CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



199 



regard to the policy of imposing a tax upon 

 cotton. It will be remembered, sir, at that 

 time cotton was bringing in market from forty 

 to fifty cents per pound, and had brought that 

 price for at least a year prior to that time. It 

 will be remembered further that it had then 

 the command of the English market; that 

 American cotton was consumed in England to 

 an extent of not less than eighty per cent, of 

 the whole consumption in Great Britain. It 

 was regarded at that time, under all these cir- 

 cumstances, as an interest which could well 

 stand the imposition of a tax of two and a half 

 or three cents per pound. I took the ground 

 upon the floor, differing from the distinguished 

 gentleman from Massachusetts, and from what 

 I considered the best authority, I claimed at a 

 shilling sterling the American cotton would 

 control the market in England and be the cot- 

 ton of cheap consumption. Now, Mr. Speaker, 

 the condition of things has changed entirely. 

 Cotton, instead of being an exception to the 

 products of the soil which could stand taxation, 

 is really the one exception against imposition ; 

 that is to say, there is no product of the soil 

 which to-day will not bear a direct tax better 

 than the article of cotton. And now, sir, 

 instead of supplying eighty per cent, of the 

 whole consumption in England, it has been 

 reduced to forty per cent. According to the 

 able report of Mr. Wells, the special commis- 

 sioner, it was reduced eight per cent, in 1864. 

 It is evident, at the present rate, cotton cannot 

 be produced except at a loss, and considering 

 that fact and the fact of the importance of 

 that- product to this country, there can be no 

 difference in this House, I think, as to the policy 

 of removing that tax. I beg to assure my col- 

 league (Mr. Brooks) that the motive at the 

 time was not to punish the South. Congress 

 was then 'engaged in searching out avenues by 

 which it could fill its Treasury. As I said before, 

 at the price cotton then brought it could well 

 bear a tax of two and a half cents per pound. 

 I believe there was no member of the Thirty- 

 eighth or Thirty-ninth Congress who was ani- 

 mated at all by a desire to punish the South 

 in imposing that tax." 



Mr. McCarthy, of New York, said: " The re- 

 tention of this tax does in a measure protect 

 the wool-growers ; and, while furnishing $20,- 

 000,000 of revenue to the Government, also 

 adds so much to the cost of manufacturing in 

 Europe, and operates as a protection here at 

 home. I am not prepared to criticise the mo- 

 tives of those who advocate this measure ; but 

 an examination will prove that it will benefit 

 not so much the cotton-grower as the dealer, 

 the shipper, and the British manufacturer. 

 How far these interests are to have special 

 favors time may tell. Before this $20,000,000 

 of ^ revenue is taken off, I want to know how 

 it is to be replaced. Is the remission of this 

 tax to impose additional burdens upon other 

 interests that are equally a necessity and are 

 equally suffering (to which I object), or is 



the deficiency of revenue to be made up by 

 economy and retrenchment? Common justice 

 demands that all the necessary interests of our 

 country should share the burdens of taxation 

 equally. I claim that the Committee of Ways 

 and Means should hold this question in abey- 

 ance until they can show how this deficit of 

 $20,000,000 is to be made good." 



After a brief debate the bill was ordered to 

 be engrossed, read the third time, and passed, 

 by the following vote : 



YEAS Messrs? Adams, Allison, Ames, Anderson, 

 Archer, Arnell, Delos E. Ashley, James M. Ashley, 

 Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman, 

 Beck, Bingham, Elaine, Blair, Boutwell, Boyer, 

 Bromwell, Brooks, Broomall, Buckland, Burr, Cake, 

 Gary, Chanler, Churchill, Eeader W. Clarke, Sidney 

 Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Cullom, Dawes, Dodge, 

 Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Eliot, 

 Farnsworth, Ferry, Fields, Garfield, Getz, Glossbren- 

 ner, Gravely, Griswold, Grover, Haight, Halsey, Ham- 

 ilton, Hawkins, Hill, Holman, Hooper, Hopkins, 

 Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, Eichard D. Hub- 

 bard, Hulburd, Humphrey, Hunter, Ingersoll, John- 

 son, Jones, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kerr, Ketcham, 

 Knott, Koontz, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, "William 

 Lawrence, Lincoln, Logan, Loughridge, Mallory, 

 Marshall, Marvin, Maynard, McClurg, McCullough, 

 Moore, Moorhead, Morgan, Morrellj Mullins, Mun- 

 gen, Myers, Newcomb, Niblack, Nicholson, Nunn, 

 O'Neill, Orth, Payne, Perham, Peters, Phelps, Pile, 

 Plants, Polsley, Price, Pruyn, Eandall, Eooertson, 

 Eobinson, Boss, Sawyer, Schenck, Shanks,Sitgreaves, 

 Smith, Spalding, Stewart, Stokes, Stone, Taber, Tay- 

 lor, Thomas, Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aer- 

 nam, Van Auken, Eobert T. Van Horn, Van Trump, 

 Van Wyck, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Wash- 

 burne, Henry D. Washburn-William B. Washburn, 

 Welker, Thomas Williams, William Williams, James 

 F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Win- 

 dom, and Woodward 146. 



NAYS Messrs. Benjamin, Benton, Butler, Cornell, 

 Covode, Ela, Ferriss, Harding, Higby, Jenckes, Kel- 

 sey, Lynch, McCarthy, Miller, Pike, Poland, Stark- 

 weather, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, and 

 Ward 20. 



NOT VOTING Messrs. Axtell, Banks, Dixon, Fin- 

 ney, Fox 2 Asahel W. Hubbard, Kitchen, Loan, Mer- 

 cur, Momssey, Pomeroy, Eaum, Scofield, Selye, Shel- 

 labarger, Taffe, Twichell, Burt Van Horn, Wood, and 

 Woodbridge 20. 



In the Senate, on December 13th, the bill 

 was taken up. 



Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said: "It is scarcely 

 necessary for me to explain the necessity or 

 the reasons for this bill, because those reasons 

 are matters of public notoriety known to most 

 Senators. We have an official report from the 

 special commissioner of revenue, Mr. Wells, 

 strongly urging it, and setting forth very co- 

 gently the reasons why the tax should be re- 

 pealed. He recommends its repeal not only 

 for the next year, but for the present year. 

 The bill comes to us from the House of Eepre- 

 sentatives in its present form, and does not 

 affect the tax on cotton grown during the 

 present year, but only applies to the future 

 crop. As preparations are now being made 

 all over the South for the next year's crop, it is 

 important that the action of Congress on this 

 subject should be definitely fixed before any 

 adjournment for the holidays. It is urged by 



