allow the importation of salt to be reduced in the same proportion as the general import-that is to say, about one-eighth of the repeal importationwe shall find on calculation that the quantity imported will be about four hundred and seventeen thousand eight hundred bushels, on which a tax of twenty cents per bushel will produce only eighty-three thousand five hundred and sixty dollars. But the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has calculated the revenue derivable from this source at four hundred thousand dollars! I do not believe, sir, as our importation will be reduced seven-eighths, that you will get fifty thousand from it. I put then out of the argument the operation of this tax upon an indispensable necessary of life; the argument in its support, bottomed on the revenue it will produce, must fail; it will not produce one-eighth of the estimated amount.

But suppose my calculations are not certainly accurate; suppose it only doubtful whether the source be fallible whence a revenue of four hundred thousand dollars is estimated to be drawn. Is it the policy of a wise statesman to lay a tax, the productiveness of which is doubtful? If the revenue be deficient when the pinch of war comes, what are we to resort to as a substitute? I would much prefer, to this tax, to add five hundred thousand dollars to the amount of the direct tax, which would, at least, not be drawn from the hard-working mass of the community, but from richer subjects. It would be wise to resort to this mode of raising a revenue in preference to the precarious tax on salt, because, like that, it cannot fail-the land is a pledge for the payment of the tax; the salt is not here to be pledged, and never may be.

I ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, whether it is intended to connect with this duty the former drawback or bounty on its exportation; for, if we do that, I find, by turning to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, that the bounty on its exportation will amount to $188,000, double or treble the whole revenue which will probably be received from this tax, and more than could, in any view, be derived from the importations into the country whence the fishermen sail who have heretofore received this bounty.

I cannot believe, sir, that the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has not viewed this subject as I have; that he has not examined into the amount of our usual importation in the most prosperous times. I cannot believe that that astute and discerning gentleman has not turned his eyes to this subject, so as to see what revenue this tax will produce; that he cannot see, if the revenue from commerce is to experience a depreciation from sixteen millions to two millions five hundred thousand dollars, the importation of salt must be at least proportionably diminished. He must, then, view this tax as a protecting duty on salt, and not as a source of revenue. I am against affording this protecting duty at the expense of the poor, the laborious, and the industrious; those who earn their bread by the sweat of their brows. 12th CoN. 1st Sess.-36

H. OF R.

I trust, therefore, sir, that those gentlemen who at our last sitting were convinced this duty ought not to be imposed, will stand firm to their posts, and not be driven from them by any alarm excited about abandoning the Government, or weakening the measures which the exigency calls for. I have no fear for myself of any such imputation; for, be it remembered, that whilst I discard this tax, as unworthy the consideration of a statesman, I am prepared to substitute for it some one more efficient and better calculated to answer the purpose for which it is designed.

Mr. BACON said, that having heretofore given his views on the subject pretty much at large, he had refrained from entering into the discussion, which had taken place on the subject a day or two ago; and did not propose now to say much upon it. It has been said, that this was a tax bearing peculiarly hard on the middle country. Mr. B. said he acknowledged that he considered it a tax operating on the middle country more than our seaboard or on the Western frontier. But there were various other taxes proposed by this report, which had an important and heavy bearing on the people of the seaboard and cities, and on the people of the Western waters, by which the people of the Western country would he comparatively little affected. I am, said Mr.. B., what is called a middle country man, living one hundred and fifty miles from the seaboard; and it would be far from me to impose heavy taxes on such people unnecessarily. The drawbacks, tonnage duty, and stamps, will operate almost exclusively on the seaboard; and the people of the cities will pay their full proportion of the internal taxes. The direct tax will operate with peculiar severity on the Western country, it may be.

Mr. WRIGHT.-Mr. Speaker: I regret that the honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. GHOLSON,) who on Friday last voted against the tax of twenty cents on salt, should now propose the reconsideration of that subject, with a view of fixing this unequal, and of course unjust tax on the people of the United States, or rather on a part of them; however, I hope, that all the "outof-door management," which the gentleman politely calls the interference of his friends, will not produce such a result, particularly as the gentle-. man has informed us that he is not dissatisfied with his own vote.

Sir, when a subject is fully and fairly discussed and decided, gentlemen ought to acquiesce in the decision of a majority, the vital principle of a Republican Government.

The reconsideration of a subject reflects on the House for the immaturity of their decision, and ought not hastily to be adopted. Sir, are we a set of weathercocks, to be turned about by every idle wind? No! I hope not, let it blow from what quarter it may. Are we ready to present the un

gracious spectacle of recording our opinions for and against the same thing? In the first case, on a full discussion of the subject on both sides; in the second, under the "out-of-doors" influence, which the gentleman has informed us has induced him to make the motion. For the honor of the House I hope this motion will not succeed.

