[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mr. INGERSOLL said: I desire to make the point of order that when the Clerk has finished reading one section it is not proper for him to commence the reading of the next section without making any pause.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is entirely out of order. It is not in order to interrupt the reading.

The Clerk concluded the reading of the

Sect 10th. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will call the attention of the committee to the fact that every section begins with the distinct words “And be it further enacted,’’ the reading of which is a proclamation on the part of the Clerk that a new section has been reached. The Chair cannot instruct the Clerk to wait at the close of each section for gentlemen to offer amendments. It is not usual in committee. Mr. INGERSOLL. I make the point of order that the Clerk ought to stop at the end of each section instead of reading right along in a monotonous tone. That is not reading the bill by sections. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair overrules the point of order. The Clerk has read the bill, as is usual with the clerks of the House, ver distinctly, and each section is prefaced wit the words “And be it further enacted,” which is notice to gentlemen that a new section has been reached. Does the gentleman appeal? Mr. INGERSOLL. I do ; and I want to say to the Committee of Ways and Means— The CHAIRMAN. No debate is in order. Mr. FARNSWORTH. Will the Chair state what the question of order is on which the appeal is taken? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is really at * loss to know what the point of order is, although he has consented to entertain the “ppeal, . The point of order seems to be that the Clerk should adopt a new mode of reading in the House, which is rather an amendment to the rules than a point of order. Mr. GARFIELD. I would like to inquire whether this is a parliamentary point at ail? Air INGERSOLL. I appeal from that Josion of the Chair. * CHAIRMAN. An appeal being taken from the decision of the Chair, the question 18, Slal the decision of the Chair stand as the Jonent of the committee 7 *question was taken; and upon a division there Woodyes 37; noes 4; no quorum voting. Mr. NGERSOLL. I call for tellers. Mr. FARNSWORTH. It seems to me there *!" so thing as a point of order pending. o,GARFIELD. i rise to a point of order. * Chair is not authorized to appoint tellers "ithout they have been called for by the requi*"...or Lone fish of a quorum. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is authorized to) "PPoint tellers when no quorum votes. But o 9|air is of opinion that the point of order of the gentleman from illinois [Mr. INGER*}] is no point of order at all. * INGERSOLL. That is a difference of "Poio),between the Chair and myself. o, The Chair will decline - ln any further in or point of oy ther proceedings under the **, INGERSOLL. I desire to offer an *don; to section six of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. That section having . Passed, it requires unanimous consent to o back to it for the purpose of amending it. songBissoul. Well, I ask unanimous 9bjection was made b W sw y several members. Mr. BECK. Does i. require unanimous

***" offer any amendment to section six at this time?

!he CHAIRMAN. It does Mr. BECK. I could to my reasons why * ‘9.9ffer an amendment. anio CHAIRMAN. That is objected to, 18 not in order. Mr. ROBINSON. I desire to offer an amend. * "...soglion seven of this bill. no CHAIRMAN. That requires unani. *** consent, the section having been passed.

Objection was made by several members.

Mr. ROBINSON. Then I insist upon the count being made and declared upon the appeal of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. INGER

soli...] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has declined to entertain any further proceedings under that point of order or appeal. Mr. CHANLER. I rise to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. r. CHANLER. Owing to the confusion in the Hall at the time the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. INGERSoLL] was on the floor, the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. BEck, J who had arisen for the purpose of offering an amendment, was cut off by a misunderstanding on that account. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair submitted to the Committee of the Whole whether, under the circumstances, the gentleman from Kentucky should be allowed to offer his amendment. Mr. KNOTT. I desire to make a statement in reference to this matter. The CHAIRMAN. There being objection to the amendment, there is nothing before the committee. Mr. CHANLER. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. What decision of the Chair does the gentleman appeal from ? Mr. Šošiš. The decision in reference to the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. BECK.] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair asked unanimous consent for the gentleman from Kentucky to offer his amendment, and objection was made. The Chair has made no decision from which an appeal can be taken. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky. I hope gentlemen will consent to go back to the sixth section for the purpose of amendment. There is no disposition on the part of any one to break up the committee; but we want to olfer some amendments in good faith. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will again ask if unanimous consent will be given to allow the gentleman from Kentucky to move an amendment to section six of this bill. Objection was again made by several mem

