198 



CONGKESS UNITED STATES. 



legislative bodies, together constitute three-fourths 

 of the whole number of States in the United States : 

 Now, therefore, be it known that I, William H. 

 Seward, Secretary of State of the United States, by 

 virtue and in pursuance of the second section of the 

 act of Congress approved the twentieth day of April, 

 eighteen hundred and eighteen, hereinbefore cited, do 

 hereby certify that if the resolutions of the Legislatures 

 of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amend- 

 ment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and 

 effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions ol 

 the Legislatures of these States which purport to with- 

 draw the consent of said States from such ratifica- 

 tion, then the aforesaid amendment has been ratified 

 in the manner hereinbefore mentioned and so has 

 become valid to all intents and purposes as a part 

 of the Constitution of the United States. 



In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 

 and caused the seal of the Department of State to be 

 affixed. 



Done at the city of "Washington, this twentieth day 

 of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand 

 eight hundred and sixty-eight and of the inde- 

 pendence of the United States of America the 

 ninetv-third. 

 WILLIAM H. SEWAED, Secretary of State. 



Mr. Schenck, of Ohio, from the Committee 

 of Ways and Means, reported a bill to repeal 

 the tax on cotton. He said: "Sir, I will but 

 say, in reference to this tax on cotton, every 

 one knows and understands it to have been an 

 exceptional tax and a departure from the ordi- 

 nary principle which prevails in our legislation 

 in the United States, not to impose a burden 

 upon an agricultural product. The tax, on the 

 part of those who voted for it, of whom I was 

 one, under the original proposition was con- 

 sidered justified in some degree, perhaps as a 

 war measure, or rather as a measure following 

 upon the heel of the war and relating to mat- 

 ters which had been affected by the disturbance 

 of the country. It was also supported on the 

 ground that there was but little revenue to be 

 derived from the Southern part of the country 

 except through a tax of this kind. And it was 

 justified generally by the anomalous condition 

 of all that was then existing and in a measure 

 exists up to this time in that part of the 

 country. The time has now arrived, I believe, 

 in the general judgment of the country, and 

 certainly in the unanimous judgment of the 

 Ways and Means Committee, to remove that tax. 

 And it will be observed that we propose to re- 

 move it prospectively. If this matter had come 

 up for consideration as long ago as September 

 last, when the cotton crop of the present year 

 was just coming into market, and when it had 

 not passed from the hands of the grower, it is 

 not impossible that the committee might have 

 recommended to the House to make the law 

 take immediate effect upon its passage ; but the 

 condition of things has very much changed 

 since that date. 



Mr. Brooks, of New York, said: "In the 

 main I perfectly concur in the remarks of the 

 chairman of the committee ; that is, I insist 

 upon our retracing our steps, because this mat- 

 ter of the taxation of cotton to the extent of 

 $20,000,000 per annum is a bounty to that ex- 



tent for the products of Great Britain in her 

 India possessions and the products of Egypt 

 and Brazil. Indeed, the percentage or premium 

 which we give to the foreign cotton by our tax 

 is computed by the Treasury agent, Mr. Wells, 

 to be over fifty per cent., while by cotton 

 brokers and commercial men it is computed to 

 amount to seventy-five per cent. Hence, ad- 

 mitting this tax to have been a mistake, in 

 which all agree, the only difference is when 

 we shall correct the mistake. In regard to 

 that I differ from the honorable chairman of 

 the committee. 



" Now is the accepted time, and now is the 

 day, in my opinion, while in the opinion of the 

 majority of the committee this doing right is to 

 be postponed till the crop of another year, and 

 there is to be a continuance of this wrong for 

 a year from now." 



Mr. Niblack, of Pennsylvania, said: "I have 

 always been opposed to it for the reason that 

 influences the gentleman from Ohio. In the 

 first place, it was an exceptional tax, so con- 

 ceded ; in the next place I thought it unjust 

 and impolitic. So long as cotton commanded 

 a high price, this tax was not so mucli felt. It 

 was not a matter of so much consequence to 

 the producer when this tax was put on as it 

 has assumed to be during the present depressed 

 condition of the cotton interest. Still, it was 

 an impolitic measure. Being opposed, there- 

 fore, to this tax from the beginning, my first 

 impulse was to agree to something like the 

 proposition of the gentleman from New York 

 (Mr. Brooks), to take off the tax at once. On 

 examining the question, however, I came to 

 the conclusion that we could not do so justly 

 without refunding to those who have already 

 paid taxes upon the present year's crop. Upon 

 inquiry at the Treasury Department, and at the 

 office of the Commissioner of Internal Reve- 

 nue, I ascertained further that this act could 

 never be carried out without great trouble and 

 considerable cost, and even then perhaps not 

 very satisfactorily. I also ascertained, upon 

 inquiry of those who are more familiar with 

 the subject of cotton-growing than I am, that 

 by this time the greater portion of the small 

 producers, the poor men who are engaged in 

 growing cotton, have already parted with their 

 crop and paid the tax on it, or at least have 

 sold it at a price corresponding to the addition 

 of the tax. In that view of the case, to adopt 

 the proposition of the gentleman from New 

 York (Mr. Brooks), it seems to me, would have 

 the effect to take from these people the amount 

 they have already paid in taxes. It would be 

 a discrimination against men who are least able 

 to submit to the loss." 



Mr. Griswold, of New York, said: "Mr. 

 Speaker, I rise to submit a few remarks on the 

 question now before the House, mainly because 

 of the position I -occupied at the time the tax 

 was imposed. When the House considered and 

 decided that matter, I differed with the mem- 

 bers of the Committee of Ways and Means in 



