Mr. CLARK. Do I understand the Senator to say that he would put this additional duty on all that is exported?

MA CHANDLER. It is an excess, and whoever buys the goods pays it.

Mr. CLARK. The cotton with which you come in competition in China is not your cotton that goes out there; it is cotton raised there.

Mr. CHANDLER. If it is a poorer article, the cotton does not come in competition. If you have an article of cotton that is inferior in quality, which produces an inferior fabric, and which is sold at an inferior price, it is not an article in competition, because your superior article, although at a superior price, receives a just appreciation in China and in the United States.

Mr. SUMNER. But if the inferior article can supply the place of the other, as it may, what then?

Mr. CHANDLER. But it cannot, if it is inferior. It is a shorter, poorer staple, which will not endure as well as the long staple. True, you may mix them; so we may mix our good cotton with foreign cotton and make an inferior article and have a sort of competition, but it is not actual competition.

Mr. CLARK. The Senator will see at once we come in competition with that inferior article, because our article would not go forward if it was not carried forward as a medium of exchange.

Mr. SIMMONS. The Senator from Michigan | does not exactly understand the China trade. I suppose he once in a while looks into it. The reason these coarse cottons are sent abroad is, that the currency of Shanghae is the old-fashioned Carolus dollar, which brings six shillings sterling to the dollar. If I am indebted to China, I cannot buy bills on London and remit in that form without submitting to a heavy loss of exchange. It is a close calculation which way you can make the remittances best, whether to buy these goods here and send them, or buy bills on London. It has got to be a matter of such close calculation that to put on one tenth of one per cent. would affect the trade very much.

That mode of taxation we have been compelled to abandon, because, in the condition of the country, they cannot be thus levied and collected, and we have adopted the other mode by excise, in which the levying of these taxes will be very unequal, so far as location is concerned; but even that will be cheerfully borne if we shall satisfy the country that they are necessary, or that we act here in levying them with a design to make them as fair and as just a they can be made.

Now, this tax is one which falls in the first place upon a product of a part of the country which will pay very little under any bill that we can frame. There are and always have been a great many theories about who pays a tax, whether it is the party upon whom it is levied and from whom it is collected, or whether it is somebody to whom he sells his goods or his manufactures, whether he does not necessarily in some other way gather it from somebody else and thus is not a loser. We shall never be able to settle with certainty the theories on that subject. But cotton furnishes a convenient, easy, and facile means of levying the tax, and also a certain means of its collection. It is said that this tax will yield fifteen or seventeen millions of dollars annually; that is probably a high estimate. But put it at ten or fifteen millions of dollars, it is a considerable item in our tax bill. I understand that if the section levying this tax is retained in the bill, it is the intention to modify another section which allows a drawback upon the exportation of articles on which a tax is levied. That, in my judgment, is suitable and proper, and will, as I suppose, of course be done. One cent a pound upon cotton, in my judgment, is a very moderate amount to be levied upon it; I think it could afford to pay more. In my opinion, the just distribution of our taxes would be promoted by this tax upon cotton. A very small proportion of it is used by the manufacturers of New England. Gentlemen from that quarter of the country say they are paying cheerfully and will pay cheerfully the taxes levied upon them. I do not question it. I believe all parts of the country will do so, but I think this is a very proper article of taxation, and I shall, therefore, vote against striking out the section.

Mr. McDOUGALL. Mr. President, all manufacturing and commercial nations levy a large share upon the outside world. It is the boast of English economists that they derive the wealth that supports their Government and pays their taxes from two thirds of the commercial world, through their manufactures and their commerce. These questions here I look upon as grave questions. We are seeking to compete, in the markets of the East, with England and with France, particularly with England. Our cotton fabrics are the fabrics which we can best introduce in the Russian possessions of the north Pacific, and in the Chinese empire. These are simple facts. We are now, all those who look to our permanent policy, striving to compete with England in China, we having at present the advantage of England in a country with twenty-five millions of

The Senator says there is no fear of competition with the India goods. The English, who make those coarse goods, build their machinery on purpose to spin that cotton. The staple of it is about as long as the length of your nail. We do not build any such machinery. It is not economy for us to work such cotton. Having dearer labor, we want to work up a good stock and get off a good deal of work with the same quantity of labor expended. In England, where they can hire labor at half price, they work poorer stock and put more labor on it. That is the difference between the two countries. If we were situated as England is, or if we raised that kind of cotton, I would build my machinery so as to work up as much American cotton as I could. I should be helping my own country by doing so. They help their colonies by building their machinery in that way, and they work up articles that they cannot sell anywhere else. One great feature of the British Government is to get colonies and work every-population, a country commanded by the Amoor thing out of them that is possible. That is the way they do, and I do not think it is much better than what we are quarreling about at home. Both of them are bad enough, God knows.

I do not intend to waste time on this matter. I really believe it would be better to confine ourselves to a few objects of taxation. Instead of getting the system so complicated that a man cannot understand it, I would raise the revenue we need off a few articles, and not have so much machinery put to work as this bill provides for.