erS. Mr. CHANLEIR. I move that the commit. tee now rise. The question was taken; and upon a division there were-ayes 14, noes 47 ; no quorum voting. Mr. CHAN LER. I call for tellers. Mr. BROOMALL. Does it require a quorum to decide the question upon the motion that the committee rise ? The CHAIRMAN. It does not; but the discovery of the absence of a quorum arrests the transaction of business. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask that the roll b

e called. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will first appoint tellers upon the motion that the committee now rise. Mr. CHANLER and Mr. BRoom ALL were appointed tellers. The committee again divided ; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 18, noes 55. . The CHAIRMAN. No quorum having voted, the Chair will, under the rule, direct the Clerk to call the roll. The roll was called; and the following members failed to answer to their names: Messrs. Adams, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Axtell, Bailey, Baldwin. Banks, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Boyer, Bromwell, Brooks, Buckland, Burr, Butler, Cake, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Cook, Cornell, Covode, Cullom, Dawes, Delano, Dodge, Donnelly, Eckley, Eggleston, Eidridge, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Finney, Fox, Glossbrenner, travely, Griswold, Ilaight. Halsey, Harding, Hill, Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Rich: ard D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Humphrey, Hunter. Johnson, Jones, Judd, Kelley, Kelsey, Kerr, Kitchen, Laflin, William o Lincoln, Loan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Marshall, Marvin, McCullough. McKee, Morrell, Morrissey, Mungen, Newcomb. Nicholson, Nunn, Paine, Perham, Pheirs, Plauts, Polalud, Polsley, Ramdall, Ross, Sawyer,

Selye, Shanks, Sitgreaves, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, John Trimble, Van Aernám, Van Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Wan Wyck, Ward, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihur B. Washburne, Welkers.William Williams, Stephen F. Wiison, Windom, Wood, Woodbridge, and Woodward. The committee then rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. BLAINE reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union having had under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 1284) to change and more effectually secure the collection of internal taxes on distilled spirits and tobacco, and to amend the tax on banks, had found itself without a quorum; that he had directed the roll to be called, and reported the absentees to the House. Mr. SCHENCK.

I move a call of the

House. Mr. FARNSWORTH. Has not a quorum answered 2 The SPEAKER. A quorum has not answered.

Mr. ALLISON. I think that by the time the absentees shall have been called a quorum will be present.

The motion of Mr. SchENck was agreed to.

The SPEAKER directed the roll to be called, when the following-named members failed to answer to their names: Messrs. Adams, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Axtell, Bailey, Baldwin, Banks, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman, Éenjamin, Benton, Bingham, Boyer, Broomwell, Brooks, Burr, Butler, Cake, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Cook, Covode, Cullom, Dawes, Dodge, i)onneil , Eckley, Eldridge, Ferry, Fields, Finney, Fox, Glossbrenner, Gravely, Griswold, Halsey, Hil), Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Huttood. Richari's). Hobard. Hulburd, Humphrey, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kelley, Kelsey, Kerr, Kitchen, Laflin, William Lawrence, Łincoln, Loan, Loughridge, Mallory, Marshall, Marvin, McCullough, MelSee, Morrell, Morrissey, Newcomb, Nunn, Paine, Perhan, Phelps, Poland, Randall, Ross, Seiyo,Shanks, Sitgreaves. Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stone, Taffe, Thomas, John Trimble, Van Aernatu, Van Auken, Burt Wan Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Wyck, Ward, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. wo. Welker, William Willianus, Stephen F. Wilson, Wood, Woodbridge, and Woodward. Mr. PRUYN. I move to dispense with further proceedings under the call. Several MEMBERs. There is no quorum present. Mr. SCHENCK. I should like to know, if we dispense with further proceedings under the call, what the temper of the members will be as to going on with the bill without calling for a division and again breaking up the committee. If a division is to be insisted upon when gentlemen have been voted down by those who are here we might as well, perhaps, go through with this call. I should be glad to have further proceedings under the call dispensed with if we could get along with our business in committee; but it seems to be difficult to get gentlemen to stay here and consent to be bound by the vote of a majority of the committee in attendance. . Mr. INGERSOLL. There will be no objection if consent be given to go back to section six. The proposition which I desire to submit will not occupy five minutes. Mr. MULLINS: I cannot consent to that. The motion of Mr. PRUYN was not agreed to. The SPEAKER. The doors will now be closed, and the Clerk will call the names of absentees that excuses may be presented. Mr. MUNGEN. Is it in order to move that the House now adjourn? The SPEAKER. It is. Mr. MUNGEN. I make that motion. The motion was not agreed to. The Clerk proceeded to call the names of absentees. GeoRGE M. ADAMs. Mr. KNOTT. My colleague, Mr. ADAMs, ls §etained at his home by sickness. The SPEAKER. If there be no objection Mr. ADAMs will be excused. There was no objection.

