Mr. HENDERSOi‘I. I do not wish to impede the progress of the bill. Of course I now my rights, but I do not desire to interfere with the speedy passage of the bill because I am as anxious to get away from here as any Senator, but I regard this as a most important quiiestion, and I trust I shall be indulged for a s on; time in iving the result of my investigations in regnr to it. The 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 1st article of the Constitution provides that“ Representativesand direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several Stateswhich may be in eludedwithin this Union accordingtotheirrespoctivo numbers"which shall be determined in a certain manner therein prescribed. The 8th section of the same article provides that“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes. duties. linposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the commondefenseand general welfare of the U.S.; but all duties.imposts and excises shall beuniform throughout the U.S." In the 9th section of the same article it is declared that“No capitation or direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the censusor enumerationheroin before directedto be taken." In the same section it is declared that“No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." The 10th section of the same article provides that, "No Stateshall without the consent of the congress luy uni' imposts or duties on imports or exports, cept exW at may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspectionlaws; and the not produceof all duties and impostslaid by any State on imports or exorts shall be for the use of the Treasury of the U.S.s; and all such laws shall be subjectto the revision and control of the Congress." I51 the next clause of the same section it is aai “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, " Jzc. I believe these are all the provisions of the Constitution in reference to taxation. When ever duties, imposts, and excises are laid they are required to be “uniform throughout the U.S.” If a capitation tax or other direct tax is laid, it must he “in proportibn to the census or enumeration” constituting the basis of representation in the lower House. It will be observed that the power is given “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, ” and that only duties, imposts, and exqises are required to be uniform. This requirement does not apply to taxes. In the rst case decided in the Supreme Court, calling for an interpretation of these provisions, it was thought that the Convention purposely omit ted taxes from the requirement of uniformity in order that a tribute or tax might be assessed and collected which would not fall under the head of duties, imposts, excises, or direct taxes. The word “taxes, ” in this connection, is syn onymous with the “capitation, and other direct taxes” named in other clauses of the Constitution. Congress, of course, was given power to lay direct. taxes; but if this word on y had been used it might have been well said that no taxes could be laid at all, exec is direct taxes, for such a tax had been alrea. y provided for and a mode fixed for assessing it. An establilshed rule of construction would have made the term equal and caused it to refer to the lame subject matter in every rt of the instrument. The Convention avoi ed that construction by proceeding to enumerate the other kinds of tax which it wished to give Congress the power to levy. Hence, after taxes follow the words “duties, customs, and excises.” It is then provided that the last 3, to wit, “ du ties, customs, and excises, " shall be uniform. They did not say that taxes should be uniform, because it was already provided that taxes, that is direct taxes, should not be uniform. If this view be correct, then the words “duties, imposts, and excises" will cover every species of taxation within the power of congress except capitation and other direct taxes. Iii is highly impouant, then, to know what was the true force and meaning of these terms at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. We are not told in the instrument whntadirect tax is, nor what a duty, impost, or excise is. To ascertain what is meant by these words we must look to the English law, the terms of which were used throughout the Constitution, and with which ourancestors were familiar. We must look to the same source for their meaning as for the meaning of bills of attainder, expostfacto laws, or writs of habeascorpus. Mr. aelison, commenting on these very clauses, sai: “ It may be thought that the Constitution might easily have been made more explicit and precise in its meaning. But the same remark might be made on so many other parts of the instrument, and, indeed. on so many parts of every instrument of a complex character, that if completely obviated it every would swell paragraph into a page and every page into a volume in so doing.have the effect of multiplying topics for criticism and controversy." I propose 1st to show that atax on cotton is within what was known in the English law as a direct tax. I hold that agricultural prod ucts, in their raw or unmanufactured state, were only considered as a means of ascertain'ing the value of land, and, if taxed at all, were taxed under the head of “land tax” by our Englishancestors and that this is the same referred to in our Constitution when it speaks of a direct tax. By reference to Englis history and English law a clear definition of all the terms used in connection with this subject of taxation may be easily obtained: “The earliest systemof taxation in England was basedon the nature of its land tenures. Every tenant of a knight's fce ivusbound, if called upon, to attend the King in his army for 40 daysin every year. Blackstone says this personal attendance grew troublesome, and the tenants found meansof compounding i'orit. by'1stscudingothers in their stead, and in processof time by making a pecuniary satisfaction to the Crown in lieu ofit. “This pecuniary sutisfiiction cameafterward to be levied by regular assessmentsa.t souiuch for every knight's fee. This tux wasculled thescutiigc. because of its military origin. how. thereweremany lands in the kingdom not hold by military title, and it thoughtproper was that they tooshould pay taxes. the tax was, therefore, finally levied on them as the military lands and this was called hidagen.iion o causo it was assessed at so muchper hide of 120 acresof pl0“‘0( land. In processof time commerceand manufactures brought together largo bodiesof peoplewho built upeitiesadd burghs. Those towns.of courso. did not fall subJcctto the taxes tahryave named, becausetheir landswereneithermili nor farming lands. the Simple idea of justice suggestedthat ILdy also should be taxed, and hence came what was called the tailage tax, which was lcvied upon themin their corporate limits. “These laud taxesproved to be wholly in sufficient to carry on the warsof the crusadesunder Henry H and through the religious zeal of the day be induced tho, pooplo to pay