Sir, at the last session, when the question for rechartering the odious British bank was before us, we had to encounter the influence of the Secretary of the Treasury; and after it was rejected by this House, he, in reply to the inquiries of the Senate, where it was agitated, but fortunately rejected, endeavored to impress its importance on the nation, and by these means to force it on the people. Now, at this session, he has told us, that, if we had a National Bank, we should have no occasion to resort to internal taxes, thereby calling the American people to review the conduct of their Representatives, in not continuing that bank, and thereby to fix the odium of these odious taxes on the National Legislature. Now a system of taxes is presented, truly odious in my opinion to the people, to disgust them with their Representatives, and to chill the war spirit. Yet it is. under Treasury influence, to be impressed on the Committee of Ways and Means, and through them upon the House.

Sir, I, as a Representative of the people, feel it my duty to resist it with all my energies, and not to sacrifice the interest of my country at the shrine of the Secretary of the Treasury, or any other department; though I strongly incline to believe his projected system of taxes has not their preference.

Sir, is there anything of originality in this system? No! It is treading in the muddy footsteps of his official predecessors, in attempting to strap round the necks of the people this odious system of taxation, adopted by them, for which they have been condemned by the people and dismissed from power. We all recollect the clamor againt Mr. Adams's Administration for this system of odious stamp taxes and excises, and the more odious host of tax gatherers, who were let loose upon the peo ple, by whose appointments and patronage the country was then overrun with electioneering agents for that Administration. We all had a hand in impressing this opinion upon the people at that time; and I yet religiously believe it to have been a correct one.

When Mr. Jefferson came into office, he, as President, advised us to put down those odious taxes, and we repealed the law; he also advised us to repeal the law imposing a tax on salt, as oppressive to the poor, and we did so. And now, sir, with the view of destroying this Administration, with this sentence of a dismissal of our predecessors in office before our eyes, a sentence not only sanctioned but executed by ourselves, we are to be pressed into a system known to be odious in the sight of the people, and which on its first presentation in a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Committee of Ways and Means, and by them submitted to us, produced such an excitement in the House.

MARCH, 1812.

Sir, having heretofore made these charges against our political opponents, how can we defend ourselves against their just odium? Are we prepared to urge their correctness now, which we then so successfully denounced? No, sir. I acted then on principle, which is immutable; and I am satisfied the people did so too, and that they will not be found to approve in us what they condemned in our predecessors. I am not so delirious as to take the deleterious draught, by which our political enemies were destroyed; it would be political suicide.

Sir, the proposition to lay a tax of twenty cents on salt ought to be rejected; it is unequal in its operation on the United States, and it is oppressive to the poor. By the Constitution it is provided, as a guard against the inequality of taxes among the States, that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States by the rate of representation; this fixes the principle by which the States should contribute to the "common defence and general welfare." Does the tax on salt operate in this ratio on the respective States? No, sir, the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, the Western Territories, are entirely supported by home made salt; the greater part of New York, the western parts of Pennsylvania, and the western part of Virginia, are so in a great measure; and at some of the salt-works, we are informed, at a price not exceeding ten cents. These parts of the Union will, therefore, pay no tax on imported salt. On Friday, it was proposed to lay a tax of ten cents on home made salt, they who did not contribute by the tax on imported salt might pay something to the support of the war by the tax on country salt; but this was not only rejected, but those who opposed the tax of twenty cents on imported salt were denounced as being opposed to taxes to carry on the war, and insinuations made that they were against the war. I think those who do not use imported salt, and who are opposed to the tax of ten cents on country salt, ought to have had the modesty of being silent on the subject.

Sir, the tax on imported salt will operate as a bounty on home made salt, a net profit to the manufacturer of that article, which he will levy on the consumer; ten cents of which, by way of tax, I wished to draw into the Treasury, but this was rejected.

So much have I urged against the unequal bearing of this salt tax on the respective States; but, sir, I have a still stronger objection to it, its oppression of the poor. Salt is not only a necessary but an indispensable, which the poor cannot do without, and a poor family in proportion to their numbers will consume as much salt as a rich family, and of course pay as much of the tax on salt. Sir, can this be right? No! Let us lay it directly on property, whereby all will be taxed in proportion to their wealth, the only mode in which taxes can be laid by the Constitution of Maryland, whereby the poor are protected from oppressive taxes. Sir, we ought to recollect that we are now on the eve of a war, in which we shall have to pay a tax in blood, and that the poor will pay this tax

in the ratio of the privates to the officers, and yet you make the poor pay an equal salt tax, which at all times would be unequal and oppressive, but at this time impolitic and cruel.

