gallon-until the advance is about twelve cents beyond the present market value; so that, after all, it is a question whether the holder of whisky on hand shall have the benefit of the rise, or whether the Government shall have it.

The only objection that is made to the tax that is at all striking to my mind is, that it is the only article on hand that is taxed; but the tax on whisky is an exceptional tax at any rate; it is higher than upon anything else, and, therefore, it will bear a tax on the article on hand better than any other commodity that can be named. I do not care about enlarging on the subject; there is a great difference of opinion about it; but I submit it to the judgment of the Senate, simply saying that I believe the committee were equally divided upon the proposition.

Mr. COWAN. I am afraid, sir, that this amendment would be, perhaps, mischievous in the collection of the tax. I cannot see how the article is to be found, distributed as it will be all over the country in small quantities, and I have thought there would be more lost by attempting to follow it up and seek it out than would be gained by endeavoring to make revenue out of it. It is true, too, that the price of the article adjusts itself, in some measure, to this bill as we progress in perfecting it. At one time, when it was proposed to strike off this tax upon liquors on hand, I understand the price rose from eighteen to thirty-two

cents. Whether it has come down now, as I do

there

pose it has, some few cents on the gallon, not know exactly. But if that be the case, would be no hardship on the distiller in exempt- || ing that which he has already sold, and on which he has made large profits by the sale. I am instructed to say, too, by some distillers that they themselves think it would be injurious to their trade to impose this tax upon their customers.

They say that if you go to the retail dealer and attempt to impose this tax upon him, you will ruin one half of them and you will thereby destroy the very persons whom they expect to meet in the market to purchase their product. I know a great many of them are opposed to the imposition of this tax on that account; and they would rather forego any other advantage they might be expected to derive from it than to have their customers burdened in that way.

Mr. SIMMONS. I wish to say a word about the proposed tax, as it was agitated in the Committee on Finance. It is not within my recollection that I ever heard in the whole course of legislation, when we were about to impose duties on anything which would probably produce a rise in the merchandise, that we ever went back to collect that rise upon those who had the article on hand. There never was such a thing known in the history of this Government. I doubt if there was in the history of any Government in the world. The fact is, when this bill was reported in the House of Representatives, as I am told, and I see it in the papers furnished from these distillers, whisky was selling at from fifteen to seventeen cents, as the Senator from Ohio says. There was a tax of fifteen cents put on it in the bill when reported to the House of Representatives. Itimmediately went up, not at one jump, but within a fortnight, to thirty-two cents, making an addition of the whole amount of this tax. The distillers, as a matter of course, sold out with about one hundred per cent. profit. That was a pretty good operation for them. The Senator from Ohio will tell you that they have been running ever since, not only days, but some nights, in order to supply the demand. Then, one day in the House of Representatives this proposition to tax liquor on hand, I believe, got voted in in Committee of the Whole some way or other, and immediately whisky went down ten cents a gallon right off. It has gone up, I believe, two or three cents since, as the prospect seems more or less remote that that on hand will be taxed. The distillers of the West have got their money for it; the purchasers of this liquor bought it at this rise; and I ask the Senator from Ohio if it is fair to turn around and tax them again for fear they should get their money back. Some of them, no doubt, bought at twenty-four and twenty-five cents. But that is a matter about which the merchants have always been allowed to make their own arrangements, and consult their own judgments as to what the effect of a law will be before it passes, at their own risk. If they lose, they have to pay; if they gain, it is their good fortune. I do not think it is quite up to what we ought to do in legislation of this sort, to undertake to go into retail shops and find out whether they are going to make anything. It is very well known that last year we put a duty of fifteen cents a pound on tea. Everybody knew it would affect the price just about that sum; but did we think of going to these great tea merchants who hold it by the million's worth and tax them fifteen cents a pound on what they had?

Mr. FESSENDEN. That was a duty on imports.

Mr. SIMMONS. It is just the same in principle. Mr. FESSENDEN. Not at all.

Mr. SIMMONS. It is precisely the same in principle. When we levy an increased import duty, it is just the same advantage to the holders of the goods as it is to the holders of goods on which we levy an internal tax. It may not be legally just in the same category; but certainly it is for all the purposes of trade.

Mr. WILKINSON. The effect is the same. Mr. SIMMONS. The effect is exactly the same, and I do not think it is a sound principle at all. As has been said by the Senator from Pennsylvania, these liquors have been sold and resold at various prices, and will continue to be until we get this bill through and they are able to tell what the tax is to be.