Mr. KING. The argument against this tax is that it is onerous and burdensome. This whole tax bill is of this character. It is a heavy burden on the people of the country; but it is one that will be cheerfully borne, for the reason that the object which it is to secure is well worth all it will cost. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks what the object is? It is to pay our expenses and save our country from its enemies who are attempting to destroy it. These taxes should be distributed as equally and as fairly as they can through the country, with a proper regard to the facility for the levying of them and for their collection. The Constitution, in distributing the direct taxes to be levied for the support of this Government, distributed them according to the representative population of the various States.

river. And cotton fabrics are the principal subject of our commerce. All that we can produce, manufacture, and export, is material of our national wealth. One of the great English economists, speaking of the power of England to tax the world through her manufactures and her commerce, says "she lays one third of the civilized world in tribute." Anything that will disturb the production of cotton fabrics in the United States will be a mischievous policy, when adopted as a policy, Everything that will promote their production and exportation abroad will be a profitable policy.

am not disposed to engage in argument on this question; but if I were to take the authority of eminent men, such as McCulloch, such as Mills, such as Ricardo, if you please, not going back to Adam Smith, all of them lay down the doctrine that no burden should be imposed on an article which, being first a raw material produced in the country, and then manufactured, can be carried to foreign markets. Here is cotton. Cotton, it is true, goes out in the raw form for manufacture abroad, but we are struggling to manufacture our cotton, as far as we can, for the markets of China. Now, I have been told, and I have been told upon authority that is worthy of consideration, that if the ports of China should be opened fully to our trade, they would furnish a market equal now to

the entire market of the world for coarse cotton fabrics. We have the chance, with proper address and management in our commercial policy, to command the whole trade of the north Pacific, particularly the Russian possessions. I say that there should be no burden upon articles which we wish to manufacture and furnish to those markets, put on by ourselves; and it is against the system of taxation as recognized in any civilized country, according to any modern ascertained rule of economy, to tax raw material that has to go into manufactures. You may talk about drawbacks, but it will complicate the system to have a drawback equal to the tax on the raw material and the tax on the manufactured article. There can be no doubt but that it is the policy of the country, without regard to the locality where this article is manufactured, to allow the raw material to be taken by our manufacturers and sent abroad, and the tax on the manufactured articles, when exported, returned in the form of drawbacks.

These are simple principles of economical science that have been ascertained and determined by the men who have made this study a specialty in England, particularly for the last half century. I trust that the report of the committee will be accepted as the true rule.

Mr. CLARK. I move to amend the clause by inserting "half" after "one," in line two hundred and eighty-one; so as to read, "one half cent a pound.'

Mr. SUMNER. I suggest to the Senator from New Hampshire that perhaps it would be better to take the vote on the proposition of the committee. If the proposition of the committee can prevail, it seems to me that the object of the Senator will be better accomplished than by his amendment. I may err, but it seems to me so. I think the most practical measure is that presented by the committee to strike out the tax. The whole thing will then be simplified. The Senator proposes a tax of half a cent, and then he proposes to add another arrangement in relation to drawbacks. All that will give complication to the bill. It seems to me that it is not advisable that we should go in that direction; that we should enter upon that discussion. I should like to avoid it. I should like to have the Senate settle down upon the conclusion of the committee. If the proposition of the committee should be voted down, the way will then be open for the amendment of the Senator.

Mr. CLARK. But if the proposition of the committee should be rejected, and then my amendment should not be adopted, the bill might not be as the Senator would like it; but I withdraw my amendment, if friends desire it.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the committee proposing to strike out the clause.

Mr. McDOUGALL called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 20, nays 16; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Fessenden, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Latham, McDougall, Morrill, Powell, Simmons, Sumner, Willey, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of Missouri-20.

NAYS-Messrs. Chandler, Doolittle, Grimes, Harlan, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Pomeroy, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilmot, and Wright-16.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. DAVIS] has offered an amendment, which will now be read.

The Secretary read the amendment, to insert at the end of section five the following:

And provided further, That no collector shall take any sum of money or anything of any value from any person whom he may appoint his deputy, or from any other person by way of gift, bonus, premium, or price for appointing such person his deputy; and every collector violating this provision shall be subject to a forfeiture of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, to be recovered in any court having jurisdiction, one half for the use of the informer and the other half for the United States.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will ask the Senator what the object of that is, particularly?

Mr. DAVIS. It is to prevent a perfect trade in the business of appointing assistant collectors. I have no doubt that there are hundreds, at any rate, that will be sold unless it is prevented by some such provision as this; and I doubt whether this or any other provision can prevent it.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will state to my friend

from Kentucky that my difficulty with regard to it is, I am afraid the fees are so very low that it will be very difficult to get any body to be an assistant assessor who ought to be. I venture to say they will not give anything for the place. Mr. DAVIS. Of course, it cannot do any harm.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not think it can do any harm.

Mr. SUMNER. If I can have the attention of the Senator from Maine a moment, I will inquire as to the order in which we are to take up this bill. I presume we are to go over it from the beginning to the end again, and then I presume this proposition of the Senator from Kentucky will be in order.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Does this provision apply to the assessors or collectors?

Mr. DAVIS. To the collectors alone. It does not apply to the assessors.

Mr. FESSENDEN. As the collector has to pay these deputies himself, I do not know how this provision would apply. He is obliged to pay them himself. The collector is responsible for the whole and receives all the pay, and he makes just such bargains as he pleases with his deputies. He appoints them.

Mr. DAVIS. I do not so understand it. Mr. FESSENDEN. Certainly it is so. He pays them out of his own pocket.

Mr. DAVIS. I will inquire, how much? Mr. FESSENDEN. It is not fixed at all. He may appoint any number of deputy collectors, and fix the amount of their compensation.

Mr. DAVIS. What is to be his compensation? Mr. FESSENDEN. His compensation is to be, for the first $100,000 four per cent., and on all over that amount, one per cent.