him the 10th art in kind of all their goods.whic tax was caller the 10ths. This provedtoo burdonpouieand wasreducedtoa 15 th. “During the reigns of Richard H and Henry;VI both the and taxes and the 15 ths were ii doned and a new system adopted an cal led subsidies. hiswas a, moneytax on personsleVied in proportion to their wealth. lands cingvalued accordin to their rental or reductions and tingedat 4 s il lings perpoun and goodsattwo shillings and 8 pe“nceper pound. During the war betweenCharlesand his Parliament both iarties taxed the people. They madeno change in the subiocts of taxation. but made their assessments w cekfand monthly, insteadofannually. A very material 0 rings they 0. however, was to levy a certain aniount on eachcounty in proportion to its wealth in lands and personal property. This tax wasto be leviedon the lands an personalestate according to their value. The land: werevalued by their rental or production. After the Restoration. the old systemof subsidieswas entirely abandoned. Blackstone says, ‘t'rom that time forward. wehear no more of subsidies. But.’ he says, assessment(sthe new occasioni mode adopted) were layied as the national emergenciesrequired! Blackstone, referring to these taxes, book one, page 312, says: " Those periodical assessmentst.hesubsidieswhich l i preceded them and the more ancients outago, hidngo and tailaize, wereto all intents and purposes a lan (afftgld the assessments were sometimes expressly on e no. He refers to the Journal of the House of Commons. June 26, and December 9, 1678. In 1692 a new valuation of the kingdom was taken, and so much apportioned to each county, the amount to be assessed upon the individu als residing in each county, according to the value of their real and personal estates. This was what was known in all the acts of Parliament as the land tax or direct tax. In 1769Burns’sJustice was published in london, a work containing a vast fund of information in regard to the English law, and defining with accuracy the duties of public officers. In volume 3, page 17, I find the following under the head of “ land tax:” “The land tax hath succeeded into the place of the ancient fitteenths and subsidies and the land tux actsare framed in many respects after the manner of the ancient subsidy acts." The subsidy, I have shown, was on land valued by its products, and on personal property other than agricultural pror ucts. “We meet with the payment of 15 ths as far back as thestatuteof agna Charta, in the conclusion of which the Parliament grant to the King, for the concessions b him therein made.a 15th part of all their moreplL‘goods, “This taxation was originally set upon the several individuals. Afterward, to wit.in the 8th year of Edward HI. a certain sum ‘waarated upon every town by commissioners appointed in the Chancery for that purpose, in like manner as commissioners are now apppinted by the several land taxactsfor carrying the said actsinto execution.which commissionersrated every town at the 15th part of the value at that time, and their taxption wasrecorded in the exchequer; and the inhabitants rated themselvesproportionably for their severalparts tomake u the enornl sum upon the whole township. This fi"teent amounted to 1129.0“o), r near thereabouts. But as the necessities of Governmentmulti died and the kingdom becomemore populous, up the values of things increased, this fieonthwasinsufficient for the occasionsof the public, and thereupon the number of the 15 ths was augmentedto 2 or 3 15 ths. which still proving defective, another and quite differenttaxation was superndded. namely, the subsuiyuwhichwas on aid to be levied of everysubjectof his lands or goods after the rate of 4 shillings in the pound for lands and 2 shillings andeightpencofor goods and accordingly in the ancientsubsidyacts t are is many 1st a grain of so fiiteenths and than the grant of a subsidy.” The writer proceeds to say that Parliament, afterwar findin these taxes insuilicient, changed the met iod; and during the Long Parliament “ certain sums were fixed upon the several counties, which course of taxation still continues.” And again, at page 42 of the same volume, he gives directions as to how the tax was to be assessed, and enumerates the articles falling subject to this land tax. It Will be seen that agricultural productions are not included in the list. I give the full list as it appears, to wi"t: the chargeupon real estateshall be as follows: that the entire suin may be raised, all ninnors.ines suages, lands and tenements;all narries, minesof cmoianle. st;iniraonnd mleilalsd, cfuorpnpaecre.ms, undic '. iron and other and other iron works salt springs and salt works; all nluin mines an works; all parks, chases.warren a, woods. under woods.coppiccs: all fishings, tithes. tolls. annuities, awnhdatasloleovtchre, r yearly profits and all heredttaments shall be chargedwith as much equality and indifferoncoas pomible, by a poundrzite, to make up the several sumscharged by the notcheachcounty or place." Dr. Adam Smith, in his work on the Wcawi of Nations, discusses this subject fully, and while he denounces a separate tax on agricult ural products, shows that no such thing then existed in England. His work was 1st ub lislied at the beginnin of the American lev olution, in 1776, and te3rd edition of it in 1784. After speaking of the 2 modes of levying this tax on productions, to wit, in kind and on the money valuation, he uses these words: "When, instead either of a certain portion of the produceof land or of the price of a certain portion, a certain sumof money is to be paid in full compensationfor all tax or tithe. the ta! Becomes in this case pxagtfyof theme natureWill! the la.d tax of Eng nn. This language seems to settle the guestion, butvit is equall clenrin Mr. Hume's cfinition of this tax in his History of England, and in other works referred to in those from which but i 4,; w. an: a" f‘ Bil l I “.1 i'igiTii' Nu have quoted. The truth is that all taxes on production, for many years before our Constitution, had been odiousin England. They had been abandoned by the State from the time of the 10thsand 15 ths. I quote from standard works to show the contemporaneous feelingb political economists against this sort oftax. The truth is, no one at that time thought of biirdening agricultural products. In the notes of Mr. McCullough to the work of Adam Smith, speaking of the tax on raw pr“oduce, he says: It is indisputable. therefore, that tithes o crate practically as a premiumon idleness and as n. envy and constantlyincreasing tax on industry. By preventing the cultivator from reaping the entire advantageof superiorskilland increasedexertion.they discourageli| s effortsand contribute to render him indolent and indifferent." Dr. Paley, in his work on Moral and foliiical Philosophy, says: " Tithe: are a tax not only upon industry.but upon thatindustry which fcedsinankind; upon that rpecics of exertion which it is the aim of all wise laws to cherish and promote.” Adam Smith, page 877, says: "Taxes