Mr. MCDOUGALL. This question was before the House of Representatives, and was discussed at great length, and the House by a very emphatic vole determined not to tax the liquors on hand. Among others, there was this reason given: it was not thought to be sound legislation to organize a corps of officers and a system of business on the part of the revenue to last for some two months that did not belong to the general law or system of business of the Government. How many men

it, and gave that as a reason that there was so much made and carried into market that we should have to do it.

Mr. WADE. The gentleman says there are a great many hanging about here inquiring about what is going to be done. I suppose those gentlemen go before the committee. So far as I am concerned, I have not been troubled with the gentlemen the Senator speaks of.

tee.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I do speak of the commit

Mr. WADE. I know nothing about this matter; but it appears to me that men dealing in a certain article are justified in inquiring and speculating on every circumstance that will alter the value of the commodity in which they are dealing. I do not think there is anything censurable in it. I believe it is natural for men that are engaged in any business to inquire into all the circumstances that will probably affect the price of the articles in which they deal, and I do not know that they are censurable at all for doing so.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I agree to that; but my friend will allow me to say, while I agree that they have a perfect right to do that, it should not affect || our right to tax afterwards, if we choose to do so.

me,

the reason of it is this: that every person ought to be left free to enter into a business, knowing beforehand its conditions, so that there shall not be anything imposed upon him after he has once embarked in his speculation or in the transaction, whatever it may be. That reason, it seems to is as applicable to the dealer in spirits as it is to any manufacturer or any other person in any other walk of life. Then, besides that reason of principle, it seems to me that there is a difficulty in the present case. I will not say that it is insuperable; but still it is so great a difficulty as with me to seem almost insuperable. It is this: how can you execute this statute with regard to spirituous liquors on hand? You will be met with devices, tricks, dodges of all kinds, and I fear, sir, that the inquisitorial processes to which you would be obliged to resort might provoke riot and violence. We all know that in our history there was once a whisky insurrection, and I fear that the proposition of the Senator from Ohio, if carried out, might result in something of a similar character-I do not say on any scale like that; but I fear that all the police you could command might be very often at fault in the effort to enforce the law.

Mr. COWAN. I will merely state that the proposed amendment introduces an anomaly into the bill in a shape which has not been directly noticed as yet. The bill proposes to impose a tax upon whisky manufactured and sold. The collector only calls

Mr. WADE. I do not complain of that. We have a right to tax anything that we think it is best to tax; but we must be careful to make it as equal on all interests as we conveniently can. We may do gross injustice, and yet do nothing that we have not, strictly and legally, a right to legis-upon the manufacturer after he has made the sale, late about. I believe if it had been made a rule to tax other commodities on hand, I should not have asked for the exemption of this particular article. I think it ought to stand, after all, on the same principles as anything else. I know very well there is a prevailing sentiment in the community that these intoxicating spirits can bear almost anything. I am willing that this commodity should be heavily taxed; and I suppose it is an article on which a large amount of tax can be gathered; but still it ought to be placed in the same category as other commodities. Atall events, I want the bill so arranged that I can give a satisfactory reason to myself, at least, for everything it contains when I go among my constituents and am asked anything in regard to it. Suppose one of them should say to me," you taxed the whisky on hand; here is one man who has got more value in tobacco on hand than I have in whisky; you did not attempt to tax the tobacco he had on hand; why did you make the discrimination?" I confess I could not answer the question satisfactorily to myself, and probably not to him. I want it to be placed so that I can at all events answer any question that shall be put to me on the subject of this taxation, and give a reason that ought to satisfy anybody; at all events, one satisfactory to myself. I cannot do it if you single out this commodity and take the amount on hand, when, by your bill, you have released everybody else from that species of taxation. If the amount you tax this article is not enough, put on more; I do not know but it would bear more; but tax it in the same way that you tax other commodities, or tell me the reason why you do not.

Mr. SUMNER. The proposition of the Senator from Ohio has two points: first, it reduces the tax on spirits; and secondly, it taxes those on hand. I am clearly against his proposition, so far as the first tax is concerned.

Mr. SHERMAN. It does not change the rate of taxation on the article manufactured at all. It leaves it at twenty cents.

Mr. SUMNER. I thought it reduced it to ten

cents.

Mr. SHERMAN. No, sir; the tax on the article manufactured after the 1st of July is twenty cents, and I propose to tax the amount on hand before that time ten cents. It does not affect the tax on the manufactured article.

Mr. SUMNER. It leaves the tax, then, on all that is not on hand just as it is in the bill.

Mr. SHERMAN. Precisely.

