MONDAY, July 3.
The bill for laying a stamp duty was read a third time, and the blanks
filled up, viz: that for fixing the time of the act taking effect, with
the 31st day of December next; the fine and imprisonment for
counterfeiting stamps, &c., with $1,000 and seven years' imprisonment;
and the time for which the duration of the act was limited, with five
years.
The yeas and nays being taken on the passage of the bill, were--yeas 47,
nays 41, as follows:
YEAS.--John Allen, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, James
Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James
Davenport, John Dennis, Geo. Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel
Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, James Gillespie,
Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger
Griswold, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas
Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Samuel Lyman,
James Machir, William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R.
Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John Read, John
Rutledge, jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William
Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah
Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith, (of Charleston,)
George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, John E. Van
Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.
NAYS.--George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
Lemuel Benton, Thos. Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges,
Samuel J. Cabell, Christopher G. Champlin, Thomas
Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis,
John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert
Gallatin, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Walter Jones,
Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel
Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge,
Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Thompson J.
Skinner, William Smith, (of Pinckney District,) Richard
Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg,
John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham
Venable, and Robert Williams.
TUESDAY, July 4.
_Duty on Salt._
Mr. ALLEN called up the resolution he yesterday laid upon the table, for
laying an additional duty on salt.
Mr. GALLATIN moved to postpone the consideration of this resolution
until the second Monday in November.
Some debate took place on this question; and, when it came to be taken,
the House was equally divided, there being 43 votes for the
postponement, and 43 against it. The SPEAKER decided against the
postponement, and the resolution was referred to a Committee of the
Whole immediately.
The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
this resolution; when
Mr. ALLEN moved the blank cents per bushel be filled with twelve.
Mr. SWANWICK wished the sum to be seven.
Mr. ALLEN consented to make it eight.
Mr. SITGREAVES hoped it would be twelve.
The question was first taken upon twelve, and negatived, there being
only 30 votes for it. It was next taken upon eight, and carried, 47 to
42, and then upon the resolution as amended, and carried by the same
numbers.
The committee rose, and the House took up the resolution.
After a few words from Mr. LYON against the tax, and from Mr. WILLIAMS
in favor of it,
Mr. W. SMITH went at considerable length into a defence of the measure,
in the course of which, he said, they had already agreed upon
appropriations to the amount of $700,000 or $800,000, and were not
certain of any revenue to meet the expenditure. The license act, he
believed, might produce from $50,000 to $60,000, and the stamp act from
$100,000 to $150,000, if they should be passed; but he considered this
as doubtful. But if these laws were passed, this tax on salt was
necessary to keep up the equilibrium of taxation;[22] for the stamp act
would almost exclusively fall upon commerce and large cities; this would
principally be felt by the agricultural part of the Union; and, if it
were not agreed to, they must have a land tax.
Mr. SHEPARD said, no tax would operate so equally as a salt tax, as
every citizen must make use of it in a smaller or larger quantity.
Mr. GALLATIN opposed this tax on the same ground which he heretofore
opposed it, as oppressive to certain parts of the Union, and no way
affecting others, and therefore wholly unequal, and particularly as it
bore heavy on the poorer classes of society. He was against it also,
because it was not proposed that the amount of this tax should go
towards a reduction of the public debt, but merely to encourage expense
in the Government; for he believed if they filled the Treasury with
money, means would be found to expend it. Indeed, if the Treasury had
not been at present in rather a low state, he believed they should have
gone into most of the expensive measures proposed to them this session.
He allowed the tax would be productive, as a tax upon bread, air, or any
necessary of life, must be productive. If this tax, however, were to be
agreed to, he should wish to make an amendment to the present
proposition. At present the drawback allowed to the New England States,
on account of salt used in the fisheries, amounted to about $90,000 a
year, though by the statements it appeared there should only have been
allowed $50,000. To rectify this, he proposed the following proviso to
be added to the resolution, viz:
_Provided_, That the allowance now given upon vessels
employed in the fisheries, shall not be increased.
This amendment was opposed by Messrs. HARPER, SEWALL, DANA, and KITTERA,
on the ground of its being an unfair way of introducing the proposition,
as no one expected it; they were not prepared to meet it; the
correctness of the statement was doubted; and, if it were correct, it
was said, the proper way of doing the business would not be to pass the
present law without a drawback, but to reduce the former drawback and
make it less on this occasion.
The motion was supported by the mover, and Messrs. VENABLE and
LIVINGSTON; but, after some discussion, Mr. GALLATIN withdrew it, in
order to give gentlemen time to make themselves acquainted with the fact
he had stated; but he expressed his intention of renewing the
proposition when the bill came in.