[blocks in formation]

JAMEs M. AshLEY. Mr. BOUTWELL, I desire to state that Mr. AshLEY, of Ohio, has been called home by the serious illness of a child. The SPEAKER. Mr. AshLEY has leave of absence, and his name will be omitted from the warrant which may be issued for absentees. SAMUEL B. AxtELL. No excuse offered. ALEXANDER. H. BAILEY. No excuse offered. John D. BALDw1N. No excuse offered. NATHANIEL P, BANKs. No excuse offered. DEMAs BARNEs. No excuse offered. WILLIAM H. BARNUM. No excuse offered. FERNANDo C. BEAMAN. Mr. BLAIR. My colleague, Mr. BEAMAN, is sick and not able to be here. The SPEAKER. If there is no objection, Mr. BEAMAN will be excused. There was no objection.

John F. BENJAMIN. No excuse offered. JAcob BENTON. No excuse offered. John A. BINGHAM. No excuse offered. BENJAMIN M. Boy E.R. No excuse offered. HENRY P. H. BRomwell. No excuse offered. JAMES BRooks. No excuse offered. BENJAMIN F. BUTLER. No excuse offered. ALBERT J. BURR. Mr. RAUM. Mr. BURR is absent by leave of the House. The SPEAKER. That is correct, and his name will be excluded from the warrant. HENRY L. CAKE, No excuse offered. Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, Mr. BROMWELL had leave of absence for ten days. Whether that leave has expired or not I do not know. The SPEAKER. He will be regarded as having leave of absence. John C. CHURCHILL. Mr. POMEROY. Mr. CHURCHILL has leave of absence. The SPEAKER. His name will be excluded from the warrant. READER W. CLARKE. The SPEAKER. Mr. CLARKE, of Ohio, is absent on leave. SIDNEY CLARKE. No excuse offered. AMAsa Cobb. No excuse offered. BURtoN C. Cook. Mr. J U DD. Mr. Cook is in ill health, and he requested me to ask the House to grant him leave of absence. I forgot it yesterday, and ask it now. The SPEAKER. It cannot be granted now. Mr. JUDD. I move that he be excused. The motion was agreed to. John Covode. No excuse offered. SHELBy M. CULLom. No excuse offered. HENRY L. DAwes. No excuse offered. IGNATIUs DoNNELLY. No excuse offered. GRENville M. DoDGE. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa has indefinite leave of absence. Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. Mr. Covode is at the door, and I move that he be allowed to come in. The SPEAKER. The doors are closed by order of the House, and he cannot be admitted at this time. EPHRAIM R. EcKLEY. No excuse offered. CHARLEs A. ELDRIDGE. No excuse offered. THoMAs W. FERRY. No excuse offered. William C. FIELDs. No excuse offered. DARwin A. FINNEY. No excuse offered. John Fox. No excuse offered. ADAM J. GlossBRENNER. Mr. GETZ. Mr. GLossBRENNER is absent by leave of the House: The SPEAKER. His name will not be included in the warrant. Joseph J. GRAveLY. No excuse offered. John A. GR1swold. No excuse offered. GeoRGE A. HALSEY. No excuse offered. John HILL. No excuse offered. BENJAMIN F. HoPKINs. No excuse offered. Julius Hotchkiss. No excuse offered. Asahel W. HUBBARD. No excuse offered. Richard D. HUBBARD. . No excuse offered. CALVIN T. Hulburd. No excuse offered.

Mr. WASPIBURN, of Indiana. Mr. HUN-
TER is absent by leave of the House.
JAMEs A. Johnson. No excuse offered.
THoMA's L. Jon Es, No excuse offered.
Mr. MERCUR. Mr. KELLEY was obliged
to leave the House by illness, and I move that
he be excused,
The motion was agreed to.