Mr. SUMNER. Then I misapprehended the proposition of the Senator. I am clearly of the opinion that the tax ought not to be reduced. I cannot say that I can express an opinion with equal confidence on the other point, though so far as I have considered it, it seems to me the tax ought not to be made to bear on the stock on hand. The policy of the bill throughout is not to touch the stock on hand, and if I understand it,

and of course, after the time he has had notice by the passage of the bill of the effect it would have upon the sale he was to make. But this amendment proposes to call upon the holder of the article, and I believe the phrase used is, that the tax is to be imposed upon liquors held for sale. That is a very different thing. If I am to sell a barrel of whisky upon condition I will adapt myself to the condition; but if I buy a barrel of whisky before the conditions are imposed, and you call upon me afterwards and ask me to pay for it over again, that is a very different thing. I agree with the honorable Senator from Massachusetts as to the effect of it. Suppose these collectors are to go about all over the country into all the little shops that sell whisky, into all the taverns and all the hotels, and ask those people to pay over again; because the bill imposes a tax equal to the cost of production of the collector, and therefore the collector will actually require a man, if he has bought a barrel of whisky, to pay for it over again. I think no such tax can be collected; and I think, considering the trouble and the difficulty which would be encountered in the collection, we should be ill repaid by the amount of revenue obtained. Therefore, I say this amendment is an anomaly, and would introduce into the bill a most striking one, which I think it ought to be the object of everybody to keep out.

Mr. SHERMAN. A word in reply. There is no practical difficulty in executing this process except the uncertainty and the false oaths that may be made to evade the tax; but that will occur in regard to every tax levied by this bill. We have a system of district assessors who have to levy the income tax, and the same uncertainty will exist in fixing the amount of the income tax and the tax on manufacturers. The number of holders of spirituous liquors is far less than the rumber of persons who will be assessed for income. The number of holders of spirituous liquors will be far less than the number of manufacturers assessed. You have the same system of taxation precisely in regard to the one as the other and there is no practical difficulty except that there may be false swearing.

Mr. COWAN. If the Senator will allow me, I was unable to comprehend exactly the scope of the amendment. Has he made any exception as to the amount? If not, any man having any amount of liquor on hand for sale would be subject to this tax, if it were only half a barrel, if it were only a demijohn, or, if you please, if it were only a de

canter.

Mr. SHERMAN. Where it is held for sale it will be taxed. If the Senator thinks there should be some limit, he can offer a limit; but I do not see any occasion for it. The assessor will have the same duty to perform in assessing an income tax and ascertaining the amount of manufacturers &c., and the same process precisely may be applied in ascertaining the amount of liquor on hand

after the 1st of July. If the tax is assessed as against the manufacturer, he has to go to the dis-" tilleries, and has to go through the same process there in ascertaining what is to be manufactured as he would to ascertain what is on hand.

I have nothing further to say in regard to the expediency of levying this tax except this: the whisky tax in this bill is an anomaly, as a matter of course. It is higher than any other tax. It is one hundred and twenty-six per cent. on the cost. The tax on liquor on hand, it is true, would be an exception to the bill; but it is no more an exception than the original tax. I will merely remark, as I believe the majority of the Senate are opposed to this tax, you will not for four or six months get any tax from this important article of manufacture, and why? All that is manufactured after the 1st of July will be withheld from sale until the stock on hand is entirely exhausted. It will not be sold from first hands. It will be held from sale by the manufacturer, or it will, under the provisions of this bill, be sent forward for shipment, and they will avail themselves of the sixty days' delay authorized by the amendment of the Senator from Maine, and you will practically get no revenue from the tax on whisky; but the holders of whisky will make more money between this and the 1st of July on the article than will be made on any other or all other articles of commerce. The rise in the value of the article on hand between this and the 1st of July next, or between this and the time when you begin to collect the tax on the manufactured article, will be something like ten millions of dollars. If this amendment is adopted, the Government will share that profit. That is all there is about it.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. When this proposition was made I thought I should vote against it, but, on reflection, I have concluded to vote for it. I have received to-day a letter from one of the most intelligent merchants of Boston, a practical, clear-headed man, in which he says:

"Large expectations are entertained from the tax on tobacco and whisky. I am very much mistaken if on tobacco half the revenue calculated upon will be realized to the Government for two or three years to come; and as for that on whisky, you may calculate it will be very small for the first year. Men in the liquor trade and out of it, calculating on a heavy tax upon domestic liquors, have speculated largely in whisky and new rum, so that our storehouses are loaded with it in quantities sufficient to supply the country for many months to come."

