Sidor som bilder

February, 1812.

Manual, provided they annex thereto the standing rules and orders of this, House, to be paid for out of the contingent fund, and the books placed in the Library, for the use of Congress.

The blank was filled with fifty, and the resolution agreed to.


The House than resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of the Whole on the subject of taxes; when the 4th resolution, proposing a tax on salt, being under consideration, Mr. STANFORD rose again to oppose this tax, on the ground of its being unjust and unequal, operating principally upon a particular portion of the Union. The inhabitants on the seaboard had not the same necessity of using it for their cattle, and on some parts of the coast manufactories of salt are established; and the people to the westward had also salt manufactories. The State of Ohio had been particularly favored by Congress in this respect, having had the salt-licks given to them at the time that State was formed. Mr. SMt Lie said, the salt-licks had not been given to the State of Ohio, without a consideration. They were, in return, to suffer all lands belonging to the United States to be exempt from taxation. Mr. Blackledge was in favor of the tax, as it would serve to encourage the manufacture of salt in our own country, which, in case of war, would be very desirable. He did not believe that the people on the seacoast, or in the Western country, got their salt any cheaper than the inhabitants of the midland country, except such as lived near a manufactory. Mr. STAN Ford moved to amend the resolution, by adding a duty of ten cents on all salt manufactured in this country. This motion was advocated by Messrs. STAN Ford, MA.con, WRight, CLAY, Gholson, and WidgeRY ; and opposed by Messrs. Blackledge, King, Porter Stow, LAcock, TRAcy, GRUNDY, and Calhoun. By the advocates of the amendment it was urged that, if salt imported paid a duty of twenty cents a bushel, the manufacturers of salt in this country might very well afford to pay a tax of half that sum, as they would then have an advantage of ten cents per bushel over foreign salt; that there would be as much propriety in taxing domestic salt as domestic spirits; that this tax was laid for the purpose of raising revenue, and manufacturers of domestic salt could well afford to pay a tax in case the proposed duty was laid upon imported salt; all, however, who advocated this tax, declared themselves opposed to a tax on salt at all; but, if foreign salt was taxed, they wished that made at home also taxed. Those opposed to this amendment, said that this was the first instance in this or any other country of an infant manufacture, and especially of a necessary of 1ife, being taxed ; that the tax would have the effect of discouraging these manufactures. Some salt-licks, it was said, had been already laid aside as unprofitable; that it would certainly be good policy in this Government to

[merged small][ocr errors]

encourage manufactures of every kind, but, more especially, of such articles as e annot be obtained from abroad in time of war. It was well known that this country suffered considerably during the Revolution for want of salt; but now, with proper encouragement, a sufficiency might be furnished from our own establishments. Besides, if this additional tax were to be imposed on salt, it would raise the price still higher to the consumers, as eventually every tax is paid by them. The business of taxation ought to be considered in the spirit of accommodation; the salt tax would bear a little hard on one part of the country, the impost and tonnage duty on another, the spirit tax on another, the carriage and stamp tax on another, and the direct taxes on others. It would be impossible to get taxes to bear equally on all. It was believed §. the system was taken together it would operate as equally as any other that could be produced. The question was taken on agreeing to this tax of ten cents a bushel on domestic salt, and negatived—yeas 22, nays 96, as follows: YEAs–Stevenson Archer, David Bard, Martin Chittenden, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, William Crawford, Asa Fitch, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Nathaniel Macon, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, Archibald McBryde, William McCoy, Joseph Pearson, Israel Pickens, John Randolph, John Smith, Richard Stanford, Benjamin Tallmadge, and Robert Wright. Nars – Willis Alston, jun., William Anderson, Ezekiel Bacon, John Baker, Burwell Bassett, William w. Bibb, Abijah Bigelow, William Blackledge, Harmanus Bleecker, Adam Boyd, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Epaphroditus Champion, Langdon Cheves, Lewis Condit, Roger Davis, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, william Ely, James Emott, William Findley, Thomas R. Gold, Charles Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jun., Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Lyman Law, Joseph Lefever, Joseph Lewis, jun., Peter Little, Robert Le Roy Livingston, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcaif, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Jonathan O. Moseley, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, William Piper, Timothy Pitkin, jun., James Pleasants, jun., Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, william M. Richardson, Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, William Rodman Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Daniel Sheffey, John Smilie, George Smith, Philip Stuart, Silas Stow, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jun., Pierre Van Cortlandt, jun., Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, Robert Whitehill, Thomas Wilson, and Richard Winn. The question was then taken on agreeing to the proposition, as reported by the Committee of the Whole, for laying a duty of twenty gents a bushel on imported salt, and negatived-yeas 67, nays 60, as follows:

