CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



201 



one point which has been referred to in the 

 course of this debate, to which I desire to al- 

 lude, and that is in regard to the injustice of 

 allowing a drawback on the manufacture of 

 cotton. If we could manufacture the whole 

 of this cotton in this country, as it seems to me 

 we could by the continuance of that policy, 

 would there be any man in the United States 

 unwilling to yield up the amount of the entire 

 tax for the sake of the great gains, and profits, 

 and benefits resulting to this country in em- 

 ploying so large a share of labor in turning that 

 cotton into manufactures, and sending it abroad 

 doubled in value? Is there any objection to 

 doubling the value of the exports of the South ? 

 Why should we be unwilling to allow these 

 people an opportunity to double their exports? 

 I think it can be done. We allow the draw- 

 back on the manufactured article in order to 

 find a foreign market and to keep our people at 

 work. Do we not allow it in all other instances 

 of manufacture ? If foreigners thereby get our 

 cotton manufactures at cheaper rates than our 

 own people, do they not get whiskey, tobacco, 

 and petroleum, also cheaper ? 



" We had up early a kindred subject, about 

 which, I think, we made a sad mistake, and that 

 was the subject of petroleum. We first levied 

 a duty on the crude petroleum and then on the 

 refined ; and we allowed a drawback in both 

 instances. In my judgment it was a great mis- 

 take. We have a monopoly of that article. 

 If we had levied a duty upon the crude article, 

 and also on the manufactured, and allowed a 

 drawback on the manufactured article the same 

 as we do upon cotton, we should have largely 

 increased our revenues; and we should have 

 benefited our own country, because we should 

 have allowed our own people to refine all that 

 is now consumed abroad, and the quantity is 

 immense'." 



Mr. Conkling, of New York, moved to 

 amend, so that the bill should read as follows : 



That all raw cotton grown in the United States 

 during the year 1868 shall be exempt from internal 

 tax. 



This was agreed to yeas 24, nays 20. 

 On motion of Mr. Drake, of Missouri, the 

 following amendment was concurred in : 



But nothing herein contained shall be construed to 

 require any additional provisions of law in order to 

 authorize the levy and collection of said tax upon all 

 such cotton grown therein after the said year. 



On motion of Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, the 

 following amendment was concurred in : 



Provided, That the duty on raw cotton imported 

 from foreign countries on and after April 1, 1868, and 

 until April 1, 1869, shall be suspended. 



The bill was then passed, by the following 

 vote: 



YEAS Messrs. Buckalew, Cattell, Cole, Corhett, 

 Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fowler, 

 Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Johnson, Mor- 

 gan, Morrill of Maine, Norton, Patterson of New 

 Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Boss, Saulsbury, 

 Sherman, Van Winkle, Williams, and Wilson 25. 



NAYS Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Harlan, How- 



ard, Howe, Morrill of Vermont, Pomeroy, Eamsey, 

 Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, and Wade 12. 



ABSENT Messrs. Antnony, Bayard, Conkling, Con- 

 ness, Drake, Ferry, Fessenden, Guthrie, Hendricks, 

 Morton, Nye, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Willey, 

 and Yates 16. 



The House having refused to assent to the 

 amendments of the Senate, and the latter hav- 

 ing declined to recede, a committee of confer- 

 ence was appointed on January 20th. 



In the Senate, on January 22d, Mr. Sherman, 

 of Ohio, from the committee of conference on 

 the cotton-tax bill, reported that they were 

 unable to agree. He said: "The House of 

 Eepresentatives have asked for another com- 

 mittee of conference. The Senate conferees 

 were not prepared to abandon the position 

 taken by the Senate ; and now, in order to re- 

 lieve us from the difficulty in which we are 

 placed, I will move that the Senate agree to 

 the further conference asked by the House 

 of Representatives, and that the Senate con- 

 ferees be instructed to recede from the Senate 

 amendments, with some provision allowing 

 imported cotton to be admitted duty free. I 

 will make this motion with a view to relieve 

 the difficulty that exists between the two 

 Houses on the cotton-tax bill. It should be 

 remembered by Senators that the House passed 

 a bill repealing or suspending indefinitely the 

 cotton tax. The Senate amended the bill so as 

 to suspend the tax for a year simply. The 

 House conferees, in the free conference which 

 we had, refused to agree to that amendment, 

 and as things now stand the bill will be lost 

 unless some arrangement is made by which a 

 concurrence may be brought about. For the 

 purpose of doing that I move that we agree to 

 the new conference, and that the second com- 

 mittee of conference on the part of the Senate 

 be instructed to recede from the Senate amend- 

 ments, with some provision, which the House, 

 I understand, are willing to agree to, that im- 

 ported cotton shall be admitted duty free, so as 

 to restore the state of the law to the precise 

 condition it was before the war. I make that 

 motion." 



Mr. Conkling, of New York, said : I think it 

 fair, before the Senate votes upon this propo- 

 sition, that it should know one fact in refer- 

 ence to the management of the question in the 

 conference committee. I will venture to state 

 so much of what transpired in committee as 

 this : the managers on the part of the Senate 

 did not stand simply upon the vote of the Sen- 

 ate in what they proposed, but the sense of 

 the managers on the part of the House was 

 taken upon a proposition suspending the tax, 

 in accordance with the vote of the Senate, for 

 a year, and reducing it largely for the future 

 if it should continue. That proposition was 

 rejected, and the managers on the part of the 

 House stood simply, first and last, upon the 

 bill as passed by the House. As the honorable 

 Senator from Ohio (Mr. Sherman) has said, 

 there was no contrariety of opinion in refer- 

 ence to the provision of the Senate amend- 