I believe this statement to be correct, and it sustains the views expressed by the Senator from Ohio. I think there can be no great injustice in the Government's sharing part of the immense profits that are to be made by the legislation of the country, and so believing, I shall vote for this amendment.

Mr. HOWE. I have not the slightest objection to the Government's making money when it can, if it makes it honestly. I have undergone a revolution as well as the Senator from Massachusetts, but it has been precisely in the opposite direction. I started out upon this investigation with the understanding that I was in favor of this proposition, and I have finally fetched up at a point where I find myself decidedly opposed to it.

In the first place, this commodity is singled out from all the other commodities in the world, and marked by the imposition of a very heavy tax when compared with other taxes. There are sound reasons for it, and I have not a word to say against it; but when you undertake to put a tax on any article produced to a considerable extent, a tax which exceeds the whole value of the article, the whole cost of its production, you ought to be a little careful not to crush anybody by the mode in which you execute that purpose. The imposition of this tax is going to increase the value of the article in the market very much. The Senator from Ohio, who offers this proposition, thinks there is no considerable difficulty in the execution of it. It seems to me there is a very great one. You are not going to be ready on the 30th of June next, or on the 1st of July, to unfold your machinery and take possession of every grocery and every warehouse and every corner shop in the country where this liquor is kept. Therefore you are not going to be able to ascertain who has and who has not liquor on the 1st of July, or on the 30th of June. Your assessors will not get about into these places for a week or ten days, or two weeks after that time; and this commodity is chunging hands all the time; and who had this barrel,

or this gallon, or this decanter, on the 30th day of June, is a question very difficult to determine on the 10th day of July.

I am told that not all of those who are engaged in the sale of this article, who are dealers in this commodity, are strictly honest. That is said to be the case. Whether they are or not, there is a bonus of twenty cents a gallon offered by the Government for them to be dishonest, and not own up that they had liquor on the 30th of June. Every gallon of spirits which escapes the payment of the tax comes into the market with just twenty cents a gallon advantage over that which has paid the duty. That is a very great burden of itself. It will injure a great many men, and unfortunately it will injure just the class of men who are honest, who meet their obligations, who pay the duty to the Government. I am not willing to subject them to that disadvantage.

Mr. SIMMONS. I merely wish to say a word about the suggestion made by the Senator from Ohio. The Senator says there is no kind of difficulty about collecting this tax, that the provisions are all made to insure its collection. I do not recollect any provision of this bill that looks to the collection of a tax upon whisky on hand; and there was no such tax in it when it came from the House of Representatives.

Mr. SHERMAN. I can inform the Senator from Rhode Island that there are provisions in the bill which were designed to levy taxes on a great number of articles of personal property, such as carriages, watches, pianos, &c.; and the same machinery would apply, and still remains in the bill, though we have stricken out that section.

Mr. SIMMONS. I do not pretend to say that we cannot make machinery enough to collect any tax. That is not the point. The bill was designed to collect the tax from the distillers of spirits. That is the whole framework of it. Now, the Senator says we cannot collect any from them, and shall not get any until the first part of next year; but before he got through, he spoke of the provision made by the Senator from Maine, that they should have sixty days to get their liquor into market and pay their tax on it. The Senator told us the other day that these people could not stop their distilleries on account of the stock they had on hand; and he said they would go on because they had the stock, but he feared it was a bad time of the year to sell.

Mr. SHERMAN. I said it was a bad time to levy a tax so as to stop their business or compel them to stop. They will have to feed their hogs, as other people.

twenty-four or twenty-five cents now. If those who bought at the high price were driven into the market now, they would lose seven cents a gallon on it. If you leave this ten cents duty off, if it should rise the whole ten cents, they will get but three cents more than they gave, and that will be wasted in leakage and evaporation while they are holding it. It is not a very profitable article to hold a great while.

Mr. FESSENDEN called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 16, nays 24; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Carlile, Chandler, Clark, Fessenden. Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Thomson, Willey, Wilmot, and Wilson of

Massachusetts-16.

