Mr. BINGHAM. I desire to say a word or 2 on this subject, chiefly because of the remark which fell from the lips of the vener able Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Sn: vmssj as I came into the Hall. He seems to assume, in opposin the report of the committee of conference, that by their report there is some invasion of the right of the citizen under the Constitution of the U.S. that he shall not be derived of his property without due process of law and that to take his property for payment of taxes, without ajur trial, is n. deprivation without due process oflaw. I wish to say in this connection that if the as numption of the gentleman be accepted and acted upon as broadly as he seems to have stated it, it will break up your whole revenue system. The adoption of the gentleman’s rule would be a total departure from the practice of the Government from the day of its organization up to the present hour. The compulsory collection of the revenues of the Government through its own executive officers, and without the intervention in the 1st place of a court or jury has always been the practice. Hence it is, sir, in relation to the collectors of your customs, who are required to give bonds for the faithful performance of their duty. If they are found in default in the Dept of the Treasury, instead of having the intervention of a court or the intervention of ajury rto determine the liability, the account is stated in the Dept and the Treasury warrant is issued by the Dept for the seizure of his person and his imprisonment, and for the seizure of his own lands and the lands of his security and for their sale at public outery to the highest bidder. Ithas been ruled solemnly by the SCOTUS, in the case of McMillan’s Lessees, that such proceeding was in complete accordance with the Constitution and was not a deprivation of property without due process of law. Holding this view of the subject I cannot agree with the gentleman at all that the collection of the revenues of the countryis to be interrupted at every step by everybody through the intervention of a court and jury. ‘So to legislate would be to provide that your whole revenue may be put in a state ofsus ense and made to await final trials in courts of justice before juries. It seems to me that the gentleman’s proposition is most unsafe and most extraordinary, without anything in the past history of the country to sustain it or to give it the least color of support.