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

YEAs—Willis Alston, junior, William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Ezekiel Bacon, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Adam Boyd, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Elias Earle, William Findley, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, Jacob Hufty, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, James Pleasants, "jun., Peter B. Porter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Samuel Ringgold, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, Adam Seybert, John Smilie, George Smith, Silas Stow, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jun., Pierre Van Cortlandt, jun., and Richard Winn. NAxs—John Baker, David Bard, Harmanus Bleecker, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, Lewis Condit, William Crawford, Roger Davis, Samuel Dinsmoor, William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Charles Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Richard Jackson, jun., Philip B. Key, Lyman Law, Joseph Lefever, Joseph Lewis, jun., Nathaniel Macon, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, Archibald McBryde, William McCoy, James Morgan, Jonathan O. Moseley, Hugh Nelson, Joseph Pearson, William Piper, Timothy Pitkin, jun., Benjamin Pond, Elisha R. Potter, John Randolph, Henry M. Ridgely, John Rhea, William Rodman, John Sevier, Samuel Shaw, Daniel Sheffey, John Smith, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Laban. Wheaton, Robert Whitehill, William Widgery, Thomas Wilson, and Robert Wright. - [Yeas 57, nays 60. Absent on this vote twentythree members, viz: Messrs. BARTLETT, Sulliv.AN, Cutts, TAllMAN, Avery, Cook, PAULDING, HYNEMAN, TALIAFerro, Sawyer, Williams, Cobb, and GANNETT, absent from the city; and Messrs. Clopton, Bigelow, White, Davenport, Srunges, Fisk, Strong, Livingston, Gold, and Richardson, absent from indisposition and other causes.] ** The fifth resolution next came under consideration for laying duties on distillers, when Mr. McKim moved to strike out what relates to laying a duty on the capacity of the still, and to insert in its place twenty-five cents per gallon. Mr. Moore said the vote which had just been taken and decided against taxing salt, induced him to be in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Maryland, or at least in favor of substituting some other article in lieu of salt, on which a tax will operate with more equality and less oppression on the poor. I am fully apprized, said he, of the necessity of providing the sinews of war, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be as ready and willing to use them in the assertion of the rights of my country as any gentleman on this floor. Although I have voted against the taxing salt, as I consider it an article of the first necessity, which ought not to be taxed,

I am willing to raise the sum taxed on salt on any other article less objectionable; I would even prefer laying it on land. I will, therefore, suggest to the honorable gentleman from Maryland the propriety of withdrawing his motion until the resolutions are gone through; the whole subject will then be open for consideration, and the House can select some other article as a proper substitute for salt, which I hope will be found equally convenient and less odious. Mr. Seybert did not know that he should have made a single observation on this subject. had it not been for the vote which had o been taken; but he must acknowledge he felt himself so disappointed and mortified, that he believe he should vote against every other tax. For, if gentlemen will oppose one item of taxation, be: cause it happens to fall a little harder on some sections of the country than others; whilst other gentlemen, for the sake of accommodation, have consented to lay much heavier burdens on their constituents, he despaired of establishing any so tem of taxation. He had been told we were entering on a war for commerce. He did nots. consider it. He believed we were about to th: gage in a war to maintain our honor, liberty, an sovereignty, as a nation. Whilst the Pennssk vanians are selling their wheat for two dollars? bushel, it could not be said they wanted a wo obtain any better price for their produce; if any part of the country were influenced by motive of interest, it must be the tobacco and color planters; it might, therefore, be rather termed: war for agriculture, and a particular species of than for commerce. But he had always too sidered it as having higher objects in view. The SPEAKER declared the motion of the get: tleman from Maryland to be out of order; as: propositions for raising revenue must first be dio cussed in Committee of the Whole. A motion to adjourn was made and carrio and the House adjourned till Monday.