WILLIAM H. KELSEY. No excuse offered. Michael C. KERR. No excuse offered. BETHUEL. M. KITCHEN. Mr. HUBBARD, of West Virginia. Mr. KITCHEN is absent on leave. The SPEAKER. His name will be excluded from the warrant. ADDIsox H. LAFLIN. Mr. FERRISS. Mr. LAFLIN is absent on leave. WILLIAM L.Awrexce. Mr. BUCKLAND. Mr. LAwkENCE is absent on leave. WILLIAM S. LINcolN. No excuse offered. BENJAMIN F. Los N. No excuse offered. WILLIAM Lou GHRIDGE, Mr. HiGBY. I think Mr. LoughRIDGE is absent on leave. The SPEAKER. He was in the House to-day. Mr. HIGBY. I will not be positive. SAMUEL S. MARSHALL. Mr. WAN TRUMP. Mr. MARsh ALL is absent by leave of the House. JAMES M. MARVIN. No excuse offered. Hutt AM McCULLough. Mr. ARCHER. He is absent by leave of the House. SAMUEL. McKEE. No excuse offered. DANIEI, J. MoRRELL. No excuse offered. John MoRRIssey. No excuse offered. DAVID A. NUNN. No excuse offered. HALBERT E. PAIN). Mr. SAW Y Elt. Mr. PAINE is absent on account of ill health. I move that he be excused. The motion was agreed to. SIDNEY PERHAM. Mr. PETERS. Mr. PERHAM is absent by leave of the House. CHARLEs E. PhELPs. No excuse offered. LUKE P. Poi..AND. No excuse offered. SAMUEL J. RANDALL. Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. RANDALI, is at home in Philadelphia on a matter of very great importance. I move that he be excused. The motion was agreed to.

LEwis W. Ross. No excuse offered. LEWIS SELYE. No excuse offered. John P. C. SHANKs. No excuse offered. HENRY H. STARKwKATHER. Mr. TWICHELL. Mr. STARKwe ATHER was in the committee this forenoon, but he is quite sick, and said he was unable to be present this evening. I move that he be excused. The motion was agreed to. AARoN F. STEVENs. No excuse offered. THADDEUs STEvens. Mr. SPALDING. be excused. The motion was agreed to. FREDERick Stone. Mr. ARCHER. My colleague, Mr. Stone, has leave of absence until Thursday morning. John TAFFE. No excuse offered. FRANCIS THowAs. Mr. ROBINSON. be excused. The motion was agreed to. JoBN TRIMBLE.

Mr. MAYNARD. My colleague, Mr. TRIMBLE, informed me on Saturday night that he was required to go home by his affairs, and requested that I would ask leave of absence for him. I am not confident that I have fulfilled the commission he assigned me by askin leave. If he has not leave; it is my fault, .# not his own. I move that he be excused.

I move that Mr. STEvens

I move that Mr. THoMAs

JAMEs M. HuMPHREY. No excuse offered.

The motion was agreed to.

has leave of absence.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is correct,
DANIEI, M. WAN AUKER. No excuse offered.
The SPEAKER. Mr. WAN HoRN is absent
on leave.
Robert T. WAN Horn.
Mr. ANDERSON. My colleague, Mr. Wax
HoRN, is sick, I move that he be excused.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. KETCHAM. My colleague, Mr. Wax
WYGK, is absent on account of sickness. I
move that he be excused.
The motion was agreed to.

HAMILTON WARD. No excuse offered. CADWALADER. C. WASHBURN. No excuse offered. ELIHU B. WASHBURNE. Mr. BLAIN.E. l move that Mr. WASHBURNE be excused. He was granted leave of absence from evening sessions some time since on ac: count of the state of his health, The motion was agreed to.

[blocks in formation]

The SPEAKER, The Chair will state to the House that there are members enough outside the doors to make up a quorum. " admitted. Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I move that further proceedings in the call be dispensed with: The motion was agreed to; and furtho Po". ceedings in the call were dispensed with and the doors were reopened. Mr. SCHENCE. I submit the following resolution: der the - edings under effo *ooffo. §: be dire!" to make out a full list of the absentees, notio site their names those who are absent by leay'." . itous, or who have been excused, and topolis". same conspicuously in two newspapers of this city other than the Daily Globe. The SPEAKER. That requires unani" Consent. Mr. Robinson and others objected, Mr. Sosii; Nok. "Well, I will withdraw. now. I offered it with a view of draw"; * attention of the country to the record. " o it may be known who are here and who a not. - - ll that Mr. PRUYN. The Globe publishes?"" aS lomation, without any such resolut” that.

