Mr. DAVIS. I beg to say a single word in reply to the honorable chairman of the ComFinance. What I said in relation to unsophisticated distiller s had no reference to the istillers in the cities. I do not know anything about those in the cities; but in the rural districts all that I said about them is true. I do not know anything of the modes of distillation by what is called the steam ro cess; but by the old method of distilling which you, sir, [Mr. HENDRICKS in the chair] are familiar with, by 2 copper stills, one called singling and the other doubling, and running through a copper vessel, I know allabout that; and it is in that way that the real, genuine Bourbon, that is most highly appreciated for its greatest excellence, is made. The mode of distillation in that way is about thus: the distiller makes his mash; he takes a bushel of corn and half a bushel of rye, and after he has made his mash he puts it in the tub and the beer works. It has 4 or 5 days to work. When it has perfected itself by suflicient working, it is then let into the 1st still for distillation. I have not been in n stilfHouse but once since I was 12 years of age, but u to that time I learned a good deal about distillation. I know that the produce of distillation results very much from the character of the weather. The beer works and becomes perfect very much in proportion to the character of the weather. It must be neither too cold nor too warm. The highest produce of that mode of distillation is 3 gallons to the bushel; but it varies from one gallon to 3. I am told that under the steam process the production is 5 gallons to the bushel; but under the old mode of distillation the highest production was about 1/2 that quantit, and was very often not more than one 5th of that quantity. The number of pounds of meal, corn, or rye that is used in the process is no criterion to be relied upon by which the quantity of liquor made from it is to be ascertained. Sometimes it is 2 and a half allons, under our mode of distilling in Kentucky. It is sometimes as high as 3; it is often as low as one; and something like 2 gallons would probably be the avera e. But. amid such variation of the prod uce o liquor resulting from the same amount of grain, according to that process of distilla‘tion, owing to the condition of the weather and the perfection to which the beer reaches, and other causes, the requisition that the distiller shall keep in a book from day to day and supply 3 times a month to the collector the number of pounds of grain he has distilled is no criterion of the produce of his distillation upon which the colibetor or anybod else can rely. Why, then, is he required to eep such a constant and tedious record? It is unnecessary, because the produce of his distillation, whether it has been successful or not, is to be emptied into 2 reservoirs; it is to be emptied once a day; and it is to remain in those reser voirs for 3 days, to enable the inspector to visit the establishment and ascertain the exact quantity that has been made. I do not see any need for this record. Certainly there was none for it in the cases to which I referred, because there was no fraud upon the revenue in those instances. Now, what is the punishment? “Any person who shall violate tho'provisions of this section shall, for livery such offense, be liable to a fine of $500.” These 4 men, farmers in the county of Harrison, distilling their own grain, except in one instance, by omission to comply with this law, of the existence of which they were perfectly ignorant, and which omissions resulted in no damage to the Government, in the loss of not one cent of revenue, were yet mulcted in damages in the aggregate exceeding 814,000. Mr. President, ‘if it is necessary to fortify a law of this kind and a provision such as I have just read by a fine of $500 for every violation ofit, it seems to me that the court trying the case ought to be vested with a discretion, if the judge is satisfied that there is no fraud, to remit the fine or to graduate the timeaccording to the defalcation and the immorality of the offender. I do not think there is any necessity for this provision, but if there is, I think it ought to be mitigated by vesting the judge with a discretion over the amount of the fine, and over its very existence, so that he would be enabled to graduate it according to the tea timony, as the testimony would establish guilt or the absence of guilt in the case.