Monday, March 2.

Mr. WRight reported a bill supplementars" the “Act more effectually to provide for the " anization of the militia of the District of o umbia;” which was twice read and committed

The Speaken laid before the House a res” of the Secretary of the Treasury, in pursuado of a resolution of the House calling on hio a statement of the exports of the United So for some years past; also, a letter from tho. retary of the Treasury, the Secretary of W* and Comptroller, on the subject of the refuge claims, &c.; also, a letter from the Chief Justice of the United States in behalf of the Sup!” Court, acknowledging the favor conserted ". them by the use of the Congressional Libm".

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

MARch, 1812. for a divorce from william Deakins, and of David Beck, praying for a divorce from Ellen, his wife, submit the following report:

The only object which the petitioners can bave in view is to be enabled, respectively, to enter into new contracts of marriage. Were marriages only a civil institution, the courts of law would be open to all parties seeking the redress now prayed for, for alleged breach of the marriage contract: but it is something more; it is a divine ordinance, and has been pronounced such by the highest legal as well as spiritual authority. The competency of any human tribunal to dissolve its sacred obligations may well be doubted. The justice or policy, under any circumstances, of weakening the matrimonial institution, upon the purity of which depends the very fabric of society itself, may be boldly denied. Divorces are not merely the effect of corruption of manners; they are the cause also. They hold out temptations to crime which human infirmity cannot at all times resist. They hold out incentives to that adultery which they are called in to remedy. Extreme cases may indeed be put, but they are rare; both parties are generally in fault. Shall a very few individuals, who present themselves in a questionable shape, be debarred from contracting a second marriage, or shall the foundations of society be loosened for their special accommodation? Shall the heaviest public injury be encountered for the convenience of those, who, for the most part, have shown how little reliance is to be placed upon their virtue or discretion? Shall-incentives to nuptial infidelity be presented to the great body of society for the personal gratification of a few unfortunate members, diffusing dissatisfaction and discontent, where, but for the deceitful hope of divorce, they had never been known?

The frequency of divorces may be taken as an unerring criterion of the depravity of morals. A respectable authority has declared, that “from the Reformation to the commencement of the eighteenth century, there had occurred only four instances of Parliamentary divorce; but, in the present reign, they had increased to the enormous number of one hundred and ninety-three.” It is notorious that the crime which is made the ground-work of the divorce, is frequently committed with the most “deliberate and unblushing indifference,” for the purpose of enabling the adulterer and adultress thereafter to intermarry. Your committee will not attempt to pursue the subject further. It is calculated to inspire the most solemn reflections. They are opposed to divorce upon principle, as tending to excite family discord; as bearing hard upon the weaker sex, whom it is especially incumbent upon us to protect and to cherish; above all, as weakening the matrimonial tie, upon the sanctity of which depend “all the charities of father, son, and brother.” The committee will not enter into the question how far it may be wise or politic to hold forth to the world this District as an asylum for those who wish to obtain absolution from the marriage vow. They will content themselves with submitting the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioners ought not to be granted.

Referred to a Committee of the Whole on onday next.