No excuse

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]


Mr. FARNSWORTH. I call for the regu. lar order of business. The SPEAKER, The regular order of business, under the order of the House, is the consideration of the tax bill in Committee of the Whole. Accordingly the House, pursuant to order, resumed the consideration in Committee of the Whole (Mr. BLAINE in the chair) of House bill No. 1284, to change and more effectually secure the collection of internal taxes on dis. tilled spirits and tobacco, and to amendothe tax on banks. Mr. INGERSOLL. I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment to section six of this bill. Objection was made by several members. The CHAIRMAN. Objection being made to going back to sections which have been o: the Clerk will resume the reading of the bill. Mr. ROBINSON. I would suggest that the Clerk announce the number of the section when a new section is reached. . The CHAIRMAN. The number of the sec. tion forms no part of the bill. The Clerk reads very distinctly, and reads at the beginning of every section the enacting words, “And be it further enacted.” Mr. ROBINSON. We will all acknowledge that the Clerk reads very distinctly. But still I would suggest that the Clerk commence the reading of the section by its number. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will resume the reading of the bill. The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That immediately after the passage of this act every assessorshali proteel, at the expense of the distisler, with the aid of $o competent and skillful person, to be designated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to make survey of each distillery registered or intended to be Registered for the production of spirits in his district, to estimate and determine its true producing capacity, and in like mannershall estimate and determine the opacity of any such distillery as may hereafter be *ogistered in said district, a written report of which shall be made in triplicate, signed by the assessor and to person, aiding in making the same, one copy of which shall be furnished to the distiller, one retained & the assessor, and the other immediatiy trans oted to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shiji at *o toeho satisfied that such report of the capacity *...* listillery is in any respect" incorrect or needs revision, he shall direct the assessor to make in like onner another survey of said distillery; the report of said survey shall be executed in triplicate and *posited as hereinbefore provided. And, in like oanner, and under like restrictions and provisions, !. shall be ascertained, recorded, and reported : *"opacity of every establishment now existing, or **, only be hereafter commenced, for redistilling

distilled spirits. Mr. BOUTWELL. I move to amend the ost clause of this section by striking out the words “at the expense of the distiller.” My *sons for this amendment are twofold; in the first place, I think the Government should Poy all these expenses, and my second and “hief reason is that I dislike the relation which * likely to be created by the payment of *oney by a distiller to a public officer. This '..." small matter, but for one I prefer that the *ernment should pay the expenses of this laspection. Mr. SCHENCK. There should be some Poision for the payment of the expense of *P*ction. I would therefore suggest to the gentleman to modify his amendment so as to strike out the word * distiller” and insert the words “United States.” Mr. BQUTWELL. I accept the suggestion, *},tuodify my amendment accordingly, he amendment, as modified, was agreed to. ! Mr. ROBINSON. I move to further amend his section by striking out after the words * . United States,” just inserted, the words with the aid of some competent and skillful Poon, to be designated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.” I make that proposion because there is no provision made for the person to be called in, unless in some subse9°ont part of the bill which I have not yet seen; *it would be difficult for the Commissioner to *gnate some person who i; not an officer.

If my amendment should prevail, then the assessor or the assistant assessor, who is the proper person, could make this inspection.

Mr. SCHENCK. I think it very necessary that some skillful person should be employed, even at some expense, so that this service should be correctly performed. . Mr. ROBINSON. If this is not amended in some way there will be infinite confusion.

The amendment of Mr. RoaiNson was not agreed to.

No further amendment was offered. The next section was read, as follows:

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful for any *Ssessor to assess a special tax upon any distiller, or for the collector to collect the same, or for any distiller who has heretofore paid a special tax as such to continue the business of distilling, until such distiller shall have given the bond required by this act, and shall have complied with the provisions of law having reference to the registration and survey of distilleries, and having reference to the arrangement and construction of distilleries and the premises connected therewith, in manner and as required by this act; nor shall it be lawful for any assessor of internal revenue to assess, or for any collector to collect, any special tax for distilling on any premises distant less than six hundred feet from any premises authorized to be used for rectifying, nor shall any assessor assess er collector collect any special tax for rectifying distilled spirits on any premises distant less than six hundred feet from any authorized distillery. Where ever, at the date of the passage of this act, any rectifying establishment shall exist within six hundred feet of any distillery, the machinery, tools, implements, and apparatus for carrying on the business of restifying and of distilling, respectively, shall be appraised in such manner as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may prescribe, and the assessor shall immediately notify the distiller or rectifier having the least amount invested in machinery, tools, implelments, and apparatus that his business of distilling