upon the produce of land are in reality taxes upon the rent.” There is no farmer whodoes not.computebeforeh and what the ehurch tithe.which is a land tax of this kind. is. one' car with another. likely to amount to. ‘hetithe, and everyother land tax of this kind. under the appearance of perfect equality. are very iunnge.qinuadltifafexcresn: tth ceflftllplortion of the producebe situations. equivnlopt tqa veirydiffer“ent portion of the rent." he tithe. as it is frequently a very unequal tax upon the rent.so it is always a greatdiscouragement both to the‘improvement sot‘the landlord an to the cultivation of the farmer. The one cannot venture to make the mostimportant which are generally the mostexpensiveimprovements, nor the other to raise the mostvaluable which are generally.too. the most expensive crops, when the church, which lays out no part of the expense, is to share so very largely in the profit." I think I have now shown that agricultural productions in their original state were not taxed separately under what was called the land tax. They were never assessed and placed in the tax lists. They were taken into consideration as affecting the value of lands, those lands producing most being regarded as most valuable; but they were never rated and taxed in addition to the lands on which the grew. I now propose to show that these proucts were never taxed before the making of our Constitution under any other head of taxation in England. In addition to this land tax was the old duty known as the “ customs, ” which was taken from the French word coustume, meaning “toll” or “tribute, ” from which comes our word “cost.” Blackstone says: “ Customs are the duties.toll. tribute, or tariff. pay able upon merchandise.exportedor imported.” The ground upon which an export tax was permitted was that the King was bound of common right to maintain and keep up the ports and havens and to protect the merchants from pi rates. These export customs were 1stgranted in the 3rd year of Edward I. They became unpopular, and in the 25th year of Ed ward I it was exressly stiinlated that the King should receive the tax oniy on wool. skins, and leather. These articles could not be exported without being taken to the King’s marts and stores, called staples, there to be 1st rated and then exported. These stores were the same as those used in our warehousing system. Hence articles that thus came in large quantities into the warehouses forexportation were soon known as “staple commodities.” An export tax was allowed upon these 3 articles, because it was supposed no other people could compete with our Englishancestors in their production; in other words, that these articles could bear the export tax and then compete with other nations in foreign marts of sale. In addition to these regular customs was a small subsidy, tonnage or pounda e tax, levied for the keeping and the safe our of the seas and the intercourse of more andise to come safely into the kingdom and pass out of the same. This was a tax of the same character as that referred to in our Constitution, where it ie said “no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on im orts or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for its inspection laws;" and again, “no State shall, without consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonna e, ” &c. It was the abuse 0 this power to evy tonnage duties which constitute one of the complaints leading to the rebellion against Charles I. These exportduties were always the cause of much complaint, and tonnage uties had been greatly abused: hence our constitution designe to cure the eVil by cutting it up by the roots. Next came the excise tax, which had its origin, as most of these burdens have, in that curse of nations and of mankind, war. Black stone says that this tax“Is an inland imposition usually paid upon the retail sale of a commodity." It appears, he says, "That they are generally imposed on manufactures and paid by the manufacturer, who advances the price of his commodity in proportion." I Blue/r: tone.318 320. An excise tax was exceedingly unpopular in England when 1st proposed, because it was thought to be incompatible With the temper of a free people. To execute it properly required that officers should enter and search the houses of such as deal in excisable commodities, and the proceedings for punishment were to be summary and sudden, denying jury trials and other proceedings of the common law. One of the most formidable accusations against Charles I, was that his Lord Treasurer, the Earl of Bedford, contemplated an excise tax. It was charged afterward that the Parliament also contemplated it on their side when the House indignantly denied it, saying “that these rumors were false and scandalous, and that their authors should be apprehended and brought to condign punishment.” However, less than 6 months there after they levied an excise tax on vendors of ale, cider, and perry. The royalists at Oxford immediately followed their example. Both sides protested that it should cease at the end of the war. It afterward, however, became a permanent system of taxation. The evils of war have made it. permanent, but Black stone says its very name has at all times been odious to the people of England. The direct tax was afterwar insufficient to meet the expenses of the continental wars, and it had to e submitted to. But my chief object is to show that it is a perversion of terms to calla tax upon an agricultural production in its raw state an excise duty. A distinguished writer, Blackstone, in eiiumerating the articles subject to excise duty in England at the period of our Revolution, says: " Drandiesand other spirits are now excisedat the distillery; irinted silks and linen at the printer’s; starch and air powder at themaker's: 0 d andsil verware at the wire drawer's; plate in t in handsof the vendor.who paysyearly fora license to sell it lands and goodssold y auction. for which a pound rate is payable to the auctioneer.who also is charged with an annual duty for his license; and coachesand other wheel carriages.for which the occupier is excised.thoughiiotwith the same c ircumstances of arbi trary strietnessas in mostof the other instances. To thesewe mayadd coffecand tea chocolate and cocoa paste.for which the duty is paid by the retailer; all artificial wines. Commonly called sweets.paper and pasteboard. 