The House proceeded to consider the order of the day. Mr. Gholson said he had witnessed with ex

War Taares,

[ocr errors]

treme regret, the dissatisfaction that was prevalent amongst his friends in consequence of the rejection of the resolution recountmending a tax on salt. He had voted against that particular resolution, and, after reviewing with the most rigid impartiality his conduct upon that occasion, he could perceive in it nothing to disapprove. I most distinctly and explicitly, said Mr. G., upon that occasion, stated in my place that, if the salt tax could, by any gentleman, be shown to be necessary to equalize the system of taxation, I was ready to yield my assent to it, although, as was acknowledged, it would operate with peculiar hardship on all the middle country, a section of which I have the honor to represent. Neither the honorable Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, nor any other gentleman, undertook to prove that this tax was requisite to produce this equal effect. I, moreover, then stated, as I now declare, that I was, and am prepared to go as far as any man in providing the necessary revenue to sustain the credit of the country in the approaching contest. My object was to impose the taxes on subjects that, could best bear them. I thought there were many objects of taxation, preferable to salt, (an indispensable of life,) and was desirous of raising the amount con

templated from salt by a tax on whiskey, an ad

dition to the direct tax, or in any other more eligible mode. But it now seems that, if the article of salt is excluded, the whole system of taxation will be endangered." We are told in conversation, since the vote on the salt tax, that the system which has been presented by the Committee of Ways and Means is a system of compromise and concession, and that it must be taken altogether, the bad with the good; that, if we pay the salt tax, the Eastern and the Western country will suffer peculiarly by an increase of the impost, and by the land tax. The middle country will experience no exemption from these particular burdens. Sooner than this measure should fail; sooner than we should not provide for the expenses we have incurred to resist the encroachments of our enemy; sooner, in fine, than degrade and disgrace the nation, I believe it would be better for us to take the whole draught, just as it has been proposed. Yes, sir, perhaps 1 might say, even if it were hemlock. I, sir, would vote two dollars a bushel on salt, rather than see the present course of policy frustrated... Mr. Speaker, we who form the majority have all the same end in view : the maintenance of the rights, honor, and independence of the country against the lawless aggressions of our enemy. To attain this end, I would take the best means. Rather than be defeated in the accomplishment of it, I would agree to any means not absolutely intolerable. It is therefore that I, on the present occasion, will concede much of my own opinion, in order to harmonize with, and conciliate those with whom I unfortunately disagree on this particular point. Concession and compromise, among those who have the same common object, are often indispensable duties. It is by this sentiment, sir, that I am actuated. We should not

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

dispute among ourselves. It is by union and harmony only that we can serve our constituents. I, for one, will pledge myself that I will furnish no cause of schism amongst our friends. py, said he, in indulging the hope that several of my friends, with whom I have acted on this subject, and who have, I doubt not, been influenced by the same motives with myself, will concur with me in the motion I am about to make. Under these impressions. I move you, sir, to reconsider the vote, of Friday last, on the resolution imposing a tax on salt. Mr Nelson said he should feel no disposition to object to any gentleman reconsidering any vote which he had given, if it could be said that it had been given with precipitancy, or without mature deliberation. But, when he reflected that this question was not for the first time before the House; that at an early period of the session, two distinct propositions of this nature had been rejected after debate; that the same question had been again discussed in Committee of the whole House; and that the mind of every man was brought to bear upon it, and that it was then decided that a tax should not be laid—he could find no apology for reconsidering that discussion. He found no apology in the reason assigned, that its rejection was evidence of an indisposition to assert the rights of the Government. I do not, said Mr. N., feel myself amenable to this censure, because, let it be known, that when I take a tax away from one subject, I shall not hesitate a moment to impose it to an equal amount on another. Away, then, with the idea that, by the rejection of this item, we shall break up the plan of the Government; more especially, let not such an argument have weight, when I shall show that this tax is incapable of producing any material revenue whatever. s a Mr. N. said he had, indeed, been astonished to hear agentleman say that the rejection of this item would break up the whole system; that there was such symmetry in the report that, take away but one member, and the whole fabric was dissolved. The symmetry of the system had not so forcibly struck him. He saw deformity in it. He saw a heterogeneous mass of discordant materials mixed up together; but not so intimately interwoven that they cannot be separated. Let this item be omitted, as it may be, without a derangement of the system, and the amount expected to accrue from it be levied on some article more productive, which will raise a revenue more adequate to the end which it is the object of the report to attain. - This is the third time this session that the question now under consideration has been presented to the House. I ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means (said Mr. N.) what is the object of this proposition? Whether it be intended as a protecting duty on the manufacture of salt, or as a source of revenue, an unfailing certain source of revenue in time of pressure ? If we are told that the object is to impose this as a protecting duty on the manufacture of this article, I will ask of the gentleman where is

