Mr. HARPER went at length into a defence of the measure, (in the course
of which he charged Mr. GALLATIN with being mistaken $12,000 as to the
amount of the drawback allowed,) and insisted that it was a fair and
proper tax, and that so small an advance upon the present duty could not
operate oppressively upon any part of the community.
Mr. NICHOLAS followed in opposition. He dwelt considerably on the unjust
and unequal manner in which this tax would operate. He said he did not
view this question as deciding merely whether an additional tax of eight
cents should be laid upon salt; but whether that necessary of life
should be called upon for every thing Government should want. He was in
favor of a direct tax, which should fall equally, though it might, in
the origin, be attended with some considerable expense; but, if they
went on raising partial sums in this way by indirect means, the expense
of instituting a direct tax would always be an obstacle, and indirect
taxes would always be had recourse to. He did not believe it to be
absolutely necessary to provide a revenue this session, as he believed
money might as well be borrowed without as with additional revenue, and
at the next session, the subject could be fully gone into.
Mr. LYON spoke of the discontent which had always been shown in the part
of the country from whence he came, which, he said, would be greatly
increased by this addition. It was not only a duty of eight cents, every
cent would be made four before the salt reached them. There was no kind
of tax which his constituents would not sooner bear. It had been said
that a land tax would cost twenty-five per cent. to collect it; but what
was twenty-five compared with three hundred per cent.? Nor did he
believe this tax would prevent a land tax. He believed they should go on
taxing the people until they would be greatly dissatisfied. He would
much rather a tax of eight cents was laid upon tea, which would produce
an equal sum.
The question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the
affirmative--47 to 41.
WEDNESDAY, July 5.
_Duty on Salt._
The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for laying an
additional duty on salt; when
Mr. GALLATIN moved to strike out all that related to the allowing of a
drawback to vessels employed in the fishing trade, on the ground that he
yesterday stated, viz: that the allowance at present made was too large
by $40,000 a year, taking the year 1794 for his data; but it appeared
that in the year 1795 there was a deficiency in that trade, owing
principally, it was supposed, to the great demand for seamen in the
merchant service. He, therefore, would take the calculation of the
gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. HARPER,) made yesterday, and,
instead of calling the amount of drawback allowed $90,000, he would
state it to be $78,000; and even then, he said, the drawback at present
allowed would exceed by two thousand dollars the drawback to which they
would be entitled, if the present duty took place.
He spoke generally against the tax as oppressive to the back country;
but if the gentleman from Massachusetts, and others, were determined to
increase the tax, he should wish their part of the country to pay their
share of it.
This motion was supported by Messrs. VENABLE, NICHOLAS, CLAY, MCDOWELL,
and MACON.
It was opposed by Messrs. SEWALL, OTIS, HARPER, COIT, BROOKS, KITTERA,
J. WILLIAMS, and DAYTON.
The calculation of the quantity of salt estimated to be necessary to be
used for a quintal of fish, (one bushel,) was said to be stated too low;
that the sum allowed was not only meant as a drawback of the duty, but
also as a bounty on the fishing trade--as being a nursery for seamen,
and serving as a kind of naval militia for the United States.
If it should appear, however, that the present allowance was too great,
(which, by some gentlemen in favor of this motion, which was in blank,
seemed to be acknowledged,) a less allowance might be made in this bill;
but they could not consent to the bill passing without a drawback.
The question for striking out the clause was taken, and negatived--49 to
41.
Mr. COIT moved to fill the blank with 50 per cent., instead of 66-2/3,
which was the drawback allowed by the present law.
Mr. HARTLEY thought this sum too high.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved 33-1/3 per cent. which was carried without a
division.
Mr. NICHOLAS moved a limitation clause, to continue the act in force for
two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress.
This motion was carried--42 to 39.
The committee rose, and the House agreed to the amendments. The yeas and
nays were called upon the limitation clause, and were taken, and
stood--yeas 47, nays 43.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading this day; and
before the House rose, it received it, and passed. The yeas and nays on
its passage stood 45 to 40, as follows:
YEAS.--John Allen, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen
Bullock, John Chapman, Christopher G. Champlin, Joshua
Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James Davenport, John
Dennis, George Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight
Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich,
Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, William Hindman,
Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera,
Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, 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,) John Swanwick,
George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, John E. Van Allen, Peleg
Wadsworth, and John Williams.
NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Samuel
J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, John
Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Wm. B. Grove,
John A. Hanna, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Walter
Jones, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair
McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan,
Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, William
Smith, (of Pinckney District,) Richard Sprigg, jun.,
Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
Joseph B. Varnum, and Robert Williams.
SATURDAY, July 8.
_Laws in the German Language._
Mr. HOLMES said that he thought it necessary, in order to enforce a
general compliance with the laws of the United States, that they should
be printed in the German language, as well as in the English, since
there were very many inhabitants in this country who could read no
other. He therefore proposed a resolution to the following effect:
"_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States_, That a number of copies of the laws of
this session, not exceeding eight thousand copies, shall be
printed in the German language, and distributed by the
Secretary of State amongst the Executives of the several
States, for the information of the German inhabitants of
each State respectively."
Mr. LYON thought it would be proper to pass a resolution of this kind.
He did not know what number might be necessary. He also thought that
some measures should be taken for a general publication of their laws in
the English language; at present, it was merely by chance if the people
in his district came to a knowledge of them. He thought all laws of
general import should be inserted in every newspaper throughout the
Union.
Mr. COIT said if they were to promulge their laws in the German
language, it would be necessary that they should all become critically
acquainted with it, for if they were to authorize any translation, great
mischiefs might arise from its not being correct.
Mr. GALLATIN said that the weight of the objection urged by the
gentleman last up, had always been thought sufficient in the
Legislature of Pennsylvania, in which State there was a greater
proportion of Germans than in any other. There was also another
objection to the measure. If it were to be passed, it must be
accompanied with an appropriation law, which the advanced state of the
session would not admit.
The resolution was put and negatived.
MONDAY, July 10.
On motion of Mr. DENT, a committee was appointed to wait upon the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in conjunction with a like committee
from the Senate, to inform him the two Houses were about to adjourn. The
committee waited upon the PRESIDENT accordingly, and reported his
acquiescence, and his good wishes for the safe arrival of the members at
their several homes.
On motion of Mr. SITGREAVES, the resolution entered into some time ago,
calling upon the PRESIDENT for an account of the quantity of arms in the
possession of the United States, and at what place they were lodged, was
suspended.
Mr. S. said, he wished to make a report upon a subject which would
require the galleries to be cleared. He, therefore, moved that they be
cleared, and the doors were closed for the remainder of the sitting, at
the conclusion of which the House adjourned till the second Monday in
November next.[23]