or rectifying, as the case may be, must be discontiu

ued at such place within thirty days; and if any distiller or rectifier shall fail to discontinue such business on the premises within thirty days after the receipt of such notice, he shall be liable to all penalties, forfeitures, and punishments incurred for carrying on the business of a distiller or rectifier without having paid the special tax required by law. . In all cases where a distillery and rectifying establishulent, olistant the one from the other less than six hundred feet, are occupied by the same person, said person shall have the right to elect which business shall be discontinued at that place; and if any premises used for distilling be distant less than six hundred feet from any prelaises used for rectifying, but in a different collection district, it shall be the duty of the assessors of both of the adjoining districts intnediately on the passage of this act to report the fact to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who shall require the appraisement herein provided for, and shall direct which business shall be discontinued, and shall notify the assessor of the district in which such premises are situated in order tu at the same may be discontinued as herein before provided. In all cases where rectifying or distilling shall be discontinued under the provisions of this section, and the time for which the special tax for rectifying or distilling was paid remains unexpired, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to refund out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, on requisition of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, a proportionate part of any sum originally, paid for special tax therefor, which shall be in such ratio to the whole sum paid as the unexpired time for which special tax was paid shall bear to the whole term for which the same was paid. Any collector or assessor of internal revenue who shall fail to perform any duty imposed by this section, or shall assess or collect any special tax in violation of its provisions, shall be liable to a penalty of $5,000 for each offense.

Mr. BUTLER. I move to amend this section, so far as it provides for the distance between distilling and rectifying establishments, by striking out “six hundred feet” and inserting “two hundred feet.” I will state my reason for that aunendment.

I am well aware that the distance “six hundred feet” was prescribed to prevent fraud; and if mere distance would do it, and that were all, I would not move my amendment. But the Committee of the Whole, I think, will see that great loss might accrue to individuals without any proportionate gain to the Government. This section provides that where there are two or more distilleries, or two rectifying establishments or a distillery and one or more rectifying establishments, within six hundred feet of each other, then those which are worth least shall be given up and abandoned in favor of the larger one at the cost of the owner. That, of course, crowds out the small men to the beuefit of the large ones. Perhaps that is wise enough if you are going to crowd out either.

Let me suppose a case. There is a street upon which there are three rectifying estab

