Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

States had been truly stated. In the Western parts, there were few slaves. He said, in the representation to that House, the labor of the negroes had been considered as five to three, with respect to white persons; therefore, the ability of the State to pay was considered in the same proportion. His colleague from the mountains [Mr. G. JACKSON] should consider that, if the holders of slaves were not to pay a portion of the tax imposed on the State of Virginia, it would fall very heavy upon his constituents, and those of his colleague, where few blacks were kept.

He hoped, therefore, it would pass. Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH was aware that a tax on slaves would lighten the tax on land in the Southern States, and therefore he did not wonder at the Representatives from those States wishing it to take place; but, by so apportioning the tax, would not the land-holders in the Southern States pay less than the land-holders in parts of the Union where no slaves were kept? He believed they would. A person, for instance, in New Hampshire, holding the value of £1,000 in land, would pay a larger portion of the tax than a holder of land to the same extent in Virginia. He believed this would be unjust, and an objection to this mode of taxing the Southern States, as, though the tax would fall more equally on them, it would not be so with respect to other States.

Mr. GOODRICH said, this tax was introduced into the system for the accommodation of that part of the Union where slaves were numerous.

[JANUARY, 1797.

Union, and would produce uneasiness from its partial effects. He did not know how the detail would be arranged. He had been of the number who were desirous to see the collection-law, before they decided on the resolution before them, so as to have possessed the whole subject. At present, he saw so many difficulties from incorporating this species of tax into the plan, he could not assent to it.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he did not understand the objections of the gentleman from New Hampshire, [Mr. J. SMITH.] He did not see how he could produce an equal value in land in every part of the Union. The tax, he said, would be apportioned according to the number of persons, and not according to the number of acres in any State.

If the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. GOODRICH] would rely upon his information, he might be assured, that an annual enumeration of slaves would not cost so much as an assessment of land made once in ten years. With respect to the tax being uncertain, he was totally mistaken. It was the most productive tax in the Southern States. If the tax was laid wholly upon land, it would be laid on a great part which would be unsaleable, and when a report came to be made of the collection, there would be found great deficiencies; but, with respect to slaves, there would be no failure, because they were a species of property which would always find a ready sale in the Southern market.

Mr. S. SMITH said, he had heard much on that A disposition to render the plan as acceptable, floor with respect to equality of taxation. It was in every part of the country, as it could be made, impossible, he said, to make taxes fall exactly consistently with the interests of the whole, ought equal; they will fall, in some cases, heavier than to prevail. But, before a tax on slaves was adopt-in others. He would state a case. When a tax ed, its operation on the Union, and its effects, as it respected different districts, should be considered.

A direct tax ought to fall as equally as possible everywhere; that on land and houses, with their improvements, which had been agreed to, would be laid by a valuation seldom repeated-perhaps, once in ten or fifteen years. The expense of its assessment and collection would be nearly equal throughout the United States; but, with respect to a tax on slaves, there would be required frequent enumerations-at least, an annual enumeration. This would be attended with considerable expense, to be defrayed, not by the particular districts, for whose benefit this species of tax was introduced, but by the United States.

There was another objection. A land tax was certain-it might, and undoubtedly would, be made a lien on the real estate on which it was laid. It would be liable to little, if any, loss. Not so with a tax on slaves. Such a tax, he apprehended, would be uncertain, exposing the revenue to considerable defalcations. If a provision could not be made to place the loss on the districts where it happened, by retaxing them it would operate unequally. He imagined a retaxation for defalcation, if it could be made, would be considered as unjust, and create discontent among the individuals who were subjected to it; and if that could not be done, the deficiency must fall on the

on carriages was under consideration, they found the gentlemen from Connecticut voting without scruple, because that State paid only two or three hundred dollars annually, when Maryland_paid five thousand dollars a year to that duty. There was no equality in this; yet those gentlemen winked at the disproportion. He hoped they would do so in the present case.

Mr. POTTER said, if this part of the resolution was agreed to, it was to apportion a tax on the personal property of the Southern States, which, no, doubt, they would be glad of; and if gentlemen from those States could point out any way by which the personal property of other States could be come at, he would agree to the present proposition; but he believed this could not be done; and, if not, he saw no reason why the personal property of those States should be made to bear a part of the proposed burden, whilst personal property in other States was suffered to go free. It was a hard case, he said, that a man who possessed three or four hundred dollars in land. should be made to pay a portion of the direct tax, whilst men of affluence, who possessed many thousands in public securities, or loaned on interest, should pay nothing.