Mr. DAVIS. Then I will move an amendment to pay the collector a fixed sum.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Then the Senator has got to draw the whole bill over again. That is the basis on which the whole system is founded. If he is to come in here and fix the matter, after the bill has been gone over two or three times and arranged specifically, it will only confuse everything. I have no objection to the amendment, if the Senator will only perfect it and carry it out.

Mr. DAVIS. In view of the difficulties suggested by the Senator from Maine, I will withdraw my proposition; but I still think there ought to be a fixed salary, a maximum and a minimum. Mr. FESSENDEN. There is a maximum, $10,000.

Mr. DAVIS. I think there ought to be minimum also; and I think the compensation of the principal collector and the assistant collectors ought to be separate and distinct.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The bill is framed on a different principle.

Mr. DAVIS. I do not want to mar or interfere with its principle in any way.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator withdraw his amendment?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes sir; I withdraw it. Mr. SUMNER. I wish to know, as a matter of practice, whether we are to strike in the bill at any place, or go over it again in order.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I understand every gentleman is at liberty, as he pleases, to offer an amendment, provided gentlemen are not too much in a hurry, and do not tread on each other's heels, but take it coolly. [Laughter.]

Mr. SIMMONS. I wish to propose a little alteration in the seventy-second section, page 99, in regard to auction sales. I move, in the fourth line of that section, after the word "auction," to insert the word "not;" and at the end of the same line to strike out the word "all;" so that it will read:

Not cluding sales of stocks, bonds, and other securities, &c. Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope the Senator will state the object of his amendment.

Mr. SIMMONS. The object is to separate the sale of stocks, bonds, and other securities from the sale of general merchandise; to put one rate of duty on the sale of general merchandise, and another rate on the sales of stocks. There is a very great disparity in the ordinary commission on the sale of those two descriptions of property, and I want the duty to have some relation to the ordinary charges in those cases.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish the Senator would

be kind enough to explain the whole thing before we act upon it.

Mr. SIMMONS. I will read the section as I propose to amend it, and then you will understand it:

That on and after the 1st day of July, 1862, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all sales of goods, wares, merchandise, articles, or things at auction, not including sales of stocks, bonds, and other securities

There I want to insert

a duty of two per cent. on the gross amount of such sales. Then when we come to the duty on stocks I want to insert after the word "provided"— That there shall be required to be paid under this section upon any sales of stocks, bonds, or other securities, a duty of one tenth of one per cent.

I propose a duty of one tenth of one per cent. on all sales of stocks, and of two per cent. on all sales of merchandise. I will explain the object. I think the common percentage on the sale of stocks is only about a quarter of one per cent, and if a man is compelled to go to auction with them, he would not want to give all he got for them to the auctioneer. The duty upon the ordinary sale of merchandise is two and a half per cent. I am told, and I know it used to be the fact when I was selling goods myself, that these auction sales very much interfere with the regular business and regular trade in the large cities. They cut under the regular dealers. The auction establishments are set up mostly by foreigners, who import their goods and put them up at auction. They interfere very much with the regular trade of the country. I think this amendment would make a little check upon it. That is the only object I have.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The question is how shall we get the most revenue.

Mr. SIMMONS. Under this amendment we shall get two per cent. instead of one tenth of one per cent.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Will it not diminish the sales?

Mr. SIMMONS. If it does, it will be a great God-send to the country; but I do not think it will.

Mr. GRIMES. I will inquire if the States themselves do not regulate this thing? For instance: in the city of New York are not auctioneers of merchandise compelled to pay one or two per cent.; whereas auctioneers on stocks are not compelled to pay anything.

Mr. SIMMONS. This includes sales of merchandise. It only puts one tenth of one per cent. on stocks and two per cent. on merchandise.

Mr. GRIMES. But if in New York they already put two per cent. on merchandise, and we put two per cent., that will make it four per cent. Mr. SIMMONS. I do not think it is two per cent. in New York.

Mr. GRIMES. I do not know what the amount is; but the Senator is predicating his argument on the idea not so much for the public interest as that they compete with merchants, and that they should be permitted to prosecute this business. What I want to guard against is interfering with the States in this matter.

Mr. SIMMONS. Do we not say in a half a dozen places that we do not mean to interfere with any legislation of the States? The States and the cities always regard this auction business as rather detrimental to the regular trade of the community. I think we might go in on shares with them, and get a little of that profitable traffic. That is my idea. I am willing to make it one per cent. I will ask the Senator from New York to tell me what the ordinary tax on the sales of auctions is in the city of New York, to see if that will make it too heavy.

Mr. HARRIS. I understand it is one eighth of one per cent.

Mr. SIMMONS. Then it will bear it. I will modify my amendment, and call it one per cent. Mr. McDOUGALL. One per cent. on all sales? Mr. SIMMONS. One per cent, on all sales of merchandise, and one tenth of one per cent, on all sales of securities and stocks.

now on merchandise; and one half of one per cent. on stocks is too much, more than the ordinary commission.

Mr. McDOUGALL. That is true; and one per cent. on merchandise is enough.

Mr. SIMMONS. I have got one per cent. on that.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Rhode Island proposes to amend the bill by adding after the word "auction," in line four, section seventy-two, page 99, the word "not." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SIMMONS. I now move to strike out the word "all," at the end of that line. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SIMMONS. I now move to strike out the words "of one per cent.," at the commencement of the sixth line.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest to the Senator to strike out the words "one tenth of." Mr. SIMMONS. Very well.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator further proposes to amend, by striking out, in the fifth and sixth lines, the words "one tenth of."