lishments and one distillery within five or six hundred feet. There may be good-will attached to these establishments. But this section, as it now stands, would crowd out the small establishments, and leave the whole of the goodwill and business in the hands of the larger one; all for the purpose of getting these establishments a few feet further apart. Now, it will be a great deal easier to prevent a man from carrying his whisky six hundred feet than it will be to destroy the business of two or three men on the opposite side of the same street, for instance. This section provides that the distiller, or rectifier, having the least amount invested in machinery, tools, &c., shall give up his business, lose his machinery, and surrender his good-will to the one having a larger amount invested. ... I do not think there is gain enough in saving frauds by the distance to compensate for the loss to the individual. I think two hundred feet between these establishments will be ample space to allow the revenue officer to pass. We ought to have the space wide enough for that, to see that no harm is done, and that will save the harm in a degree. I think the Committee of Ways and Means will agree with me that in view of the great difficulties, the great losses, and the great wrongs that will result from this section as it now stands, it will be better to have it amended by reducing this distance from six hundred feet to two hundred feet, or in some other manner which will give relief. Mr. SCHENCK. I am well aware that this is a pretty hard rule to be enforced; but it is one of those very important rules without the enforcement of which and provision for which in the law I very much doubt whether we will make our law effective in all respects. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER} says those establishments ought to be far enough apart to permit revenue officers to pass between them. Sir, they need to be a little further apart than that. We have discovered that pipes have been laid under buildings, under streets, &c., in order to connect establishments of this kind. And one great means of security against such attempts at fraud is to get those buildings reasonably far apart. I was myself of the opinion they should be twelve hundred feet apart to break up all possibility of connection. The committee settled upon six hundred feet. After an examination of a great many practices which prevailed I am satisfied with that distance. I hope it will not be made less. A provision has also been made where they are near together. I can state in behalf of the committee, while we have been appealed to most earnestly and urgently from some of the principal cities to make a provision of this kind, that while we require those hereafter to be erected to be six hundred feet apart, it is only reasonable we should let those who have gone into business to stand as they now are. That is, we shall permit those who have for the last four or five years, in nine cases out of ten, and I may say ninety out of a hundred, defrauded the Treasury, to go on, and let this only apply to those who are to go into business hereafter. Mr. BUTLER. If that is necessary, why not make the principal distiller who takes the business take the rest within six hundred feet? Mr. SCHENCK. ...We have not the power. Mr. BUTLER. Then do not license him. Mr. SCHENCK., We have not the power to make one man take another man's property. Mr. PRUYN. The reasoning of the chair. man of the Committee of Ways and Means is based on what has passed away. All these things were done when the tax was two dollars per gallon, on whisky, and now it is proposed in this bill to reduce the tax to fifty cents a gallon. The chairman's reasoning is confined to another condition of things than those provided for in this bill. All these evasions were resorted to when the tax was fixed at two dollars a gallon. Now, sir, I hold this provision to be most extraordinary. Here is a man who has acquired his property in the regular way. He has paid for it and owns it. This provision says that he shall not use it, and yet provides no just compensation whatever. There is no State of the Union, which would appropriate private property without compensation. The Constitution of the United States prohibits the taking of private property for public use without compensation. Yet, sir, you take this property, sweep it away from the man who owns it, and provide no compensation whatever. It strikes me that the proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER) is fair, that the larger one should be put to the election whether he will go on with the business and buy the smaller one out or permit the smaller one to buy him out. I am not prepared at this moment to offer an amendment that will meet this case; but I hope the committee will pass over this section so an amendment can be prepared. The principle enunciated by the gentleman from Massachusetts is unquestionably the right one. We should not deprive any man of the use of his property without making him just compensation there. for. But, as I have said, I am not prepared with the proper amendment. I move, therefore, that this section be passed over for the present. - Mr. LOGAN. If gentlemen had examined this section they would not have deemed it was necessary to amend it. What is the reason for any law” What is the reason for this? Now, sir, there is abundance of evidence to show that rectifying establishments, many of them, near distilleries, use pipes in connection with the cisterns of the distillery, in connection with the mash-tubs or the receiving cisterns, so as to run the whisky from the distillery into the rectify. ing establishment. Thensit is rectified in the


rectifying establishment; and under this and ||

the old law whenever whisky is rectified it goes upon the market as tax paid, the tax being compelled to be paid before it is rectified. Yet the gentlemen say this is a hardship. , Sir, it is no hardship. Honest men in this business ask that it shall be done. I have a document here from which I have already read, the proceedings of 1 he distillers’ convention, at which the rectifiers of every State of the Union were represented. it was composed of the best men in the business from the different cities and States. Now, these inen representing the distilling interest passed a resolution recommending that no license should be granted to any distillery upon the same premises with a rectifying establishment, or within six hundred feet of any premises used for rectify. ing. That is what the rectifiers themselves say we should do in order to prevent fraud. If they can stand it I do not think we should complain. Mr. PRUYN. Does the gentleman mean to assert that gentlemen engaged in any business have a right to ask this to be done—to ask us to annihilate the rights of private property? Mr. LOGAN. No, sir; I do not say they have a right to ask Congress to do any more than any other citizens have a right to ask. But they held a convention and passed resolutions determining for themselves what they || thought would be necessary to protect them against the frauds of these illicit distillers. But outside of that, I put this to the House, not as an argument, but to show that there is a kind of anxiety here to do more for these men than they ask to be done for them. Now,

[blocks in formation]

having his two establishments in juxtaposition, Mr. PRUY N. I would like to say a word || came before us and said that he wanted us to in answer to that. strike out the proposition that the distiller The CHAIRMAN. Debate is exhausted. should be required to own the property in fee Mr. BUTLER, 1 withdraw the amendment, \l on which his distillery is erected, and he also and move to add “fifty,” a formal amendment, objected to this six hundred feet proposition, so as to allow debate. I am not convinced