The SPEAKER reminded the House, that the question was very much lost sight of; it was not whether a tax should be laid on carriages or personal property, but whether they would agree to

[blocks in formation]

the report of the Committee of the Whole, viz: "that a tax should be laid on slaves, with certain exceptions."

[H. OF R.

the deficiency, if there should be any, upon the land. He thought, therefore, the objections which had been urged against this tax, would be completely obviated.

weight in the objections, with respect to the assessment and collection of the tax.

Mr. HENDERSON said, he should vote against this proposition, because it was a direct tax, as he Mr. Corr allowed, that nothing was more clear should vote against every question of that kind, than that the manner in which the Southern until every source of indirect taxation was ex-States paid their apportionment of the proposed hausted; and he thought this was not the case at burden, could make no difference to the Northern present. and Eastern States; but the gentleman from PennMr. CLAIBORNE said, he thought, also, that di-sylvania [Mr. GALLATIN] allowed there was some rect taxes should not be resorted to until indirect sources were exhausted; but, he believed, they were now exhausted, and that direct taxes were the only means left to them of raising money. As he lived in a country which was unfortunately cursed with negroes, he wished the present motion to pass, for the sake of making the tax bear, in some degree, equally in the Southern States; but. if he thought with his colleague [Mr. JACKSON] that a tax on slaves bore any affinity to a capitation tax, he should also oppose it; but he had no such idea.

If he understood that gentleman, he said that the making an enumeration of slaves would make no difference in the expense. He did not know how this could be. If two objects were to do, viz: to value and assess the land, and to enumerate and value the slave, it was new doctrine to him, if these two things would not cost more than if only one had been done; or, if this business would be done for nothing, it would be one of the first things the United States had had done upon those terms.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he would just notice what had fallen from the gentleman from Connecticut Upon the collection, there would also be an ad[Mr. GOODRICH] which was the only thing like ditional expense and a probability of loss; the more argument which had been used against the pre-detail there was in the business, the greater liasent proposition. As to what had been said about bility to error and loss to the United States; and the quantum of tax falling on different States, or in proportion to this loss would these States pay what had been said by the gentleman from Rhode less than others. Island [Mr. POTTER] with respect to the personal property of the Eastern States, he did not see how it applied to the present question. If the proposed tax was certain, and the expense of collection would not be greater than would attend the collection of the tax in other States, he did not see any objection to it.

Mr. HARTLEY said, he should at present vote for the proposition; but should feel himself at liberty to vote differently on the bill, if he did not approve it. Difficulties arose in his mind as to the propriety of taxing personal property in one State and not in another, by which means a bounty seemed to be given on land in the Southern States to the amount of the difference of the taxes between the land in those States, and that, in other States, upon which purchasers would naturally calculate. This difficulty might probably be removed from his mind; and, therefore, in order to give the whole of the business a fair chance, he should wish the resolutions to go back to the Committee of Ways and Means, to bring in a bill.

The gentleman from Connecticut had said, that the expense of an annual enumeration of slaves would be great, and that it would fall upon the United States. He would inform that gentleman and the House, that when no assessment took place, but merely an enumeration, it would be attended with no expense on the collection of the tax. The distinction which he made was, when a valuation and an enumeration were both neces- Mr. PAGE did suppose that gentlemen coming sary, and when an enumeration alone was neces- from States which were in the habit of collecting sary. In the first instance, the value of the pro-direct taxes, would have endeavored to accommoperty was to be ascertained, and the tax laid accordingly; but where an enumeration was only wanted, (the tax per head, according to age, &c., having been settled,) no expense would be incurred.

date the business to the situation and circumstances of different States, so as to make the system the most convenient to each. He did suppose that, whenever it should have been determined to enter upon direct taxation, that sums Mr. G. said, he spoke from experience. In would have been apportioned to each State, and Pennsylvania there was a certain tax on personal that they would have been left to themselves to property, the taking an account of which did not have raised the money in the way which they increase the expense. Every three years there thought most convenient. Insuperable objections, was an assessment of personal property, amongst however, it seemed, had been found against this which was slaves; but the enumeration was man- system, as appeared from the report of the Secreaged in this way: the collector called twice upon tary of the Treasury; but it was unreasonable persons-the first time he gave them notice to that the Northern States should complain that the pay, and took an account of their property, which, Southern States would pay the tax with greater consisting of few articles, and the value being al-facility than them. They might, he said, as well ready fixed, he could tell them at the time, the amount to be paid at his next call.