Mr. HARRIS. I think we had better consider a little before we propose such a tax upon auction sales of stocks.

Mr. SIMMONS. This is not on stocks; it is on merchandise.

Mr. HARRIS. Then I have no objection to it. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SIMMONS. Then, in the twenty-third line, after the word "sales," I move to strike out the words "not included in the provisions of the second subdivision of section sixty of this act."

The VICE PRESIDENT. The words the Senator is reading have been erased from the bill. There is nothing to amend there.

Mr. SIMMONS. Then I will move to amend it so as to read:

Provided, That a duty shall be required to be paid upon any sales of stocks, bonds, or other securities of one tenth of one per cent.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will suggest to the Senator that he would reach his object better by making a semi-colon after the word "sales," in the sixth line, where it now reads "a duty of one per cent, on the gross amount of such sales," and adding" and a duty of one tenth of one per cent. on all sales of stocks, bonds, and other securities."

Mr. SIMMONS. I will put it in there. I did not know that the other proviso was stricken out.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Then the amendment is. to insert, after the word "sales," the words "and a duty of one tenth of one per cent. on the gross amount of all sales of stocks, bonds, and other securities."

Mr. SIMMONS. That is right.
The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I move to amend the bill, by striking out the fourth paragraph of the sixtieth section of the bill, page 66, from the thirty-fifth to the forty-second lines inclusive, in the following words:

4. Retail dealers in liquors, including distilled spirits, fermented liquors, and wines of every description, shall pay twenty dollars for each license. Every person who shall sell or offer for sale such liquors in less quantities than three gallons at one time, to the same purchaser, shall be regarded as a retail dealer in liquors under this act. But this shall not authorize any spirits, liquors, wines, or malt liquors to be drank on the premises.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I will ask the Senator why?

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. The Senator from Maine asks why that paragraph should be stricken out. My reason for making this motion is that I do not think any man in this country should have a license from the Federal Government to sell intoxicating liquors. I look upon the liquor trade as grossly immoral, causing more evil than anything else in this country, and I think the Federal Government ought not to derive a revenue from the retail of intoxicating drinks. I think if this section remains in the bill, it will have a most demoralizing influence upon the country, for it will lift into a kind of

Mr. FESSENDEN. That is too much on stocks.

Mr. SIMMONS. I have put it at one per cent.

man who has paid the Federal Government twenty dollars for a license to retail ardent spirits will feel that he is acting under the authority of the Federal Government, and that any regulations, State or municipal, interfering with him, are mere temporary and local arrangements, that

1862.

should yield to the authority of the Federal Government. Sir, I hope the Congress of the United States is not to put upon the statute-book of the country a law by which the tens of thousands of persons in this country who are dealing out ardent spirits to the destruction of the health and life of hundreds of thousands and the morals of the nation, are to be raised to a respectable position by paying the Federal Government twenty dollars for a license to do so.

object of this bill is to put money into the Treasury is also true; but there is something over and above putting money in the Treasury; and that is, so to arrange this mode of putting money in the Treasury that it shall not interfere with the business interests of the country, and, above all, that it shall not tend to demoralize this people and dishonor the nation. Every Senator knows that this nation has been, and is being, demoralized by the rum traffic. Every man knows that our Army of five or six hundred thousand men in the

Sir, in some of the States we have laws forbidding the retailing of ardent spirits, but in spitefield has been greatly demoralized by the sale and of these laws, thousands of persons are retailing spirits to the great injury of the community. Is it intended to go into the State of Massachusetts, where there are, in spite of prohibitory laws, several thousand rumsellers?

Mr. FESSENDEN. My friend will allow me to call his attention to section sixty-three, page 77 of the bill.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I have read it, sir, but I desired to put the question whether the Senator expected in the State of Massachusetts to grant these licenses. I understand he does not. Does he expect to go into the neighboring State of Connecticut? The Senator from Connecticut can tell me whether they have any law there forbidding the sale of ardent spirits.

Mr. FÖSTER. Yes, sir; much more stringent than the law of Massachusetts.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I understood they had passed such a law, but I thought it had been modified or repealed.

Mr. FOSTER. I am afraid it is not any better. Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I believe in the State of New York they have no such law, and they have several thousand liquor dealers. I believe there are some seven or eight thousand in the city of New York.

Mr. KING. They are licensed to sell by retail.

Mr. WILSON. They license liquor dealers in that State; we do not license them in my State. According to the provisions of this bill, no one can retail liquors without a license; and no one is authorized by it to sell against State laws. If the Senator from Maine gets any money from my State, he does it by granting a license to sell in violation of the laws of the State. But in the city of New York we are told that they license persons to sell liquor. Now, the Federal Government comes in and gives every liquor dealer-the man who is dealing out ruin to tens of thousands in that city-the additional privilege of doing it by paying twenty dollars to the Federal Government. Sir, in my judgment, the adoption of such a proposition will have a most demoralizing influence. It will give additional power, if not respectability, to every man to whom you give authority to sell under the Federal Government. The granting of a license by any city or any State to a man to sell rum gives a sort of respectability to his business. He knows it and he feels it; for he is acting in accordance with the authority of the law. When he has no such authority, when the law of his State forbids it, he knows that he is acting in violation of the laws of his State. Now, take a State where they have no authority to license, and have no prohibitions, and no regulations whatever. There the Federal Government, for twenty dollars, gives a license to sell rum to poison the people, to make wives and children beggars. I would as soon have this Government license gambling houses or houses of ill fame; and it would be just as creditable to this Congress. I believe that such a provision sanctions the grossest immorality; that it will have the most deleterious effect upon the prosperity of the nation and the morals of this nation. For the sake of putting a few thousand dollars into the Treasury, we, the people of the United States, are That is the whole to give licenses to sell rum. of it.