NAYS-Messrs. Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Foot, Harris, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Latham, McDougall, Nesmith, Powell, Rice, Saulsbury, Simmons, Stark, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wright-24.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I offer the following amendment, on which I ask for the yeas and nays:

And be it further enacted, That no part of the money aris ing from the taxes, imposts, and excises in this bill provided for, shall be applied to er expended for the support or maintenance of fugitive slaves or free negroes.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 5, nays 34; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Davis, Nesmith, Powell, Saulsbury, and

Stark-5.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Latham, McDougall, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Simmons, Sumner, Thomson, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilmot, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wright-34.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. HARRIS. On page 79, lines four and five of section sixty-five, I move to strike out the words "whether manufactured for himself or for others;" so that the clause will read:

That upon the amounts, quantities, and values of produce, goods, wares, inerchandise, and articles manufactured and sold or delivered, hereinafter enumerated, the manufacturer thereof shall pay to the collector, &c.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope that will not be agreed to. It would very much embarrass the whole proceeding of collecting the taxes.

Mr. HARRIS. I wish to state my object in offering this amendment. I think it is one that will commend itself to the favor of the Senate. There is in the State of New York, and in some of the northern counties of Pennsylvania, a very large number of tanneries. I suppose that three fifths, perhaps more than that, of all the soleleather manufactured and consumed in the United States is manufactured in that region-most of it in the State of New York; a portion of the tanners are over the Pennsylvania line. This is the situation of these tanners: they take contracts from the dealers in the city of New York to tan their hides at a certain rate per pound; the usual rate is five cents; it varies very little from that; sometimes it is four and seven eighths cents; five and a quarter cents is the highest; five cents a pound is the usual price for tanning the hides. The tanners receive the hides in New York from the importers; they transport them to their tanneries in the mountainous hemlock regions of country lying along the south bounds of New York and the northern bounds of Pennsylvania. They put the hides into their tanneries, and in the course of about twelve months they bring them out sole-leather, and they return them to their employers in New York tanned; and for that-the transportation, the process of tanning, and returning the hides-they receive five cents a pound. They make, at the most, in this process, half a cent a pound. The business is very much depressed, and more since this war than before, for the reason that the order of the Government is that oak-tanned leather shall be used altogether in making shoes for the Army, excluding entirely hemlock-tanned leather, and this is all hemlock

Mr. SIMMONS. They will have to make whisky, and they will have to give bond to pay the duties in sixty days. Why shall not the Government get them? It will get duties on all they make. They may lessen their manufacture to some extent; but suppose they do for a few months, that will not amount to a great deal. I have been told by those who undertake to give facts and figures, that there is about enough whisky on hand to last sixty days. It is produced so fast that the committee changed the bill, and made them report every ten days, so as not to accumulate too much duty upon an establishment before they made their returns. I have no idea that there will be any very great inconvenience. I do not expect that any of these taxes will yield for the first six months as much as they will after we get the machinery perfected, and get people used to it. It is intended to place the same duties upon imported liquors that we place upon those made here at home, as I have seen in the tariff bill, which is to follow this. What would the Senator say, if, when the tariff bill came in, it was proposed to turn round and tax the foreign liquor on hand? This is an entire new system, and it is one that I think we should do well to reflect a good deal on before we adopt it. I know it will be regarded by everybody as what Mr. Benton used to call "taking a snap judgment" on these people. The Sen-tanned leather. The effect has been to produce ator must know, because it has been frequently stated before the committee, that this liquor went up to the full extent of the duty proposed over and above the price it was at before the bill was reported. It went up fifteen cents a gallon. That is what was stated. It went up to thirty-one or thirty-two cents, and it was from fifteen to seventeen cents before. Since then it has been gradually going down, and I believe it is about

numerous bankruptcies among that class of people. The business is very much depressed. I will read an extract from a letter, from a very intelligent man, on this subject:

"I am interested in the manufacture of hemlock soleleather to the extent of about one million pounds annually; a tax of eight mills per pound is $8,000 yearly. Our county makes about twenty million pounds, and a tax of eight inills is $160,000 yearly. You know what our country is, a rough mountainous region, land worth little only for pasture; a

large portion of the capital of the county invested in hemlock sole-leather manufacture, and thousands of laboring people depending on it for employment and a livelihood."

That little county of Sullivan, one of the poorest counties in the State of New York, a mountainous region, bordering on the State of Pennsylvania, the population of which is so small that it has but one representative in the largest branch of our Legislature, will be taxed $160,000. This writer says further:

"However humiliating the fact is, it is no less the truth that the tanners have for five years past sustained such severe losses that many of them have become insolvent, and that the business of the balance is much prostrated, most of them lying idle, with a heavy stock of leather on their hands, awaiting a demand in the market, to finish their leather and realize on the same; most of it will have to be sold at a heavy loss so soon as it will sell at all. The hemlock sole-leather manufacture was overdone and prostrated for three years before the war broke out, which has cut off full one third of the market, and much diminished the consumption of the balance. The Government decided that all Army shoes should be made of oak leather, thereby cutting off the hemlock portion of the trade: hence you see our position with heavy stocks on our hands, which must be sold at a loss, and Government proposing a tax of eight mills per pound, which in one year would amount to more than the aggregate profits of ten years past, which if it becomes a law as it now stands and is made to apply to the stock now in the manufacturers' hands will completely ruin and wind up all that are engaged therein."