As to any degree of uncertainty apprehended from this tax, that might be removed by throwing

complain against the richness of their soil, or the warmness of their climate.

With respect to the tax falling lighter on them than on other States, those who held slaves would

[blocks in formation]

find it lighter, but those who had none, would not. But he thought it extraordinary that, whilst they were upbraided with holding a species of property peculiar to their country, they should also be upbraided with wishing to pay a duty upon that property.

Mr. P. said, he did not see what difference it could make to other States, that they raised a part of the tax required of them from slaves. The Secretary of the Treasury had recommended this mode, the Committee of Ways and Means had reported accordingly; and they were ready to pay a tax for their slaves, in addition to the expense they were at for them already; for, it should be recollected, persons holding slaves, contribute largely to the duties collected from imposts, by the purchase of flannels and cloth, rum, molasses, &c., necessary for their food and clothing.

If a person living in a State where slavery did not exist, paid something more for his land, the difference was certainly not equal to the satisfaction he must enjoy in reflecting, that his State was free from that evil. His land, on that account, would be worth three times as much as land of the same quality in the Southern States. Why, then, do gentlemen complain? The Southern States themselves might have objected to this tax; they might have doubted the constitutionality of it; indeed, he did doubt it, but he had agreed to it; and he believed there was no better way of making the tax go down in those States, than by the present measure.

For his own part, Mr. P. said, he wished he lived where there was no slavery; and if he could find a climate he liked as well, he would change his situation on that account.

Mr. BRENT said, it was a very extraordinary thing that gentlemen who represented States where there were no slaves, should oppose a tax on that species of property, and that the Southern States where slavery existed, should be advocating

that tax.

[JANUARY, 1797.

would pay more than a land-holder to that amount in the Southern States. And was this, he asked, a subject of regret? If the State of Virginia paid the amount required of her in a manner which bore most equally upon the whole of her citizens, ought that to displease the citizens of other States? He thought not. He was of opinion, that it would be a desirable thing that the tax should be found to fall equally on the citizens of every State.

Another objection, produced by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. GOODRICH] was, that a tax on this species of property would not be so secure as a tax on land. If that gentleman had been acquainted with the situation of the Southern States, he would have known that slaves formed the most certain fund of those States; for, whilst their wide and extensive waste lands would not command any price, slaves were always ready sale. Hence it arose, that the States were not able to raise a tax on land, whilst a tax on slaves had never failed to be productive.

With respect to the inconvenience or expense attending a tax on slaves, in Virginia, he said, no expense would be necessary; because it was the custom of that State to take, annually, a list of their slaves, which was regularly recorded in the archives of the State. If gentlemen were, therefore, so economical that they would not expend a few of the public pence to get a list of this property, let them recur to the document he had mentioned, which might be done without expense.

To those who know the situation of the Southfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. GALLATIN] must have ern States, the remarks made by the gentleman been irresistibly impressive. Almost the whole of the lower part of the country possessed property of this kind, whilst the upper parts had scarcely any. If a tax was, therefore, imposed upon land only, the upper part of the country would be exwould murmur with justice. tremely aggravated, and would murmur, and they

were unable to do?

By the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Representatives of the Southern States to Gentlemen from the Eastern States called upon there appeared a deficiency of revenue, and in order to supply that deficiency, they had determined point out a mode by which they might come at to have recourse to direct taxation; and, after the the personal property of their States. But, he amount which each State ought to furnish, had would ask them, if, independent of land with its been ascertained, he thought it should have been improvements, they possessed any other species of left to the different States to have raised the mo- property which could not be eluded? He believed ney from such funds as they judged best, provided they could not point it out; why, then, call upon they had been secure. This, he thought, would gentlemen from the Southern States to do, what only have been liberal and proper. It had, how-they, who certainly knew best their own resources, ever, been determined otherwise; but, from a knowledge that, by introducing land and slaves. together, as objects of taxation, the tax would be more equally levied in the Southern States, if that plan had been adopted. And, surely, he said, it could have given no satisfaction to any other State, that, by laying a tax on land only, it should have operated in a very oppressive manner in some parts of the Southern States, and scarcely It was a phenomenon, he would again say, that have been felt at all in other parts of those States; the Representatives of States where slavery exand yet, this would appear to be the opinion of isted, should be contending for a tax upon slaves, the gentleman from New Hampshire; for, he said, | and that members from States where slavery was if this law passed, a person possessing landed pro- not tolerated, were opposing it. He could not perty in New Hampshire, of the value of £1,000, | help believing that the real object of gentlemen

The gentlemen from the Southern States, he said, had discovered those objects which they thought best able to bear the burden; and if the Representatives of the other States were not satisfied with the tax on land, let them come forward and say what other property they have equally secure, upon which a tax may be laid.