The Senator from Maine has told us several times since this bill was before the Senate that our object was to put money into the Treasury. I do not agree to the declaration That we want to put money into the Treasury is true; that the primary

posed one hundred millions of revenue. Does his patriotism go as far as that? I should think not. Now, sir, to see that the United States Government will not interfere in any form where any State choose to legislate on the subject, you have only to turn to the sixty-third section, 77th page, where it is provided:

That no license hereinbefore provided for, if granted, shall be construed to authorize the commencement or tontinuation 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.

So that no license can be granted in Maine, or if a license is ever granted, the man must make what he can of it. He is liable to have his shop shut up, and his liquor seized and poured into the into the Treasury of the United States under such gutter; but if he chooses to put twenty dollars circumstances, I'am perfectly willing he should, and the more the better; and we will take care of them as well as we can down in Maine with reference to that. There is no great danger of a man taking out a license to retail liquor in Massachusetts when the laws of Massachusetts may lay their hands upon that man, seize his liquor, pour it into the gutter, and subject him to fine and imprisonment for selling it. There is no very great danger of a large revenue being derived from licenses to sell liquor, either in Massachusetts or Maine.

Now, sir, you must carry this objection through, if it is made at all. If we are to be so exceedingly squeamish as to say we will not take a tax from a thing that we consider to be wrong, and yet which is acknowledged to be a legitimate and proper business by a majority of the States of this Union, we are just throwing aside the principle upon which taxes have been laid heretofore; and that is, taxing the luxuries and the vices of the community as the most proper subjects of taxation. According to the newspapers, I have been on both sides of this question; I have been what they call a "ramrod" down in Maine, because I supported the Maine law; while the other side denounced me as a "rummy;" so that, having been on both sides at the same time, I consider myself perfectly impartial on this subject. [Laughter.] I see no very great objection, so long as we do not interfere with Maine, Massachusetts, or any State that sees fit to prohibit it, to put a heavy tax upon what we consider to be the vices of the community, and the heaviest we can on those who contribute most to those vices. I think we are doing good by it.

Mr. ANTHONY. I should like, to ask the chairman of the Committee on Finance if there is any provision for a penalty for selling spirituous liquors without the Government license.

Mr. FESSENDEN. There is a general provision in the first part in regard to those who carry on business without a license.

Mr. ANTHONY. What is the penalty?

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is a fine. I will refer the Senator to the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Howe,] who had this matter of license under his particular charge.

Mr. ANTHONY. In those States, Maine and Massachusetts, where no licenses are granted, the business is carried on, I suppose, quite as extensively it is in our State-as it is in States where licenses are granted; and there ought to be some mode provided in this bill whereby men who sell spirituous liquors contrary to law should at least be made to pay to the general Treasury as well as those who sell according to law.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The same provisions apply to them as to all other persons who undertake to do business without à license. There is no distinction made.

a

Mr. ANTHONY. What is the penalty? Mr. HOWE. Three times the amount of the license.

Mr. ANTHONY. That covers the case. Mr. HOWE. In the fifty-fifth section of the bill, as reported to the Senate, at the bottom of the 59th page, it is provided:

That if any person or persons shall exercise or carry on any trade or business hereinafter mentioned, for the exercising or carrying on of which trade or business a license is required by this act, without taking out such license as is in that behalf required, he, she, or they shall, for every such offense, respectively, forfeit a penalty equal to three times the amount of the duty or suni of inoney imposed for such license, &c.

As I understand the matter, it was not the intention of the committee to organize a new business, set up any new traffic, or to lend any sanction to it; and I think the Senator from Massachusetts is mistaken in supposing that the imposition of a fine of ten dollars or twenty dollars on this business will give respectability to it. If he is right in supposing that it does give respectability to it, I submit to him whether, in the first place, there is any occupation in this country that more needs to be made respectable than the business of dealing in liquor; and if the Government can make it actually respectable, and make twenty dollars a head out of it, whether it is not worth while to do the thing. (Laughter.] If I could wash the whole fraternity, and make much money out of it, I think it would be a good operation.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I think, with all the power the Government of the United States possesses, it is not in its power to make rumselling respectable; but I do think it needs respectability; and I think further than that, the Government of the United States can give it countenance, if it cannot give it respectability. I am opposed to giving any countenance whatever to rumselling in any part of this country. The Senator from Maine sees an inconsistency in my position. I see none whatever. I know that that Senator's optics are very keen, but I can see no inconsistency in the position that I occupy upon this bill. I am willing to tax, and tax highly, the manufacture of ardent spirits; I am willing to tax, and tax highly, the importation of ardent spirits. I will tax them as high as anybody else, and I would go so high as to prohibit both the manufacture and the importation, if I could; but I cannot do it. I will put as much burden on the importation and on the manufacture as possible; but when I have done that, I will not aid in the retailing of it among our people.

tificate of character. That is the truth of it. The liquor dealer will so regard it, and he will be proud to shake your certificate of character in the face of an outraged moral sentiment. We are now told if the Government should license in those States where it is prohibited, the liquor dealer must run his risk. That is true; but suppose the Government does come in my State and gives to every applicant who desires it a license, and let him run his chance. I will tell you what the effect will be. It will give immense power and strength to the liquor selling interest. It will give them power and weight to contest and put down the State laws practically, if not to repeal them altogether.