Now, I do not propose here, though I may have something to say about it when we come into the Senate, to reduce the tax on this leather. All I ask is that the tax shall be thrown on the owner. Here are these large dealers in that portion of New York city called "the Swamp," heavy dealers, importers, who import their hides and send them up to tanners to be tanned. The tanners have no interest but five cents a pound. The effect of this provision which I propose to strike out is to throw primarily the tax on these tanners, these manufacturers. All I ask is that the owner may pay the tax, and that the tanners may not be called upon to do it. It seems to me very severe that this class of men, oppressed as they are, borne down as they are, having no interest in the article, simply tanning the leather for hire, getting only five cents, shall be compelled to pay eight mills, which is more than all they make on the leather. I ask not that the owners of the leather shall be exempted from any tax, but that the tax shall be thrown upon the owners of the leather and not upon the manufacturers.

Mr. COWAN. I am not certain that the amendment proposed would achieve all that is desired for it by the honorable Senator from New York. The only effect which I see would result from it, would be to impoverish the collector appointed for Sullivan county and to enrich the collector for the city of New York, where the hides are owned which are put out to be tanned in Sullivan county. I suppose that the manufacturer in Sullivan county, when he finds that this tax is assessed on the leather which he tans for another man, will give him notice that a certain amount of impost is put upon the article and that he must advance it. Now, let us suppose for an instant that he does not advance it, what is the consequence? The whole consequence falls upon the owner in New York, not upon the tanner. The collector will levy upon the article itself in order to obtain the revenue, and the first lien will be the lien of the manufacturer. That is the first lien undoubtedly, and you cannot escape it. Any man who manufactures goods for another has a lien on the article. According to the common law he may hold on to the article until the cost of the manufacture is paid. A tailor has a lien on the cloth you take to him to have a coat made, until you pay him for the coat, and he can hold on to it; and if there is a tax levied on the coat in the mean time, he has to be paid before the tax. So, I apprehend that this provision is all well enough for the manufacturer; I do not see that he can suffer; but I do see that there will be difficulty in paying the collector in Sullivan county, because, perhaps, this is the only article that will be taxed in that county. The collector will be paid out of the revenue which he derives from it, but if the payment is transferred to the city of New York there will be nothing to compensate him. I would a great deal rather let it remain as it is.

I would suggest further, which may be a fit and proper subject for consideration here, as all leather itself is taxed, whether it is prudent to impose an additional tax on the products which are made from it. I am very free to say that I do not my

self like that feature in the bill; at the same time, I have no objection to the one which is attempted to be remedied in this way.

Mr. SIMMONS. I propose to offer two or three amendments which I submitted the other day, and which were printed. If the chairman thinks it is well enough for me to offer them now, I will; or I will wait until he gets through with some he is going to offer.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know that it makes any difference. I can go on and put in some amendments I wish to offer, and then the Senator can put in his.

Mr. SIMMONS. Very well.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will offer mine now. Some verbal amendments are necessary, but I cannot tell until the is stons are made out, and we get through, wh nax numbers of the various sections are to be, y have to be changed. I move now to insert as a new section, to come in after section twenty-one, page 26:

Mr. SUMNER. It seems to me that if the tax is imposed it will fall upon the real proprietor, first or last, whether it is paid in Sullivan county or in the Swamp" of New York. I do not know, therefore, that in point of fact it will make much difference whether it is levied to be collected in the one place or the other. It will fall ultimately in the same quarter, and will enter into the price of the article. But if I can have the attention of the Senator from New York for one minute, I should like to ask him whether, in point of fact, he will accomplish what he seems to aim at by striking out the words as he proposes. If the words are struck out, it will leave this tax to be paid by the manufacturer of the article. But who is the manufacturer of the article? Is it the owner in "the Swamp" in New York, or is it the tanner in Sullivan county? It seems to me that it is the tanner in Sullivan county, and that, therefore, if the motion of the Senator should prevail, and these words should be stricken out, the tax must still be paid by the tanner there; but even supposinglar estate is proposed to be distrained, describing the same the tax is paid by the tanner there, then I come back to the point with which I began-that it will enter into the price of the article, and it must ultimately fall upon the original owner in New York.