I am hap.

the necessity of giving this protection ? Is there any ol. necessary for carrying on salt works 7 Do they require any great complication of machinery 7 Let gentlemen turn their eye to Turk's Island, the great source from which supplies of salt are drawn. Receptacles for the salt water are dug on the open beach, where the salt is formed by the process of evaporation. The salt is then heaped up, and thence carried to the store-houses. The same process takes place in the manufacture of that article on our seacoast. It is true that at the saline works on our frontier boilers are used. But, is there such a peculiar complication of machinery required, involving great expense, that the Government is to hold out encouragement exclusively to this manufacture? Permit me to say, even if were so, it will sufficiently feel the protecting influence of the Government. The moment we are involved in war all foreign-salt will be excluded, except that which comes into the country indirectly and improperly. A sufficient bounty on manufacture will be afforded by the monopoly of supply such a state of things will foster. This, therefore, cannot be considered as a protecting duty; it cannot be considered in that light, when we find it incorporated in a system of taxation, which, we are told, is necessary to raise a revenue to enable us to wield the energies of the nation against a foreign enemy. But, when I turn my eyes to the subject of this tax on salt, which is the source whence it is ealculated that a revenue of $400,000 is to be derived, I am content to discard the idea that the

'salt tax is a tax on the poor man; that he who

eats but little meat must mingle with the salt he uses the reflection, that he pays a tax for this necessary of life, of which, from the absence of other condiments which the more affluent use, he consumes more than they. Putting all this out of view, I will view this question merely on the ground of a tax productive of revenue to the amount which is calculated to be drawn from it. What, asked Mr. N., is the greatest revenue which has ever been drawn from salt 7 Five hundred thousand dollars, in the most prosperous times of commerce, is the utmost which this tax would produce. Whence is salt imported 7 From Spain, St. Ubes, Portugal, Liverpool, and a small portion from the West Indies. Viewing this question as a statesman ought to look at it, I would not calculate on the European portion of this trade; I would calculate on the whole European supply being precluded, and our import of salt confined to the West Indies—the total of which is not a tenth part of the amount we usually import. In 1807, the revenue of the United States amounted to upwards of sixteen millions of dollars. According to the estimate of the Secretary of the Treasury, of the revenue derivable from commerce during a war, our revenue from that source will be reduced to about one-eighth part of what it was during the year 1807. The amount of salt imported into the United States during the year 1807, was about three and a third millions of bushels. If we only