We will take a State where they have yet no law, but where a large portion of the people are in favor of checking the sale of ardent spirits, and are struggling to suppress their sale. They do not grant licenses; but the liquor traffic is carried on. You go in there, and put a license in the pocket of every man who asks a license, withany kind of regulation in regard to character, local habitation, or situation. Well, sir, what is the moral effect? It puts the rum interest under the sanction and protection of the Federal Government. It gives moral power and weight to the liquor selling interest. They will hold up their heads and walk proudly and defiantly, and they will maintain their contest against the moral interests of the community the more firmly by being backed by the authority of the Federal Government. It is as plain as any mathematical problem that it must be so.

I suppose, under this idea of putting a few coppers into the Treasury of the United States, that the United States is to embark in this business of giving licenses to rumsellers to deal out rum to the people of the country. Sir, for one, I shall not vote for this bill with this provision in it. I cannot record my name for an act to give the countenance and sanction of the nation to the retailing of intoxicating drinks to the people. I cannot, I will not, give a vote for a bill that shall

icating liquors to the people of this country. Mr. TÉN EYCK. I desire information, and I want to ask the Senator a question. Is it not now against the law of Massachusetts to sell liquor by retail?

'Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. Yes, sir. Mr. TEN EYCK. What is the penalty? Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. Fine and imprisonment.

Mr. TEN EYCK. Does the Senator suppose that a person obtaining a license under this act will be authorized to sell liquor in the State of Massachusetts, and will be free from the penalty? Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. No, sir; 1 do not.

I tell you, sir, there is not a rumseller or a friend of the rumseller on this continent that will not welcome this tax. It will be hailed from one end of this country to the other by the whole rumsell-put in any man's pocket the right to retail intoxing interest of this country. If the rumsellers of the country had held a national convention they would have asked you to put precisely such a thing as a license to sell liquors in your bill. There is no doubt of it at all. Why, sir, it has been the struggle of the retailers of rum all over this country for a quarter of a century to adopt the license system and to get licensed. They have contended for it; they have fought for it; they have carried it to the polls; they have carried it into your Legislative Assemblies; they have carried it everywhere; and now the Congress of the United States proposes to establish the system rejected by many of the States as sanctioning crime, and to grant it to them. Does it tend to the consumption of ardent spirits in this country to tax its manufacture or to tax its importation? Certainly not. But when we come to the retail trade of it, if this Government will give every man who asks it a license to sell liquor, you will shingle this nation over with licenses to sell liquor. Every man that has studied this subject knows this to be true; and yet the Senator from Maine undertakes to defend an act of this kind that will carry agony and tears through the nation. Does not the Senator know that the men who forty years have struggled to check intemperance have repudiated the license system?

The Senator refers to my position here and my position at home on temperance. Sir, I have studied this temperance question in all its phases, and I have practiced total abstinence for thirty years, and I know something of what I speak; and I know that the passage of this act will be a source of gratification in every rum shop and low doggery in this section.

Mr. FESSENDEN. To pay twenty dollars? Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. Yes; they will rejoice to pay it. Why? They are under the ban of the moral sentiment of the nation to-day; in many of the States they are under the prohibition of the law, and in most of the States the better portion of the community condemn the traffic, and are doing what they can to check it. Now you come forward and put in the pocket of every liquor seller in the land a license, give him a charter to go forth in the community and deal out his liquors under the authority and sanction of the United States. This Government license is a cer

Mr. TEN EYCK. Then if he sells, he will be subject to the law of the State, just as he is now. In my State, where there are licenses to sell liquor and a penalty imposed for a violation of it, by the passage of this bill, you increase the penalty, or at least you levy an additional excise upon the persons who are engaged in this business; so that while the Senator is fearful of its doing mischief and damaging the moral sentiment in one section of the Union, he is contending against that which will serve to protect the people of my State from evils of this description.

Mr. HOWE. I desire to say just one word. The Senator from Massachusetts, it seems to me, is clearly mistaken in supposing that this bill gives a right to any man to sell liquors either by wholesale or retail. It confers no right. It simply says no man shall carry on this business without paying this fine or this tax to the Government. That is the whole purport of the bill. In some of the States the business is carried on very largely; in others it is not carried on at all. The right is reserved to each State whether it may or may not be proscribed in that State. Nobody is authorized to do it; and the position of the Senator, as I understand it, is unmistakably this: he says that he will not vote for this bill to raise revenue for the nation if it contains a clause which imposes a fine upon men who carry on this particular kind of business.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. Let me say to the Senator from Wisconsin that this is no fine. You provide in this bill that a man shall not carry on this business unless he has a license; you pro

pose to license him, and he must take his chances with the State authorities at home. That is the amount of it. Under the provisions of this act, you can license ten thousand men in my State. They have got to run their chances, and contend with our State law. But, sir, the point I make is this: the men who desire to sell liquor will hail this law, will seek these licenses, and when they have them in their pockets, it will strengthen their position to fight against the State law and that local legislation.