Sir, in the Federalist, the work of Mr. Madison and Mr. Hamilton, we are told, that, in the selection of articles of taxation, it ought to be made so as to bear equally throughout the United States, and that, if after the selection of an article, the practical result proved it unequal, it ought to be discontinued; but now we are advised by the Secretary of the Treasury to lay a tax of twenty cents on imported salt, an article known not to be used in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio, the Western Territories, the greater part of New York, the western parts of Virginia, and the western parts of Pennsylvania, and that at the rate of forty per cent., ad valorem, on an indispensable to the poor, when even on luxuries no ad valorem duty ever exceeded twenty per

cent.

Sir, in the time of General WASHINGTON'S Administration, spirits distilled in the United States out of foreign articles were taxed at the rate of from eight to twenty-five cents, according to the proof; and spirits distilled out of domestic materials were taxed at the rate of from seven to eighteen cents per gallon, according to the proof. But now, on the eve of a war, and as a war tax, when we have doubled the duty on foreign materials, and raised the duty on imported spirits from thirty to sixty cents per gallon, we have been advised by the Secretary of the Treasury to lay a tax on whiskey, of three cents per gallon, and the Committee of Ways and Means have had the address to reduce even that to not a cent and a quarter per gallon ; but it must and will be recollected, that two of that committee are from Pennsylvania and Kentucky, who are so favored by this system.

Sir, by the report of the marshals heretofore made, nearly twenty four millions of gallons of whiskey were made in this country per year, which by the high price on imported spirits, under a duty of sixty cents, will be increased to thirty millions, I have no doubt; which at ten cents, would produce $3,000.000; but it is proposed to make it produce $275,000 only, not one cent per gallon. Thus, in time of war, a tax of not one cent per gallon, is to be put on whiskey, which, under General WASHINGTON's Adminis. tration, in time of peace, was taxed from seven to eighteen cents per gallon; but, notwithstanding that petty tax on whiskey, and no tax on home made salt, sixty cents per gallon is put on imported spirits, twenty cents on salt, five cents on brown sugar, and the carriage tax, heretofore so unequal, is to be raised more than one hundred per cent. on the former tax on carriages; and although those reasons have been urged against this unequal and oppressive tax with a proposition to lay it on property, yet we are charged with having no stomach to the war, and because we will not submit to oppression at home, we will not resist it abroad. This is their modern logic, but I have perfect confidence that from

H. OF R.

such premises the people will draw very different conclusions.

Sir, that my objections may be distinctly understood, and the inequality of the proposed system in its bearing on Maryland precisely stated, I will refer to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury in eighteen hundred. Then Maryland paid more of the tax on carriages than New York or Pennsylvania, and nearly double the tax paid either by North or South Carolina, and this tax is to be doubled. Then Maryland with eight Representatives, paid $86,718. While Virginia, with nineteen Representatives, paid $144,168; and North Carolina with ten Representatives, paid $46,479, and yet we must not complain. From the same report it does not appear that Kentucky paid anything, and I am informed that it cost the United States five thousand dollars in the costs of non-suits, to no purpose. And, sir, so obnoxious were some of these taxes in Pennsylvania, that we need not now be told of the insurrection against them, and the army that marched to quell it. And yet, sir, the honorable member from Kentucky (Mr. McKEE) and the honorable member from Pennsylvania (Mr. SMILIE) are among the most strenuous advocates of this system; but when its bearing on their constituents is understood, they will forgive them. I am not one of the admirers of such disinterested patriotism, and such devotion to impose equal taxes on all for the "general defence and common welfare." However, I trust that this question will not be settled by their standard, but by the standard of the Constitution. And that I, as a Representative of Maryland, shall be excused for endeavoring to prevent my constituents from bearing more than their just proportion of taxes, when I pledge myself, they will always be ready and willing to pay their just proportion in blood or treasure to avenge the wrongs of a bleeding country, and six thousand two hundred and fiftyseven impressed seamen.

Messrs. MCKEE, SMILIE, and CHEVES, supported the motion.

The question on reconsideration was decided in the affirmative-yeas 70, nays 53, as follows:

YEAS-Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Ezekiel Bacon, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Adam Boyd, William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, Lewis Condict, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Elias Earle, William Findley, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Thomas R. Gold, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Thomas Moore, Samuel McKee, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, James Milnor, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, William Piper, James Pleasants, jun., Peter B. Porter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Samuel Ringgold, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, John Smilie, George Smith, Silas Stow, William Strong, Uri Tracy, John Taliaferro, George M. Troup,

Charles Turner, jr., William Widgery, and Richard Winn.