1st when made and e ain if stained or printed. malt, as beforemention. vinegar and the manufacture of glass.for all which the duty is paid by the manufacturer; hops.for which the person that gathers them is answerable: candles and soap, whichare paid for at the maker's; malt liquors brewed for sale, which are excised at the brewery; ciderand perry.atthe vendor’s; and leather and skins at the tauncr’s alist which no friend to his country would wish to seefurther increased." Now, Mr. President, it will be observed that there is but one article in this entire list. which is an agricultural production, and that is hops. The en tivation of this article, it Will be remembered, was regulated b law, as the cultivation of tobacco now is in France. The article was never exported, apd could be and was protected by a heavy impost duty on the foreign article. There was not enough of the article produced for home consumption. The only other taxes‘existing in England at the American Revolution were the salt tax, I which was really an excise tax on the manufacture of this article; the postoffice tax, the stamp duties, the duty upOn Windows, the duty of 21 shillings perannum upon every servant employed, excepting in husbandry, trade, or manufacture; the license tax on haekney coaches, and the duty on salaries, fees, and erquisites of office. The notion that all agrieu turafproduets may be taxed is icated on the decision of the Supreme Erooudrt rendered inthe case of Hilton vs.U.S., reported in 3 Dallas’s Reports, page 171. On the 5th day of June, 1794, Congress passed an act levying a duty on carriages used for transporting persons. Hilton, a citizen of Virginia, owned 125 carriages and refused to pay the tax, which was small. The case was submitted to the circuit court of the eastern district of Virginia, and the judges being equally divided, the defendant confessed judgment and took the case to the Supreme Court on a writ of error. The decision of the court turned on the question whether the duty on carriages was a direct tax or not. Chief Justice Ellsworth was sworn into office on the day the opinion was delivered, and therefore took no part in its decision. Justice Cusliing was sick at the argument, and deliv ered no opinion. Justice Chase delivered the opinion oi the court. On the precise question at issue he used the following language: “Asit was incumbent outheplniiititTs counsel in error. so they took vreatpainsto provethat the tax on carriageswasa Meettax: buttheydid not satisfy my mind. I think at least. it may b edoubted: and if I only doubted.f should ntiirm c Judgment of the circuit court. The deliberate decision ot the national Legislature, who did not considera tax on carriages a.direct tax. but thought it waswithin the description of a duty. would determineme. if the case was doubtful. to receivethe construction of the Legislature; but I am inclined to think that a tax on car riages is not a direct tax, Within the letter or meaning of the Constitution." Justice Patterson, who concurred in the judgment of the court, delivered a se ariite opinion, in which he used the following anguage: “ All taxes or expenses unconsumption areindirect taxes. A t:ix oncarriagesis of this kind, and of course is not ii direct‘tux. Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reachingthe revenue of indiViduols who generally live according to their income. In many casesof this nature the individual maybesaid to tax himself." Justice Patterson received this idea of direct and indirecttaxes from the work of Adam Smith on the Wealth of Nations, where he says: “Consumable commodities.whethernecessariesor luxuries. maybetaxedin twodiilerent ways; the con sumermay either pay an annual sumon n ccountof his using or consuminggoodsofa certaiii kind or the goodsmay be taxed while they remain in the hands of the dealer and before they are delivered to the consumer. The consumablegoodswhich last a considerablo time beforethey are consumedaltogether are most properly taxed in the one way: those of which the consumptionis immediateor morespeedy in the other: the coachtaxand plate tax are examples of the former methodof imposing: the greater part of the other duties of exciseand customsof the latter." He concluded that as a carriage is kept by the wealthy, and is consumed in the use of it, the duty on it is a tax on luxury or the expenses of living, and may be denominated an indirect tax., Justice Iredell, in his opinion, said: “There is no necessityor propriety in determining what is or is not a direct or indirect tax in all cases. Some difficulties may occur which we at presentdo not foresee. Perhaps a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution can mean nothing but atax on some thin insoparnbly annexed to the soil. something capa lc of apportionment under all such circumstances." Without determininw what is a direct tax, he says that a poll tax and a land tax are certainly direct taxes. He says further, “ In regard to other articles, there may posSlbly be conSider‘ able doubt." Ho concludes by using the following language: “ It is sufficienton the presentocension for the court to be satisfied that this is not a direct tax contemplated by the Constitution in order to affirm the presentjudgment.” Justice Wilson concurred in the judgment, but left no written opinion. By examining these opinions closely it will be seen that all the judges were forced to the conclusion that this tax was constitutional chiefly by the fact that it could not be equally apportioned to the States. For instance, ndge Chase said: “The Constitution evidentlycontemplatedno taxes ledircct taxes but only such as Congresscould lay in proportion to the census, The rule of apportionment is only to be adoptedin such casesw here it can reasonablyapply: iiud the subjecttaxed must ever determinethe application of the rule." Justice Patterson said: “A tax on carriages. it' apportioned would be oppressive and pernicious. how would it work? n someStates there aremany carriages.in othersbut few. Shall the whole sum fall on one or 2 individuals in the State who may happen to own and assess carriages? The thing would be absurd and neeuitable." Justice Iredell said: “As all direct taxes mustbe apportioned it is evident that the Constitution contemplate none as direct but such as couldbeapportioned. If this cannot be apportioned it is, therefore, not a direct tax in the senseof the Constitution." He then said, if any State had no carriages there could be no apportionment at all, and the tax apportioned must be collected from other articles. This mode, he proceeded, is too manifestly absurd to be supported. I have examined the reasoning of the judges to ascertain, if possible, the extent and authority of this decision. It has beep always quoted for more than it is worth. It is dangerous to extend the authority of a case beyond the facts before the court. tis true this was a tax upon specific personal propert, or rather it was a tax upon the use of it. at because it was a tax on one article of personal property it does not follow that a tax may be levic upon every article of personal property. Much ess does it follow that because a tax may be levied upon the use of a manufactured article of luxury, which enters into the expenses of living, that therefore a tax may be laid a on an article of agricultural iroduction after it was estimated to enhance this value of the land, and whether it is consumed or not. A carriage is an article of manufacture, and may be taxed at the time it is made and sold or afterward in the hands of the consumer. It is in no way connected with the land. It is therefore not anal ogous to a tax on an