I will make another remark to the Senator. In the States where they license at all, they profess to have some regard for the character of the person they license, and they have some security of that kind. The dealer is licensed by people who live in his township or his city; but you propose to grant licenses, and you take none of these securities whatever. The point I make is this: when the State of Massachusetts and several other States will not license, when the whole moral sense of the community is against giving licenses, when the people before they had their law prohibiting the retailing of ardent spirits, would not give licenses, and voted down the system years ago, because they regarded it as grossly immoral to give licenses to retail intoxicating drinks, you now take up the old system; you now grant licenses for that purpose. The granting of licenses by the Government will be received with sorrow by hundreds of thousands of the people of the country.

The Senator from Maine, I know, does not think so. I have a great opinion of that Senator's judgment and of his intellectual power; but I have quite as good an opinion of many other gentlemen's sense of right, ideas, and popular instincts.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not doubt it. Now you come to the point-popular instincts.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I mean nothing disrespectful to the Senator, but I have not the greatest confidence in the Senator's instinctive sagacity in regard to many of these questions affecting the interests of the masses. That is what I mean.

Mr. HENDERSON. Will the Senator permit me to ask him a question?

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. Yes, sir; a dozen.

Mr. HENDERSON. Would he regard a tax on slaves in this bill as sanctioning slavery on the part of the Government of the United States?

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I say to the Senator that a tax on slaves as property I will not vote for; a tax on them as persons I would

vote for.

Mr. HENDERSON. Would he consider it, if levied, as sanctioning the institution of slavery?

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I answer the Senator precisely in this way: if a proposition is made in this bill to tax slaves as persons, I am willing to vote for it; but if it be a proposition to tax slaves as so much property, I will not vote for it. I am against giving the sanction of the Government either to slavery or rumselling.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Then, on the idea that a man holds persons as slaves for his use and benefit, the Senator is willing to sanction it; but on the idea simply that he holds property for his use and benefit, he goes against it.

Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. No, sir; that is not the case.

Mr. POWELL. If the Senator from Massachusetts will yield, I will move to adjourn. Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. Certainly. Mr. POWELL. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr. SIMMONS. I hope the Senator from Kentucky will allow me to offer some propositions that I want to get printed to-night.

Mr. POWELL. I will yield for that purpose. Mr. SUMNER. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. I believe there are some messages of the President on the table which should be read first.

Mr. SIMMONS. I obtained the consent of the Senator from Kentucky to waive his motion that I might offer some amendments. Mr. SUMNER. Certainly.

Mr. SIMMONS. I intend, when the bill is up again to-morrow, to offer certain amendments to it which I should like to have printed, and I make that motion.

The motion to print was agreed to.

Mr. POWELL. I now renew my motion. Mr. SUMNER. I hope the Senator will allow me to make a motion to go into executive session. Mr. POWELL. I insist on my motion to adjourn. All the Senators around me wish to adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

TUESDAY, May 27, 1862.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer the Chaplain, Rev. THOMAS H. STOCKTON. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

MEXICAN AFFAIRS.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a message from the President of the United States, transmitting a report from the Secretary of State in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 22d instant, calling for further correspondence relating to Mexican affairs; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

REBELLION LOSSES.

The SPEAKER stated that the regular order of business was the consideration of the bill of the House (No. 401) relating to claims for the loss and destruction of property belonging to loyal citizens, and damages thereto, by the troops of the United States during the present rebellion, upon which the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. WEBSTER,] was entitled to the floor.

the tract asked for, they advise the cession of the residue. The principle on which that advice is given is, that the part proposed to be ceded to the State of California is in truth and in fact a desert, utterly worthless to this Government or to any one else, unless it can be watered by artificial

means.

Mr. LOVEJOY. Will the gentleman from Maryland allow me to ask him a question? Mr. CRISFIELD. Certainly.

Mr. LOVEJOY. I ask whether it has been ascertained with any degree of accuracy that all these three millions of acres are worthless?

Mr. CRISFIELD. The committee thinks so, and has supplied the proof with its report showing the facts. This report has been on the table of members for more than a month. It was made on the 23d of April, and has been printed and within the reach of every member of the House for a month past. The land proposed to be ceded

is thus described:

Mr. WEBSTER. I am going to make a suggestion which will let the gentleman in directly. Upon consultation with some of the friends of the bill now before us, it has been thought best that its consideration shall be postponed for the time being, and until some day certain. That meets my view of the subject, if it is agreeable to the chairman of the Committee of Claims, [Mr. FENTON.]

Mr. FENTON. I have no objection to the postponement of the bill, if it can be made the special order for two weeks from this day.

By unanimous consent, the further consideration of the bill was postponed until this day two weeks, and it was made the special order for that day.

RAISING AND WRECKING OF SUNKEN VESSELS.

Mr. SEDGWICK. I ask leave to report from the Committee on Naval Affairs, with a view to put it upon its passage, a joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to contract for the raising or wrecking of sunken vessels of war.

Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri. Does that come in in the regular order, as a report from the Committee on Naval Affairs?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman, from New York, asks consent to report the bill.

Mr. PHELPS, of Missouri. I object to anything out of the regular order.

BOARD OF FORTIFICATIONS. The SPEAKER. The regular order of business is the consideration of the bill of the House (No. 416) authorizing the appointment of a board of fortifications, to provide for the sea-coast and other defenses of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. ALDRICH. The gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BLAIR,] who reported that bill, is not present, and I hope it will be postponed.

The SPEAKER. By unanimous consent the bill can be passed over.

Mr. COX. I hope that will be done. There being no objection, the bill was passed over informally.