NAYS-John Baker, David Bard, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus Bleecker, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Robert Brown, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, William Crawford, John Davenport, jr., Samuel Dinsmoor, William Ely, James Emott, James Fisk, Asa Fitch, Charles Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, John A. Harper, Richard Jackson, jr., Lyman Law, Joseph Lefever, Joseph Lewis, jr., Robert Le Roy Livingston, Nathaniel Macon, Archibald McBryde, William McCoy, Jonathan O. Moseley, Hugh Nelson, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Benjamin Pond, Elisha R. Potter, John Randolph, William M. Richardson, Henry M. Ridgely, John Rhea, William Rodman, Samuel Shaw, Daniel Sheffey, John Smith, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, Robert Whitehill, Thomas Wilson, and Robert Wright.

The question was then taken on the resolution for imposing a duty of twenty cents per bushel on imported salt, without further debate, and carried-yeas 66, nays 54. as follows:

YEAS-Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Ezekiel Bacon, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Adam Boyd, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Lewis Condict, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Elias Earle, William Findley, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Thomas R. Gold, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, Jacob Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Thomas Moore, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, William Piper, Jas. Pleasants, jr., Peter B. Porter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Samuel Ringgold, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, John Smilie, George Smith, William Strong, John Taliaferro, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., William Widgery, and Richard Winn.

NAYS-John Baker, David Bard, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus Bleecker, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, William Crawford, John Dav. enport, jr., Samuel Dinsmoor, William Ely, James Emott, James Fisk, Asa Fitch, Charles Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Richard Jackson, jr., Lyman Law, Joseph Lefever, Joseph Lewis, jr., Nathaniel Macon, George C. Maxwell, Archibald McBryde, William McCoy, Jonathan O. Moseley, Hugh Nelson, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Benjamin Pond, Elisha R. Potter, John Randolph, William M. Richardson, Henry M. Ridgely, John Rhea, William Rodman, Daniel Sheffey, John Smith Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, Robert Whitehill, Thomas Wilson, and Robert Wright.

Mr. McKIM then renewed his motion to amend the resolution for taxing stills, by substituting for a part of it the following clause to impose a duty

"On all spirits distilled wholly or in part from for

MARCH, 1812.

eign materials, at different rates, to average twenty. eight cents per gallon.

"On all spirits distilled wholly from domestic growth and produce, at any distillery where there are one or more stills of more capacity, singly or together, than one hundred and fifty gallons, at different rates, to av erage twenty-five cents per gallon.

"And on licences to distil spirits in all other stills at the following rates."

[The rates which follow are in the original resolution, $5 on other stills employed in distilling from fruit, and $15 on all other stills employed in distilling from domestic materials.]

The SPEAKER declaring it to be necessary that all such propositions should first be discussed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. McKIM moved to recommit the resolution proposed to be amended, to a Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of making the above amendment.

Mr. SMILIE, and supported by Mr. FISK, when the This motion was opposed by Mr. JOHNSON, and House adjourned without deciding the question.

TUESDAY, March 3.

WAR TAXES.

the order of the day, viz: the report of the ComThe House proceeded to the consideration of mittee of Ways and Means on the war taxes.

Mr. McKIM's motion to recommit to a Committee of the Whole the resolution embracing a tax on whiskey, for the purpose of amending it, being still under consideration

Mr. McKIM said, when this subject was before the Committee of the Whole, on Thursday last, under an amendment which I then had the honor to offer to the consideration of the Committee, I have reason to believe that the object of the amendment, which was the same in substance as that now offered, was not generally understood. I believed many gentlemen supposed that my sole object was to equalize the taxes proposed, or to by the Committee of Ways and Means, so as modify the general system of taxation proposed that it should have a more equal bearing on the different sections of the country, and on the dif ferent classes of society. This, it is true, Mr. Speaker, was in part my object, but this was only a minor part of it.

Mr. Speaker, the great object I had in view, by the amendment, was to diminish the number of the taxes proposed by the Committee of Ways and Means, which I am of opinion will produce unnecessary discontent, distress, and oppression, nearly in proportion to the number of items proposed to be taxed; and by the proposition I had the honor to submit, a tax of twenty-five cents a gallon on domestic distilled spirits, I believe that sum, with the additional import duty. tonnage, six millions of dollars would be raised, and this and other direct taxes already agreed to by the House, will raise more than the sum required by the Government, and, if the amendment be agreed to, we may safely dismiss all the other internal taxes proposed by the committee. To provide a