agricultural production. It will be observed that no one of the judges pretended to define what the Constitution means by a direct tax. Judge Cha sesatisfied himself by saying that a tax on carriages is not a direct tax. He said: “It seemsto methat a tax on expense is an indirect tax; and I think an annual tax on acarriagefor the conveyanceof persons is of that kind; because a carriage is a consumablecommodity and such an nual tax on it is on the expenseof the owner." It is perfectlyclear that no judicial opinion was given in this case denying that a tax on personal property in some cases may not be a direct tax. Judge Chase said: "I am inclined to think. but of this I do not give a ‘udicial opinion, that the direct taxescontemplated y the Constitution are only two.to Wit, aeapitation or poll tax simply, without regard to property. profession or any othercircumstanee, an atax enlnnd. I doubt whether a tpx‘by a generalassessmentof personal property within the U.S. is included within the termdirect tax." Justice Patterson, in his opinion, says: “It is not necessaryto determine whether a tax on the product of land bea director au indirecttax. Perhapstbe immediate productofland in its original pad crudestate is to be considered asthe laud itself; it makespart of i;t taxing orelse the provision madeagainst pendenetxlyportswould be easily eluded. Land. inde produce of its produce.is of no value. When the is conycrted intg a manufacture. itassumes a new shape; its nature is altered; its original state is changed: it becomes quiteanothersubject. and will be differently considered. Whether direct taxes.in the sense of the Constitution. comprehendany other tax than a capitation tax and tax on land, is a usetionable point. If Congress.for instance.shoal tax in the aggregate or masathings that generally pervade all the nion. then, perhaps.theriileofapportionment would be the most in open especially if an assessment wasto intervene. his appears, by practice of some of the States.to have beenconsideredasadirecttax. SWthateetsheisraitmbeatstoeurnodf esrotmheeEdollnlisetuitlutyti:onbouft i hODUpllQd asit is not before the court it would be improper to give any decisiveopinion upon it." No one doubts that a tax on land is adirect tax. But we do not levy such tax by the acre, that is, an equal amount on an equal number of acres, wherever it may lie. A vacant lot in the city of Nbw Yttrk should pay more than the same area of land in the open prairies of Kansas. And why? Because it is more productive. It yields a larger rental, a larger profit to the owner. whon a direct tax is apportioned to the several States they would surely rate the rich agricultural lands that yield largely to the husbandman much higher than the poor, barren lands from which but scanty productions might be obtained. We give value to lands in proportion to what they realize, or can be made to realize. to their owners. If the rental or productions of land are large, the value will be necessarily enhanced, and the tax correspondingly increased. Now, suppose that Congress should lay a direct tax and at the same time impose excise and income taxes, includinga tax on agricult ural products, what would be the result'I 1st, the farmer, in paying the direct tax on his land, would indirectly pay on his productions, because they would necessarily go to increase the valuation of hisland. 2ndly, he would again pay the tax levied directly on the prod ucts tiemsclves under the name of excise tax. but which no nation has ever called an excise tax before this age. And 3rdly, he would pay another tax on the same productions in the shape of an income tax. None of these taxes could ever be returned to him in case the products themselves were raised in excess of home demand. They would partially fall on the producer, even were the home consumtion over so great. But how would it be with the manufacturer? He, too, would have to pay the direct tax on his real estate, but its va nation would not be enhanced by the productions of the factory. The articles manufactured would be taxed under the excise, it is true, but the manufacturer would add to their price, and get it back on sale. He might also add the direct tax imposed on his factory. The only tax that would likely affect him would be the income tax. In this case the manufacturer would pay one tax, at the outside two, while the farmer would pay 3. In addition to the 3 taxes I have named, would not the farmer help to pay the exciSe tax of the manufacturer on the purchase and consumption of his excised articles? And ifthe customs duty on the imported article of a similar character were sufficient to enable the manufacturer to add the amount of the direct tax paid on his factory to the price of his goods, would not the consumer have to pay that also? This, I think, is a fair statement of the rank injustice of the proposed tax. We boast of our Constitution as an instrument securing jus tice to the people, perfect equality among the States, and guarantees against discriminating legislation oppressive to the interests of any section. Now if this tax on raw cotton is a constitutional tax then no branch of industry in this country is safe. The Constitution ceases to be an instrument of justice, and at once becomes an engine of oppression and wrong. Ifn tax of 2 cents on the pound is level, dicn a tax of 20 cents is equally so. The limit of taxation is a mere mutter oflegislative discretion. No one denies that a tax of 20 cents would prevent the growth of cotton in the U.S. The tax of ten cents perpound might not entirely prevent it, but would certainly restrict it to home consumption, and on the grower be oppressive. The agricultural productions of the U.S. were quite varied when the Constitution was framed. As the country has become larger, embracing soil adapted to new growths, this variety has become much more marked. This thing was well understood and anticipated at that time. A rule was fixed for the im position of direct taxes. Direct taxes inclii ed poll taxes, taxes on land, and, in my judgment, such other taxes on permanent possessions as could be apportioned. This rule could not be changed. It was not thought advisable to confine taxation exelusively to direct taxes. The exigencies of the nation might demand a larger Marine than could be obtained from this source. Hence the power to lay “duties, imposts, and exeises.” These terms were well understood in the English law, and there was no necessity for defining them. It was only necessary to prevent coneress from establishing rules of in equality in their imposition. If impost taxes were greater at the ports of one State than at the ports of another the entire commercial interests of the State discriminated against might be destroyed. If the excise tax on the manufactures of one State are greater than on those of another anyone can see the result without an argument. The manufacturers of the one would grow rich, the manufacturers of the other would grow poor. If stamp duties were larger in one State than in another this discriminating tax would depress business, and drive population to the more favored States. To prevent these evils it was provided thatth“roAullghdouutites. imposts andexciseshall be uniform the U.S." Now, can it be possible that with a small commerce for imposts and inconsiderable manufactures for excises, the Convention should have so carefully guarded against injustice in the laying of indirect taxes, and left the whole agricultural interest of the country subject to no rule except the combination of interest or the whims of passion and prejudice? A tax upon raw cotton can affect but few States; so With tobacco, hemp, rice, and other articles. Those States not growin anyone of these articles might combine an tax it as they chose, unless prohibited by the Constitution.