REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT MOVED TO THE ENROLMENT BILL,
JANUARY 8, 12, AND JUNE 20, 1864, AND FEBRUARY 7, 1865.
January 8, 1864, the Senate having under consideration a bill
to amend an act entitled “An Act for enrolling and calling out
the national forces and for other purposes,” approved March 3,
1863, Mr. Sumner moved an amendment, afterwards modified as
follows.
“That, in addition to the substitute furnished by a drafted
person, or, where no substitute is furnished, then in
addition to the sum fixed by the Secretary of War for the
procuration of a substitute, every such drafted person
shall, before his discharge from the draft, be held to
contribute a certain proportion, in the nature of a tithe,
of his annual gains, profits, or income, whether derived
from any kind of property, dividends, salary, or from
any profession, trade, or employment whatever, according
to the following rates, to wit: on all income over one
thousand dollars and not over two thousand dollars, five
per centum; over two thousand dollars and not over five
thousand dollars, ten per centum; and on all income over
five thousand dollars, twenty per centum. And it shall be
the duty of every such person, seeking to be discharged,
to make return, either by himself or his guardian, to the
provost-marshal of his district, of the amount of his
income, according to the requirements of the Act to provide
internal revenue, of July 1, 1862. And it is further
provided, That the contribution thus made shall be employed
by the Secretary of War, in his discretion, to promote
enlistments, or for the benefit of enlisted men.”
January 8th, Mr. Sumner explained his amendment, remarking as
follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,--I presume that I do not exaggerate, if I say, that,
of all the questions connected with this bill, that relating to
commutation for service is the most difficult and the most sensitive.
It is the question which has most occupied the attention of the
country. It has been most discussed in the newspapers, and also in
conversation. I presume it is the ground of objection most often made
against the draft.
Now I think all Senators will unite in any proposition that promises in
any way to smooth these difficulties,--in short, to popularize a part
of the bill which has been open to so much objection among the people.
January 12th, in the course of debate, Mr. Sumner replied to
Mr. Sherman, of Ohio.
The Senator from Ohio, not contenting himself with opposing the
amendment, introduced other and extraneous matter, which has been under
discussion since, diverting our minds from the original proposition.
But if I can have his attention for a few minutes, it seems to me--I
do not know--- I may even satisfy him that his argument was not well
founded.
If I understand the Senator, he objects to my proposition on the
ground, in the first place, that it is an unusual tax. Sir, what is the
draft but a tax? The draft compels all persons drafted to contribute
strength, muscle, life, to the defence of the Republic. That, if I am
not mistaken, is the highest tax the country can impose. But, still
further, what is the commutation which the statute positively requires
but a tax? If, then, there be anything in the argument of the Senator,
both the draft itself and the commutation of three hundred dollars
are a tax, and both are therefore objectionable. But neither the one
nor the other is a tax in a received sense, because neither the one
nor the other is an imposition for revenue; and I ask the attention
of the Senator to the distinction, neither the one nor the other is
an imposition for revenue. Not on any such ground do I present this
amendment, but simply and distinctly on the duty of equalizing this
burden, that it shall bear, so far as we can make it, with something
like equality upon the rich and the poor. Now I have to say that at
present the burden is not equalized, and that it does not bear with
anything like equality upon the rich and the poor. You make the poor
man pay three hundred dollars; but the rich man pays no more. Is this
equality?
But the Senator went further. Not satisfied with objecting to the
amendment on the ground that it was a tax, he complained that it was
an exorbitant tax, and asked me whether in all history I could point
to any instance of a tax of thirty per cent on income. It seems to me
that it should be the pride of our country, at this moment and on an
occasion like this, that it is not to be deterred by history from an
endeavor to equalize a burden upon the rich and the poor. Because other
nations have not undertaken to equalize this burden, is that a reason
why we should not set the example? But is the tax exorbitant? I will
read it.