[blocks in formation]

had not been avowed. It was something hidden and unseen.

Mr. KITTERA said, that the opposers of this part of the resolution were the opposers of a direct tax altogether. It was observable that those upon whom the tax would fall, did not complain. It was extraordinary that the complaints should come from another quarter. As to the objections of his colleague [Mr. HARTLEY] that part of the tax being laid on slaves in the Southern States, would affect the value of land, it would make no difference whether the tax was on land or slaves, as it affected land, its operation would be the same. It was therefore no solid objection against the resolution.

On the question, that the House do agree to the last part of the said resolution, in the words following, to wit: "A tax on slaves, with certain exceptions;" it was resolved in the affirmative-yeas 68, nays 23, as follows:

YEAS.-Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount, Theophilus Bradbury, Richard Brent, Daniel Buck, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac Coles, William Cooper, William Craik, James Davenport, George Dent, George Ege, William Findley, Abiel Foster, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glen, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, William B. Grove, Wade Hampton, George Hancock, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, William Hindman, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, John Wilkes Kittera, Matthew Locke, Samuel Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, John Patton, Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, Samuel Sewall, Samuel

Sitgreaves, Israel Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., William Strudwick, John Swanwick, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Peleg Wadsworth, John Williams, and Richard Winn.

NAYS.-Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Joshua Coit, Samuel W. Dana, Henry Dearborn, Dwight Foster, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Thomas Henderson, George Jackson, William Lyman, Francis Malbone, Elisha R. Potter, John Reed, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, and Joseph B.

Varnum.

And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the resolution, as reported by the Committee of the Whole House? it was resolved in the affirmative-yeas 49, nays 39, as follows:

[H. of R.

thony New, John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, John Patton, Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, Samuel Sewall, Samuel Sitgreaves, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., John Swanwick, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, and John Williams. NAYS.-Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Theophibriel Christie, Samuel W. Dana, James Davenport, lus Bradbury, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, GaHenry Dearborn, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jesse Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., James Gillespie, Roger Griswold, Wade Hampton, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Henderson, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, George Jackson, Matthew Locke, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, Francis Malbone, Elisha R. Potter, John Reed, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, and Richard Winn.

Ordered, That the Committee of Ways and Means do prepare and bring in a bill or bills, pursuant to the said resolution.

UNITED STATES LAWS IN TENNESSEE.

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for giving effect to the laws of the United States in the State of Tennessee.

A considerable debate took place on the subject of the salary of the District Judge to be appointed under the act. The bill provides that he shall be paid 1,000 dollars a year. Mr. SWIFT moved to amend the bill by striking out $1,000, to insert in its place $800. This motion was supported_by Messrs. WILLIAMS, HENDERSON, W. SMITH, W. LYMAN, and KITTERA, on the ground of 800 dollars being sufficient to afford a handsome maintenance in that country; that it was equal to the duties he would have, and the cheapness of living; pay of any Judge in the Union, considering the that if compared to the salaries allowed by that State to its officers, it was a high salary, as their District Judges were allowed only 68 dollars a circuit, and their Governor only 650 dollars a year; that if more was allowed, it would be doing an injury to the State, as it would tend to make their officers dissatisfied with their pay: that to pay a larger sum would bring a charge of extravagance upon the Government: that the District Judge of Vermont had only $800; and that if $1,000 were given to the Judge of Tennessee, it would not only lead him to expect an augmentation of salary, (which he had already applied for) but every Judge in the Union would expect to be advanced. This, it was said, was a serious consideration, since a Judge's salary could not be lowered, and to hold out an idea that they might be increased on application, would have the effect to make the Judges in some degree dependent on that House. The present want of money also cautioned them against extravagance.