‘ Unless there is such a prohibition, the Constitution is not that perfect instrument which we have supposed. ! am aware that if an agricultural product is not produced beyond the demands of home consumption, it may bear an internal tax, lprovided the foreign article is sufficiently taxe upon its importation to protect the home product. But where an article is grown or reduced in excess of home consumtion, an internal tax without the privilege of rawback upon exportation is liable to destroy its production entirely, and that is the case before us. Now, if we give to the decision of the Supreme Court the construction accorded to it y some Senators here, this strange conclusion will follow, to wit, a direct tax includes nothing but a capitation and land tax. These are fixed by the rule of representative numbers. The word “ duties’ refers to taxes on the use of consumable articles. stamps. ke. The term “ imposts” refer only to taxes laid on articles im orted from foreign countries, export taxes being prohibited. The word “excises ” refers to the tax levied on manufactures, when the article is changed from the raw may terial into some new form. Now, this would leave agricultural productions in the raw state to be taxed adlibitum. They would neither fall in the list subject to direct taxes, for which a supposed equitable rule of apportionment was established, nor in the list of indirect taxes, for which the rule of uniformity was adopted. Now, does any sane iniiii believe that such was the intention of those who made the constitution? Does such a construction accord with other irovisions of the instrument? The agriculture interests in the country were the most watchful and jealous of all others, and therefore the idea cannot be tolerated for one momentthat they intended to leave these prod ucts to be taxed in the discretion of Congress. My argument up to this point has been to show that an agricultural production cannot be taxed at all in its raw state. If cotton can be taxed, wheat, corn, oats, barley, hay, pota toes, and onions may be equally taxed; and if right to tax one, why not tax teother '! but su ipose I am mistaken in this; let it be admit ted that agricultural products can be constitutionally taxed, under what head of taxation will they fall? Congress may lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and exeises. Nobody will pretend that thisis an im st or an excise tax. If the opinion of the upreme Court in the Hilton case can be relied on, it is not a “duty.” It must, then, fall under the general head of “taxes.” I have already attempted to as such ill HI! 8073‘ hi! show that this term in the Constitution means “direct. taxes, " and none other. To give the term any broader signification would open the door to unlimited injustice. Now, I insist if any tax at all can be laid on agricultural productions, it must be a direct tax and appor tinned among the States. In England atax on a carriage was called an excise tax. Instead of imposing the whole duty on the original manufacturer, a part of it was reserved to be paid from year to year by the consumer or user of the article. The Supreme Court perhaps properly sustained the carriage tax under our Constitution. If they committed an error at all, it was because they did not place it under the head of an excise tax. Ju ge Chase believed that it was constitutional, because it was a tax on expenses, and “thata tax on expense is an in direct tax.” Judge Patterson said, in the same case, that “all taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes.” this upon the same principle that we tax old watches, aid and silver plate, yachts, billiard tables, The tax is on the use of the article, and not upon the article itself. We had no prece dent in England for taxing agricultural rod, ucts. We have none here. The laws of i ng land did not even tax the hiring of servants who were employed in agricultural products. So in the early legislation in this country. Though carriages were taxed which were used for hire or for the conveyance of persons, yet by the act of July 24, 1813, all carriages “usually or chiefly used” in husbandry were exempted. Again, by the act of December 16, 1814, the same exemption was continued. Although we were in the midst of war in 1813and 1814, and were imposing heavy direct taxes, stamp and excise duties, and although in January, 1815, a heavy duty was imposed on even household furniture, ranging from one to 100 dollars, yet no thought of taxing agricultural production seems to have on tered the public mind. But for the decision of the Supreme Court, that a carriage could be taxed, nobody, I dare say, would now think a cotton tax constitutional. That decision does not justify this action. All the judges in that case based their decision chiefly on the ground that a tax on carriages could not be apportioned. That reason does not apply in this case. lfa tax on land can be apportioned, certainly a tax on its products can be apportioned. It may be that no carriages could be found in one of the States. But is it ikely that any State would be without agricultural productions? The only other reason influencing the court was that the carriage tax was a tax on expense. This reason, of course, is not applicable to a tax on agricult ural products, and especially to those which must seek a foreign market. So far from the court intimating that agricultural productions fibuld be taxed, Judge Patterson expressly said at"If Congressfor instance.should tax in than. gregate or mass things that generally pervade all the tutesin the Union. than perhapsthe rule of apportionment would be the most proper. especiallyif an assessmentshould intervene." He further said that some of the States under these revenue systems included other things than land in a direct tax. Whether it was so under the Constitution of the U.S., the said, “ is a.matter of some difficulty, ” but he repeated “as it is not before the court, it would be improper to give any decisive opinion upon it.’ fwe seek for his opinion at all, we find it in these words: “the imme diate product of the land in its original and crudestate ought to be considered as the land itself; it makes part of it, or else the provision ainst taxing exports would be easily eluded.” 