Mr. FESSENDEN. One consideration it is necessary that the Senator should understand: by altering this section in this respect, you disorganize and disarrange one principle on which the bill is founded; it proceeds on this idea that there must be for all these things a definite place fixed, and that place one where you will find the article upon which you impose the tax, that is, the place of manufacture. If you let it go from there to A, B, C, all around the country, you have got to follow it, and you may or may not find it; but you always find it at the factory, and nobody is hurt by it; but as the Senator from Massachusetts says, it falls on the owner; he makes the arrangements If you make the amendment, you throw the whole into confusion. It is a very necessary and important provision.

And be it further enacted, That in all cases of distraint upon real estate for the non-payment of duties imposed by this act, the officer making such distraint shall give notice to the person whose estate is proposed to be distrained by giving him in hand or leaving at his last and usual place of abode, if he has any such within the collection district where said estate is situated, a notice in writing, stating what particuwith reasonable certainty, and the time when and place where said officer proposes to sell the same, which time shall not be less than ten nor more than twenty days from the time of said notice; and the said officer shall also cause a notification to the same effect to be published in some newspaper within the county where such distraint is made, if any such there be, and shall also cause a like notice to be posted at the post office nearest to the place of residence of the person whose estate shall be so distrained, and in two other public places within the county; and the place of said sale shall not be more than five miles distant from the estate distrained. At the time and place appointed the offcer in such district shall proceed to sell the said estate at public auction, offering the same at a minimum price, including the amount of duties, with the ten per cent. additional thereon, and all charges for advertising and an officer's fee of ten dollars, and if no person offers for said estate the amount of said minimum the officer shall declare the same to be purchased by him for the United States, and shall deposit with the district attorney of the United States a deed thereof as hereinafter specified, provided otherwise the same shall be declared to be sold to the highest bidder; and said sale may be adjourned by said officer for a period not exceeding five days, if he shall think it advisable to do If the amount bid shall not be then and there paid, the officer shall forthwith proceed to again sell said estate in the same manner. If the amount bid shall be then and there paid, the officer shall give his receipt therefor if requested, and within five days thereafter he shall make out a deed of the estate so sold to the purchaser thereof and execute the same in his official capacity in the manner prescribed by the laws of the State in which said estate may be situated, in which said deed shall be recited the fact of said distraint, with the cause thereof, the amount of duty for which said distraint was made, and of all charges and fees, and the amount paid by the purchaser, and of his acts and doings in relation to said distraint, and shall have the same ready for delivery to said purchaser, and shall deliver the same accordingly upon request therefor; and said deed shall be conclusive evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein, and if the said proceedings have been substantially in pursuance of the provisions of this act, shall be considered and operate as a conveyance to the purchaser of the title to the said estate, but shall not affect the rights of third persons acquired previously to the claim of the United States under this act. The surplus, if any, arising from such sale shall be disposed of as provided in this act for like cases arising upon sales of personal property; and any person whose estate may be distrained for duties as aforesaid shall have the same right to pay or tender the amount due, with the proper charges thereon, prior to the sale thereof, and thereupon to relieve his said estate from distraint and sale as aforesaid, as provided in this act for personal property similarly situ collection of duties imposed upon any person by this act ated. And any collector or deputy collector may, for the

So.

Mr. HARRIS. I desire to inquire of the Senator from Maine, at what stage of the manufacture-it involves not only this question but various other considerations-at what stage of the manufacture he understands this tax to be paid. It was stated here on Saturday by the Senator from Vermont, and the statement was not contradicted by the Senator from Maine, that he understood, and he made that suggestion in answer to an objection I raised, that these taxes were not payable on manufactures until the articles were sold. That was the construction he proposed to give to all these provisions, that the tax was not payable until the article was not only manufactured, but sold, and that is the language of most of these provisions. For myself, I find great difficulty in construing these provisions. At what stage of the manufacture of this leather is the tax to be collected? Here is an owner of hides in the city of New York; he remains owner; he enters into a contract with a tanner in the country to convert them into leather; the tanner performs his contract, he converts it into leather-when is the tax payable? When the leather is sold, says the bill; when the leather is sold, says the Sena-the State in which said officer resides, and his proceedings tor from Vermont. Now, here is a provision which charges the tax on the manufacturer of the article, who, having no interest in the article, manufactures it simply for hire. I wish to know of the Senator from Maine how he understands these provisions. For myself, I think they are involved in the greatest obscurity.