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

allow the importation of salt to be reduced in the same proportion as the general import—that is to say, about one-eighth of the repeal importation— we shall find on calculation that the quantity imported will be about four hundred and seventeen thousand eight hundred bushels, on which a tax of twenty cents per bushel will produce only eighty-three thousand five hundred and sixty dollars. But the chairman of the Committee of Wavs and Means has calculated the revenue derivable from this source at four hundred thousand dollars I do not believe, sir, as our importation will be reduced seven-eighths, that you will get fifty thousand from it. Fo then out of the argument the operation of this tax upon an indispensable necessary of life; the argument in its support, bottomed on the revenue it will produce, must fail; it will not produce one-eighth of the estimated amount. But suppose my calculations are not certainly accurate; suppose it only doubtful whether the source be fallible whence a revenue of four hundred thousand dollars is estimated to be drawn. Is it the policy of a wise statesman to lay a tax, the productiveness of which is doubtful ? If the revenue be deficient when the pinch of war comes, what are we to resort to as a substitute 7 I would much prefer, to this tax, to add five hundred thousand dollars to the amount of the direct tax, which would, at least, not be drawn from the hard-working mass of the community, but from richer subjects. It would be wise to resort to this mode of raising a revenue in preference to the precarious tax on salt, because, like that, it cannot fail—the land is a pledge for the payment of the tax; the salt is not here to be pledged, and never may be. I ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, whether it is intended to connect with this duty the former drawback or bounty on its exportation; for, if we do that, I find, by turning to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, that the bounty on its exportation will amount to $188,000, double or treble the whole revenue which will probably be received from this tax, and more than could, in any view, be derived from the importations into the country whence the fishermen sail who have heretofore received this bounty. I cannot believe, sir, that the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has not viewed this subject as I have ; that he has not examined into the amount of our usual importation in the most prosperous times. I cannot believe that that astute and discerning gentleman has not turned his eyes to this subject, so as to see what revenue this tax will produce; that he cannot see, if the revenue from commerce is to experience a depreciation from sixteen millions to two millions five hundred thousand dollars, the importation of salt must be at least proportionably diminished. He must, then, view this tax as a protecting duty on salt, and not as a source of revenue. I am against affording this protecting duty at the expense of the poor, the laborious, and the industrious; those who earn their bread by the sweat of their brows. 12th CoN. 1st SEss.-36 *

I object to it because salt is an article involving no great expense in manufacture, and because there is no justice in exclusively patronizing this manufacture, when others do not experience the favor of the Government. I trust, therefore, sir, that those gentlemen who at our last sitting were convinced this duty ought not to be imposed, will stand firm to their posts, and not be driven from them by any alarm excited about abandoming the Government, or weakening the measures which the exigency calls for. I have no fear for myself of any such imputation; for, be it remembered, that whilst I discard this tax, as unworthy the consideration of a statesman, I am prepared to substitute for it some one more efficient and better calculated to answer the purpose for which it is designed. Mr. Bacon said, that having heretofore given his views on the subject pretty much at large, he had refrained from entering into the discussion, which had taken place on the subject a day or two ago; and did not propose now to say much upon it. It has been said, that this was a tax bearing peculiarly hard on the middle country. Mr. B. said he acknowledged that he considered it a tax operating on the middle country more than our seaboard or on the Western frontier. But there were various other taxes proposed by this report, which had an important and heavy bearing on the people of the seaboard and cities, and on the people of the Western waters, by which the people of the Western country would be comparatively little affected. I am, said Mr. B., what is called a middle country man, living one hundred and fifty miles from the seaboard; and it would be far from me to impose heavy taxes on such people unnecessarily. The drawbacks, tonnage duty, and stamps, will operate almost exclusively on the seaboard ; and the people of the cities will pay their full proportion of the internal taxes. The direct tax will operate with peculiar severity on the Western country, it may be. Mr. Wright.—Mr. Speaker: I regret that the honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. Gholson,) who on Friday last voted against the tax of twenty cents on salt, should now propose the reconsideration of that subject, with a view of fixing this unequal, and of course unjust tax on the people of the United States, or rather on a part of them; however, I hope, that all the “outof-door management,” which the gentleman politely calls the interference of his friends, will not produce such a result, particularly as the gentleman has informed us that he is not dissatisfied with his own vote. Sir, when a subject is fully and fairly discussed and decided, gentlemen ought to acquiesce in the decision of a majority, the vital principle of a Republican Government. The reconsideration of a subject reflects on the House for the immaturity of their decision, and ought not hastily to be adopted. Sir, are we a set of weathercocks, to be turned about by every idle wind? No! I hope not, let it blow from what quarter it may. Are we ready to present the un

« FöregåendeFortsätt »