0 support this view there is an argument in the wording of the Constitution. It is such as to indicate that some other direct tax than a capitation tax or tax on land may be imposed. The words are, “ no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid.” if it were intended onlyto include a poll tax and a land tax, wh wore not the words “ capitation and land tax’ used?, way as acapitation or land tax. proposed excise duty of 2 cents perpound that such a tax might include more‘than one article or subject of taxation. If any other article than the land itselfwas intended to be placed subject to a direct tax, what article so universal and so common to all the States as agricultural productions? My theory is that they are subject to no tax in kind, but if taxed at all it must be directly. All taxes levied upon them must be apportioned in the same Hence the on cotton is an unconstitutional tax. I now propose to give a 3rd reason, showing the invalidity of this tax. It is notorious that much of the cotton grown in this country must seek a foreign market. such was the case when the Constitution was formed. the home consumption did not then and will not now absorb it. Hence we cannot protect this interest b an import duty upon the foreign article. t must be exported. Now, this bill proposes to tax cotton and allow no draw liac on its exportation. When Senators who favor this tax are reminded that this is tanta mount to an exportation tax, and therefore a violation of the Constitution, they attempt to escape the force of the argument by saying that it is not an exportation tax. They insist that it is an internal duty, an excise tax, or something clse than an exportation tax. They say that it is within the iscretion of Congress to allow drawbacks or not. This, ofcourse, makes the provision against export taxes utterly futile, if not absurd, and lea s to the destruction of, any interest that Congress chooses to destroy. Ifannrticle is produced in thiscountry in excess of home consumption all that Congress has to do in order to destroy it is to levy upon it an exorbitant duty and allow no drawback when it is sent abroad. If the article can be produced anywhere else u)0“ the surface of the earth the American proucer will go there and producc it or enter into some new business at ome. In the same way might any species of manufacture be oppressed and broken up. In my construction of the Constitution, when ever a tax of any sort has been paid to the U.S. upon any commodity whatever, and that commodity is afterward exported, the tax must be paid back to the owner. If this is not so, Congress may regulate even to the extent of building up or destroying all industrial pursuits by its system of taxation. congress cannot evade the constitutional restriction under any such subterfuge as this. It is not an exportation tax alone which is prohib ited. In the prohibition on the States it is said “ no State shall lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports.” it is notsaid that the States shall lay no duties on articles that may be thereafter exorted. The States were to be left free to a opt their own system of taxation. They had governments to support, and they must necessarily have the power to levy not only direct taxes, but other uties and excises. Many of the articles upon which they had levied duties might afterward be shipped abroad. If the State could not tax any article because it might be exported, or if, having taxed it, it ha been compelled to pay draw back on its exportation, the States might have been unable to keep up their governments. It will be observed that the pronibition on congress is in altogether different language, and anguage was never changed in the Constitution without a purpose. this there provided that “ No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." This language is much more comprehensive than it would be if it read, “no exortation tax, or no tax on exports shall be aid.” I think it means, what it ought to mean, and what the framers of the Constitution evidently intended it to mean, that when an article is exported from anyone of the States it may enter into free competition with the commodities of other countries. It was to induce industry to come and develop Our resources. It was to invite population. It was to make our The words “other direct tax” seam to signify cauutry equa in all industrial pursuits to any other country on earth. There was no doubt that a sufficient revenue might be obtained from direct taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to answer all the ends of Government, and yet leave our industry to compete on equal terms with the industry of other nations. We had the advantage of taxes upon every article of home consumption through imposts and excises, and if this proved insufficient we could resort to direct taxes. This was thought sufficient, and is sufficient for every purpose of revenue. If by chance we tax any article which is afterward exported, the Constitution requires the payment of drawback. If the language had been similar in the prohibition on the States, the States would have been compelled to repay the tax which it had collected, when the article should be exported. It is unnecessary to ndduce reasons in favor of this construction. It is sufficient to say that with this construction the Government may supply itself with abundant revenue. perfect equality will be accorded to each State and its people; every dept of industry will be placed on a footing ofequality, and the constitution will become an instrument of justice and protection instead ofinjusticc and oppression. As an additional guarantee, it was provided that no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another; nor shall vesssls bound to or from one State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. what does this guarantee, in connection with others named, amount to if their promises can be broken by false construction' If such a tax as the one contemplated can be constitution ally levied, then all the advantages springing from equal taxation and freedom ofcommerce, like Dead sea fruits, turn to ashes upon the lips. The injustice of this tax is openly confessed in the proiosition to allow a drawback on manufacture cotton exorted, while it is denied on the exportation o the raw material. If the manufacturer needs further protection let him have it in the shape of a tariff. which, though it may be said is unjust, is at least constitutional. If the cotton manufacture cannot go abroad and compete with the foreign arti clc, how is it that the planter can compete in the same market with t ie raw material? This, then, constitutes the 3rd reason for pronoun cing this tax an infraction of the Constitution. But if this tax were clearly a valid one, I should object to it on the score of its impolicy. 