“On all income over six hundred dollars and not over two
thousand dollars, ten per cent; over two thousand dollars and
not over five thousand dollars, twenty per cent; and on all
income over five thousand dollars, thirty per cent.”[288]
Now the Senator complains of the thirty per cent, that is, thirty per
cent on an income over five thousand dollars. Suppose a person drafted
with an income over five thousand dollars, I put it to the Senator,
what sum would be too great for him to pay for exemption, carrying with
it, as the draft does, exposure to death, disease, wounds, with the
absolute consumption of time during the period of one, two, or three
years, according to the duration of the service? Is thirty per cent
on an income above five thousand dollars too much for the exemption?
Is it exorbitant? Is that the estimate the Senator puts upon such
exposure? He requires three hundred dollars from the poor man who has
no income, but he thinks it exorbitant to require thirty per cent on an
income over five thousand dollars. Sir, I do not think that even in the
requirement of this amendment there is equality. If any objection can
be brought forward, it is that it is too lenient, that it does not go
far enough.
I am sure, eminent as the Senator is, and justly representing his own
State, that he does not represent on this question every citizen of
that State. I have in my hand a letter, received since this amendment
was first mentioned, from a most respectable citizen of Cincinnati,
and with your permission I will read three or four sentences from
it. I read simply to show how this proposition strikes citizens at a
distance, yet having the same interest in it that we have.
“Permit a stranger to address a few words to you, expressive of
approbation of your bill”--
He calls it a bill, when it is only an amendment.
--“providing for a revision of the Enrolment Act, so as to
afford a sliding scale of commutation for the draft, the object
being to rate commutation according to the means of the
drafted individual. I quote from telegrams of this morning’s
news. In my humble opinion you have hit the nail on the head.
I think this is the only method to equalize the burden, and
satisfy all claims for justice and equitable dealing. When any
fixed sum is indicated as the commutation fee to exempt from
actual military duty, it needs but little reflection to see
that it indirectly imposes a premium upon property while it
taxes the poor.”
Then he goes on to suppose a case, somewhat at length, quite
elaborately indeed, between two citizens of Cincinnati, neighbors,
whom he minutely describes, and finally winds up that part of his
communication by saying,--
“Suppose the latter person [whom he calls John Smith] is
drafted. Why, three hundred dollars is no more to him than a
three-penny loaf to the other person. Am I not right, that a
fixed sum for exemption imposes a tax upon honest poverty and a
premium upon wealth?”
This intelligent constituent of the Senator objects to his whole theory
as a tax upon honest poverty and a premium upon wealth. The Senator
opposes my amendment as a tax upon wealth. Call it, if you please, a
tax upon wealth. The time has come when it should be levied. But I
put aside such language. I put aside the idea, except in the general
sense, that the draft itself is a tax, and the amendment simply aims to
equalize that tax.
The amendment was lost,--Yeas 15, Nays 25.
* * * * *
January 15th, Mr. Sumner moved his amendment as an additional
section. Again it was lost,--Yeas 16, Nays 28.
* * * * *
June 20th, the Senate having under consideration a bill to
prohibit the discharge of persons from liability to military
duty by reason of the payment of money, Mr. Sumner moved again
the former amendment, with the further proviso:--
“That the contributions thus made shall be employed by the
Secretary of War as a fund for bounties to be paid to the
men actually drafted and mustered into the service under
any call subsequent to the date of this Act, whenever they
shall be honorably discharged, or, in the case of death, to
the widow and minor children of any such man, according to
rules and regulations established by the War Department.”
Mr. Sumner again vindicated his amendment. In the course of his
remarks, he said:--
When a citizen is drafted as a soldier, and the question arises of his
ransom by a pecuniary contribution, there is no element of equity which
is not shocked, so my conscience tells me, if you fail to regulate the
requirement of money according to the wealth of the individual. What
is there which a man will not give for his life? What is there which a
man, having the means, and indisposed to military exposure, will not
pay for his exemption? And yet, Sir, by the law as it now stands, you
compel the poor to pay the same as the rich. The rich man is drafted,
and he pays three hundred dollars, which to him is nothing; he puts
his hand into his purse, as you put yours into your pocket to find the
change for a newspaper; whereas the poor man, perhaps, is driven to
sell all that he has to save himself for his family. Sir, is that just?