YEAS. Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Daniel Buck, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William Craik, George Dent, George Ege, William Findley, Albert Gallatin, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Christopher Greenup, On the other hand, Messrs. A. JACKSON, HOLAndrew Gregg, William B. Grove, George Hancock, LAND, BLOUNT, MACON, BUCK, THATCHER, and S. Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, John Hathorn, SMITH, were in favor of the salary being 1,000 Jonathan N. Havens, William Hindman, John Wilkes dollars. In order to induce men of abilities to Kittera, James Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, accept of such offices, they wished them to be Frederick A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, An-liberally paid; that no Judge in the Union had a

[blocks in formation]

less sum, except the Judge of Vermont, whose salary they hoped would be increased; that though most of the necessaries of life were tolerably low, yet every article imported was very high in that country, owing to their distance from the sea; that he would have four times a year to travel through the wilderness, which was always attended with danger, and which, if a war should at any time take place with the Indians, would be at the risk of his life: that the salaries of the State officers ought to be no rule in this case, since the State was poor, and they had generally been accepted from patriotic motives; it was added that they had not been in the habit of being guided by the practice of States, who were mostly too penurious in the pay of their officers; the members of Congress received double the pay of the members of any of the State Legislatures, and they heard of no complaint on that ground.

The question on the amendment was put and carried-39 to 35. The Committee then rose and obtained leave to sit again. Adjourned to Monday.

MONDAY, January 23.

THOMPSON J. SKINNER, from Massachusetts, in place of THEODORE SEDGWICK, appointed a Senator of the United States, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Mr. SWANWICK, from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, reported a bill in addition to an act for mitigating and remitting certain penalties incurred under the revenue laws, making it to extend to the acts relative to the registering of ships, and to vessels employed in the fishing and coasting trade. The bill was twice read and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole on Wednesday next.

Mr. S. also reported a bill relative to the compensation of certain officers employed in collecting duties on imposts and tonnage, proposing to allow the Collectors of the several ports, instead of their present salaries, a certain per centum on the amount of duties collected, with sundry other regulations. It was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole on Thursday next.

Mr. GILMAN, from the Committee to whom was referred the business relative to the refugees from the British provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia, reported a bill, which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Thursday next.

UNITED STATES LAWS IN TENNESSEE. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for extending the laws of the United States into the State of Tennessee, which having gone through without further amendment, the Committee rose, and reported the bill. The House then took it up, and having agreed to the amendment, ordered the bill to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.

[JANUARY, 1797.

MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. The House then went into Committee of the

Whole on the subject of the Military Establishment. The following report from the Committee was read:

"Resolved, That, in their opinion, all such parts of the act which relate to the light dragoons, ought to be repealed. That a Major General, and his staff, are not of the third section of the said act, together with all longer necessary; they therefore recommend a repeal other parts thereof, which relate to the Major General and his staff; and they recommend the following resolutions, viz:

Resolved, That there shall be one Brigadier General, who may choose his Brigade Major and Inspector from the captains and subalterns in the line; to cach of whom there shall be allowed the monthly pay of dollars, in addition to his pay in the lines, and two rations extraordinary per day; and whenever forage shall not be furnished by the public, to ten dollars per month in lieu thereof. That there shal! be one Brigade Quartermaster, one Brigade Paymaster, and one Judge Advocate, who shall be taken from the commissioned officers of the line, and each of whom shall be entitled to receive two rations extra, per day, and — dollars per month, in addition to his pay in the line-and whenever forage shall not be furnished by the public, there shall be allowed to the Brigade Quartermaster, dollars per month, and to the Brigade Paymaster and Judge Advocate, each dollars per month, in lieu thereof.

[ocr errors]

Resolved, That so much of the 23d section of the said act, as may be construed to affect the Brigadier General and his staff, be, and is hereby repealed. Resolved, That eight privates be added to each company of infantry.

"Resolved, That from and after the

day of dollars, and that of the Ensigns, twenty-five dollars per next, the pay of the Lieutenants shall be thirty month. That to the Brigadier, while Commander-inChief, there shall be allowed Irations per day extraordinary; and each officer commanding a separate post, shall be entitled to receive twice the number of rations to which he otherwise would be entitled.

66

Resolved, That the Majors be entitled to receive four rations per day, for their subsistence."

Mr. BALDWIN said, that the question ought to be taken, first, on the dismission of the dragoons in the first part of the report.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, that he wished the select committee would inform the Committee of the Whole whether this part of their report was the result of a conviction that cavalry would be unnecessary for the defence of the frontiers, or whether they meant to substitute two companies of militia horse in the place of the regular corps proposed to be dismissed. If the latter was the object, Mr. D. hesitated not to say that it ought not to be adopted. It was well ascertained that the militia cavalry were more expensive than the regulars; that the former were far more harassing to our citizens than the latter, and that, on account of their attention being necessarily divided between their families and their military duty, less real service could be expected or required from them. If, therefore, any horse were necessary, he was persuaded that those now in service should

« FöregåendeFortsätt »