1st, we have had 4 years of war, and now have the asperities and bitterness of feeling which invariably follow civil strife. Though united we are almost 2 different nations. Statesmanship requires the removal of every obstacle to perfect a reunion. We want chem ical aflinity. A Union in name is not sufficient. We want a Union in fact. How is that to be accomplished? Certainly the most powerful means to attain this end would be to induce a large immigration into the South. This would gradually break dmvn their present hostilitv and pre’udice. It would give to every neigh borlioo in the South teachers to inculcate Union sentiment, and establish the new system of industry. It would tend to infuse into the public mind more patriotic sentiment. Northern men, who have foughtfor the Union, will carry their energy, industry, and intelligence into the southern States and gradually reform its material and social condition. The South is the best cotton growing region of the world. Its culture was almost entirely neglected dur in the war, and in consequence the supply fel far below the demand. Great profits can now be realized by its cultivation. In this very fact Providence kindly furnishes us a means of consolidating our people again. By blending together northern an southern men in these cotton States, we shall unite their interests. Commerce it is said makes friends of nations. Trade and intercourse make friends of individuals. They will thus sooner forget the past and become absorbed in the mutual labors of the present and the anticipations of the future. As a political measure, it would be better to give a bounty upon the production of cotton for the next 5 years than to impose a duty. This opportunity for reaping great political advantages in the pacification of so large a mass of restless and discontented people should not be thrown away. The paltry amount of revenue to be obtained in this way is insignificant whcn compared with the advantages to be realized by a contrary policy. My 2nd objection to it under this head is, that it is vicious as a measure of economy. The civilWar, in which the people of the South so foolishly engaged, has left them in extreme povcrty. Many of them are actually suffering from the want of the necessaries of life. Their labor system, to which they had become accustomed, is completely overthrown. The ravages of war destroyed their plantations. Long before it ceased they had nothing but worthless currency, and at its close they had none. Many of the laborers, white and black, have been killed or disabled. The larger proportion of the southern people are not only reduced to utter poverty, but they are helpless and physically unable to repair their fortunes. In Alabama and other States there is now much suffering, and even famine is threatening. The levees on the southern waters were cut by our troops during hostilities, and the best cotton and sugar lands have been completely submerged this summer. To save the people, white and black, from starvation and suffering was one of the chief objects inducing the enactment of the Freedmen’s Bureau bill. For this charitable object Congress is annually appropriating millions of dollars. Now, I submit that that economy is questionable indeed which appoints tax commissioners and pays them heavy commissions to collect from ten to 15 million dollars to be replaced in the hands of bureau agents and distributed at an additional risk and cost among the very people from whom it was collected. Let us rather encourage them by every system of favorable legislation which is just within itself to enter with zeal upon the cultivation of their great staple for their own support and the relief of the nation. But if these reasons be thought in sufficient, I have a 3rd one to urge, which affects the national wealth and the national finances. We now have upon our shoulders a national debt of near 3,000 million dollars. That debt is not a blessing. It cannot perhaps be called a curse, for it was contracted in agood cause. At the least, however, it is a great burden, a.mis fortune. That debt has to be paid. Millions of the material wealth of the country was burned and otherwise destroyed during the war. That must be replaced. We cannot repair these losses and pay the public debt by the manufacture of paper money. We cannot pay it by protecting one branch of the industr at. the expense of another. With much trut it has been said that agriculture is the source of all wealth. Let. us then develop it in all its resources. It behooves us indeed to encourage every branch of labor, for without labor there can certainly be no accumulation of wealth. It is notorious that exchanges are largely against us. We import more than we export. We have supplied the deficit of exportation, not with the elements of wealth, but the evidences of poverty, the bonds of our indebtedness. Our country has been drained of its precious metals, and in the present state of agriculture the mines of California, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana will prove wholly inade uate to meet the balance of trade against us. othing is so well calculated to retrieve our condition as the cultivation of cotton. The world needs the article, and we have the best soil and climate for its production. Instead of discouraging it by an oppressive tax, we would much better appropriate millions to encourage its growth. One full crop of cotton would be worth at least $800,000,000. This would check the exportation of gold, appreciate our bonds, establish specie payments, send a large immigration of loyal men to the South, give contentment to the present dissatisfied elements of southern society, give wages to the negro and employment to the poor white, and relieve the Government from its present burdensome dispensation of charity. A 4th reason consists in the fact that this is a discriminating tax, the only one levied upon agricultural productions, and should not be resorted to unless the necessities of the government absolutely demand it. such is notthe case. The receipts from the customs and internal duties this year are amply sufficient to meet the current expenditures of the Government and the interest of the public debt. This fact. has induced a heavy decrease in excise duties as proposed in the very bill now pending. I make no complaints against the manner in which this decrease is to be made. Many articles of manufacture are put in the free list which might very well bear a continued tax without injury to the manufacturer and without serious detriment to the public. Wealthy railroad corporations and other common carriers are relieved of tax, which will inure, perhaps, but little to the traveler or to the shipper. Large reductions are made in iron manufactures; native wines are made free; and even the manufacture of every species of agricult ural implement is left without taxation. The ship'building interest, a tax on which is essentially indirect and but little injurious to anybody, is left entirely free. I might go on and enumerate many articles that could better hear a tax than the production of cotton. But, Mr. President, I will not detain the Senate longer.