The SPEAKER then proeceded, as the regular order of business, to call the committees for reports, beginning with the Committee on Public

Lands.

COLORADO DESERT. Mr.CRISFIELD, from the Committee on Public Lands, reported back, with a recommendation that it do pass, the bill of the House (No. 417) granting to the State of California the tract of land known as the Colorado desert for the purpose of

grant to the State of California three millions of acres of land, as the gentleman from Maryland states, and I believe the amount will be more than that. If I am not mistaken, the lands in this very basin have been surveyed by the public surveyors, and have been reported by the public surveyors as fit for cultivation and settlement. I hope the passage of this bill will not be urged, when gentlemen have not had an opportunity of examining the report which has been made. This desert, I believe, is about ninety miles in extent. If it is proposed to establish it as a precedent that where there is any portion of the country unfurnished with water for a distance of ninety miles, you shall grant to the State in which that land is situated all the public lands for the purpose of furnishing water along the line of that road, let us say so. The principle of this bill would apply to the Jornada del Muerte in the Territory of New Mexico-a desert extending for the distance of ninety miles on the main line of travel between the settlements on the upper and the lower Rio Grande. I have crossed that desert, and there is a distance of more than ninety miles where there is no water. If, then, we are willing to grant to the State of California these lands for the purpose of enabling that State to furnish water for travelers upon this desert, we shall be called upon to do the same thing for the Territory of New Mexico. This bill, sir, is of too great importance to be put upon its passage hastily, and I hope the gentleman from Maryland will allow time for its due consideration. I am not at present prepared to give it my assent; but, perhaps, upon consideration, I may come to a different conclusion.

Mr. CRISFIELD. Mr. Speaker, in 1859 the State of California passed resolutions asking its Representatives and instructing its Senators to procure the passage of a bill donating to the State of California lands thus described:

"Beginning at the initial point of the San Bernardino base line as established by the general survey; thence running east on the said line to the Colorado river; thence down said river to its junction with the southern State line; thence west, along suid line, to the eastern base of the main range of mountains; thence northerly, along the base of the said range of mountains, to the place of beginning."

Public Lands, and has been carefully examined This subject was referred to the Committee on by them. The committee have reported that they cannot advise the grant of all the land here asked for, because a large portion of it, perhaps one half, is mountain land, which is not necessary for the purpose which the State of California sets forth as the reason for which the grant should be made. The State desires this grant to the end that it may introduce water upon this means of communication between the East and the West, and also for

"It is a vast, naked, desolate plain. With the exception of a narrow strip of bottom land on the west bank of the Colorado river, and small patches of grass around the few water holes and springs in the vicinity of San Gorgonio Pass, it is a waste, uninhabitable country, without vegetation, except occasional bunches of the creosote plant, and near the California mountains, of the artemisia, and incapable of vegetation. From April to October it is subject to intense heat, the atmosphere is dry and scorching like the hot air from a furnace, and from November to March to severe cold. At the latter season the winds from the Coast

of California with great violence, raising the fine sand of the desert in immense clouds, filling the atmosphere, concealing landmarks, almost obscuring the light of the sun, and forcing the traveler to stop immediately, and await, as best he can, until the gale ceases. The Indians dwelling at the outlet of San Gorgonio Pass regard this desert with horror. They call it the journey of death,' and belleve that the souls of bad Indians are condemned to wander over this desert forever-in summer without water, in winter without clothing.

The facts here stated are sustained by the most abundant testimony. Here is the letter of Cap. tain Burton, of the United States Army, from which this description of the country is literally taken. Gentlemen can read it for themselves. Here is the letter of General Emory. He says:

"The desert character of that country, the obstacles it presents to the transportation of Governnient supplies and to immigration, are undoubted. These obstacles, unless removed, must in the end force all travel to take the circuitous sea route. That they will ever be removed, under our present mode of disposing of the public lands, is impossible. No single owner of a section of land, or of any ten consecutive sections of land, could, with the least prospect of success, attempt the cultivation of any part of the desert. To open any portion to settlement would require a large capital, and the absolute proprietorship of the right of way of the aqueduct from the source of water to the point to be irrigated, and that would cover a very considerable space. "The importance to California of having this oasis established is very great. Otherwise, all the immense mineral wealth of the Arizona and Gila districts, now developing, must, instead of going out through some California port, seek the more distant port of Guaymas, in a foreign territory. It is also very important to the General Government; for it is over this desert Government stores are transported, and the overland mail has not been able to find a practicable winter route."

Here is a letter, also, from Mr. R. C. Matthewson, Government surveyor in California. Time will not allow me to read it. There is also a letter from Mr. A. B. Gray, commissioner to run the boundary between the United States and Mexico.

He says:

"As it now stands, this desert is unavailable for productive purposes; but your plan, if I comprehend it rightly, will, it practicable, I believe, conduce to the public good, and be of great benefit to the United States Government, to California, and to the trade and travel generally of that part of our continent."

There are also letters from A. D. Campbell, John Rains, W. W. McCoy, late major in the United States Army, Captain Stone, and others. All describe the territory as a desert, utterly unfit for settlement or cultivation, by reason of the absence of water.

I believe that, naturally, the soil is capable of improvement. It has been found that where moisture has been applied in sufficient quantities, the soil has produced vigorously. The Legislature of the State of California is of opinion that water can be supplied from the Colorado. The conformation of the substrata is such as to give great facilities for irrigation. It is proposed to irrigate this region of country, and to make valuable these three mil