To my mind it is not.
…
Suppose the Senator himself were drafted; indisposed, as he probably
would be, to the toils of war, what is there that he would not consent
to pay for exemption? To him, under such circumstances, the required
amount would be nothing; and yet to the poor man it is everything. In
short, there are many who have it not; and there are many, who, by
calling upon their friends, and exhausting every resource within their
reach, are not able to command that small sum; others, perhaps, just
able to command it, are compelled to burden their families and deny
comfort to wife and child.
Now, Sir, the rich man is under no such obligation. If he be drafted
under existing laws, he finds his substitute, or he tosses into the
Treasury the required amount; he draws his check, and it is all over.
Sir, there is no equity in the law as it stands. The proposition I
present has in it two elements: the first is that it seeks justice;
the second is that it provides a fund out of which bounties may be
distributed by the Secretary of War among the men drafted and mustered
into service. Here is another attraction to the service,--or, if it
be not another attraction, it is something which will mitigate its
hardships. The soldier, while on the field of battle, or on his weary
march, will bear in mind, that, when the time of honorable discharge
at last arrives, or should he be taken away by death, then, for the
benefit of his wife and minor children, he may look to the fund from
these contributions for a bounty which shall be to him or to them
something in the way of support. Therefore in the pending amendment
is an inducement which all confess is needed to carry forward our
enrolments, and also something more to mitigate them.
On motion of Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, the bill was recommitted to
the Committee on Military Affairs, who reported it without
amendment.
* * * * *
February 7, 1865, the Senate having under consideration
another bill in addition to the several acts for enrolling and
calling out the national forces and for other purposes, Mr.
Sumner seized the occasion to renew his amendment, and again
vindicated it. In reply to Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, he
said:--
The Senator from Pennsylvania opposes my proposition, and treats
the Senate to a very elaborate disquisition on political economy in
general, on the depreciation of the currency in particular, also on
taxation, and still further on salaries.
Now, Sir, admitting all the honorable Senator has so ably said as
perfectly true, that it is according to just principles of political
economy and the experience of the world (for I am not disposed to go
at this moment into that discussion with the learned Senator), the
proposition that I have the honor to make is not touched by a hair’s
breadth. My proposition involves no question of political economy,
no question of the currency, or of taxation, or of salaries. It has
nothing to do with any of these matters. Its single and exclusive
object is to equalize the burden of the draft. There is no political
economy in it. There is nothing but justice. Therefore I propose that
every drafted person, before discharge from the draft, shall be held to
contribute not merely a substitute, but a certain tithe of his annual
gains.
I am not tenacious with regard to the percentage. If Senators suggest a
different rate, I shall be perfectly willing to yield. The proposition
is the best that, under the circumstances, I can devise. Other Senators
may improve it; it is open to improvement; but I submit that the
criticism of the Senator from Pennsylvania does not touch it in the
least. The proposition still stands, in its original character, as a
measure which, if adopted, would equalize this burden of the draft.
It would, if I may so express myself, temper this terrible draft to
the poor of the country. It would make them see that legislators here,
while imposing it, thought of the poor, and took such steps as they
could to the end that this burden should not press upon them with
undue severity,--so that it might, to a certain extent, be equalized
upon them and upon the rich. I know full well that this cannot be
accomplished completely; but, Sir, an endeavor in such direction is
something. I think that the Senate must make the endeavor. In the
name of the poor, who are liable to be enrolled, I ask it. Let it
appear to the country, that, while requiring this draft, we recognize
inequalities of condition,--that some are poor and some rich, and that
the same sum ought not to be exacted from all alike.
The proposition was again lost,--Yeas 8, Nays 30. The war was
near its close, and the Senate was not disposed at that late
day to enter upon a change.