Mr. FESSENDEN. If the gentleman who makes so many points on the bill had studied it beforehand, he would have saved himself a good deal of trouble. If the Senator had examined the bill he would have found the words "or removed for consumption or sale" in all cases after the word "sold."

Mr. HARRIS. I do not find those words in this section.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Because they are not necessary in this section.

Mr. HARRIS. Nor are they in many other sections.

Mr. FESSENDEN. If they are omitted you may escape taxation, perhaps.

The umendment was rejected.

and committed to him for collection, distrain the lands of such person situated in any other collection district within

in relation thereto shall have the same effect as if the same were had in his proper collection district.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know that I understand exactly the whole effect of that amendment simply from its reading. I ask whether it makes the same provision in regard to making the conveyance conclusive that we rejected the other day?

Mr. FESSENDEN. All there is in it is the principle which applies in every State under the common law that the return of an officer, as to the facts, shall be conclusive evidence between the parties. There is a proviso that it shall not affect the claim of third persons, but as to the fact that the officer's proceedings under the warrant, or whatever it was under which he sells, were regular and correct, his return, he being a sworn officer, shall be conclusive.

Mr. TRUMBULL. That is very similar to the clause the other day, where it was made conclusive evidence of title to the purchaser. I suppose that will be the effect of a deed made under this provision.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senate will see, on examining it, that it is like every other provision in reference to the return of an officer, like the return of an execution. The laws of no State in the Union allow a party to contradict that return as between the parties in reference to the proceedings. The return on a levy is always conclusive as to the facts set forth, except in the case of an accident. You cannot impach it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. W palave had some experience with these summary proceedings in my State, in selling lands for taxes, and there have been various kinds of acts, quite a number, passed on this subject. In fact there has been a struggle between the Legislature and the courts, the Legislature endeavoring to make the title perfect, to make it conclusive, not allow it to be disputed, and the courts struggling to protect the rights of parties lest they should be deprived of valuable estates for a mere pittance, because of an inadvertence sometimes, or an accident. This provision is a long section; I am not able to appreciate and understand it correctly from the mere reading of it; and I should like to inquire of the Senator from Maine whether, in a case where the taxes had been paid-and such cases do arise-and the sale should take place, the owner of the property, although he had in fact paid the taxes, would have any remedy other than suing the officer.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Secretary of the Treasury has power to correct all mistakes of that sort, and undoubtedly a mistake of that kind, which might possibly occur in one case out of ten thousand, might be set right by legislation.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think it could not be set right by legislation. If the purchaser obtains a perfect title, and the instrument of writing is made by law conclusive, I do not see how it would be competent to interfere by legislation.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I shall be very glad to have the provision fixed right. I drew it with all the care and all the legal knowledge I was master of.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The only suggestion I have to make in regard to it is this: I am well aware that you must have a summary proceeding to collect this tax, and I am quite willing that it shall be sufficiently efficient to accomplish the object; but I question the necessity of making these recitals conclusive of the facts recited.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is so at common law; so in practice everywhere.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Not in these summary proceedings.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Certainly; it is in the nature of a return on an execution. Take the case of a levy made in any State on an execution. The return of an officer is evidence of what he sets forth. I go on to provide:

And within five days thereafter he shall make out a deed of the estate so sold to the purchaser thereof, and execute the same in his official capacity in the manner prescribed by the laws of the State in which said estate may be situated, in which said deed shall be recited the fact of said distraint, with the cause thereof, the amount of debt for which said distraint was made, and of all charges and fees, and the amount paid by the purchaser, and all his acts and doings in relation to said distraint, and shall have the same ready for delivery to said purchaser, and shall deliver the same accordingly upon request therefor; and said deed shall be conclusive evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein

Precisely like a return on an execution

and if the said proceedings have been substantially in pursuance of the provisions of this act, shall be considered and operate as a conveyance to the purchaser of the title to said estate, but shall not affect the rights of third persons acquired previously to the claim of the United States under this act.

That is the provision.

Mr. GRIMES. Is the Senator willing that it shall be amended so that it shall read that the deed shall be conclusive evidence of the truth of the acts performed by the officer making the return?

Mr. FESSENDEN. I have no objection to that if the Senator prefers that phraseology.

Mr. GRIMES. There is not the analogy between the case stated by the Senator from Maine and this case that he supposes. The officer may state that the indebtedness exists when it has already been paid, or when it is not due. The deed ought to be conclusive only as to the acts performed by the officer himself. Where an execution is issued and the ministerial officer performs an act under it, there has already been a judgment settling the amount due, and there is no appeal from it; but here there is no judgment of a court