because he said he had invested $50,000 in an even by my friend from Illinois, [Mr. o: or my friend from New York, [Mr. GR1swold, still less by the resolution of the large distill: ers in the whisky convention. I understand now where this proposition comes from. It comes from the large distillers and rectifiers, who propose to crush out the little ones. Precisely that and nothing more. Mr. LOGAN. Allow me a question. This does not prevent distillers from being close together, nor the rectifying establishments being close together, but prevents the distilleries being close to the rectifying establishments. So, therefore, it cannot be crushing out the little ones. Mr. BUTLER. I understand it perfectly. The gentleman has not made it any clearer. If there be any rectifying establishment within six hundred feet of any distillery then the ene that is less in amount—and the rectifying establishments are always the largest—has a right to crush out the other without paying any damages, compensation, or giving him any relief whatever. Now, I say it is unjust, unfair, and unchristian for us to legislate to destroy one man's property for the benefit of another without counpensation. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that if you give a license to a large rectifier, which, by the terms of the law, takes away the property of the smaller one, you should make him take the property at a valuation of his neighbor that he is going to crush out. My friend from Ohio says that cannot be done. Let us see, What can you say to the large establishment? You can say, “Sir, you shall not have your license, which crowds out your neighbor from his business, unless you take all the distillery estab lishments within six hundred feet.” Is not

that right? Mr. Tracey, mentioned to us, I | establishment when se

have no doubt would like to have all the suiall distillers wiped out. The large rectifiers are the very men who want to crush out the small ones. That is part of the game. Now, then, the least I desire is, if you are going to kill these small men for the benefit of the large ones, let the large men pay for the property they destroy. I, for one, will not stand in this committee without raising my voice against taking one man's property for the benefit of another without compensation. Mr. AlllSON. I cannot see the difference in effect between the proposition Mr. FARNSWORTH. Debate is exhausted on the amendment, I believe. The CHAIRMAN. It is not. The gentleman from Iowa is replying to an amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BUTLER, I withdraw the last amendment.

stell gentlemen if you put your rectifying establishment within two hundred feet of your distillery all you have to do in the city is to attach a common hose and connect the rectifying establishment and the distillery together over the tops of the houses and with a syphon draw out every | particle of whisky from the tanks. It can be || Jone in the night. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. GRISWOLD. For the benefit of my friend, i will give him the evidence of one of the largest rectifiers and distillers in my own State. His name is Tracey. When the business was conducted in a legitimate way he paid into the Government Treasury over five hundred thousand dollars in nine months as tax on whisky manufactured by him. His evi

Mr. ALLISON. I object to the gentleman's withdrawing it. Mr. Chairman, I see no difference in principle between the proposition made by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER ] and the proposition of the Committee of Ways and Means. He is willing that the distillery and the rectifying establish. ment shall be separated two hundred feet from each other, but not six hundred feet. Now, I should like to know what difference there is between his proposition and that of the committee except in degree? Mr. BUTLER. The gentleman does not mean to misrepresent me? Mr. ALLISON. Certainly not. Mr. BUTLER. I put it at two hundred feet for the purpose of calling attention to the sub

alcohol distillery which would be destroyed if this law went into operation. . But he made his principal argument against the sixth section of the bill, which requires that every distiller shall own in see the property on which his dis. tillery is located; and he said, “If you allow that provision to remain in the bill | care not a fig about the other proposition in regard to rectifying establishments, because the effect of that section will be to drive the business of distillation out of the great cities where land is dear into the country where land is cheap." And he said, “If this proposition in the sixth section prevails my distillery and rectifying house must go out of the city of New York, because I cannot afford to invest the amount of money necessary to carry on business there where real estate is worth so much.' I be: lieve, sir, it is the wish of all those who desire to see the tax collected that the business of distillation shall be driven out of the great cities where all the frauds are committed. It is no hardship on the rectifier to be compelled to remove his rectifying house six hundred feet from a distillery, but all the evidence is that frauds have been committed by means of pipes extending from the cistern room of the distillery into the rectifying establishment underground and in various ways, so that the distilled spirits never reach the distillery wate: house at all, but go from the receiving cistern into the rectifying establishment, and thence” the market. Mr. INGERSOLL. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question? Mr. A.W.LISON. I will.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Have you any evideo that any fraud has been committed by to sion between a distillery and a rection;

[ocr errors]

Mr. ALLISON. I do not know that wo

have any evidence of it when separated two

hundred feet or one hundred and ninety-o" feet or one hundred and ninety-nine and § half feet. But we require that these distill: eries and rectifying establishments shall o be on the same square, in the same blo." buildings, but that they shall be separated by a Street or avenue. Here the hammer fell.] rodosio N. "i'move to amend the

amendment so as to make the distano so. hundred feet. Now, I have noticed the * ment of the distinguished gentleman from Mo sachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER, and, really o not see why it is that he should of Poo ". proposition to require that there shall be o distance between a distillery and a to: establishment and be in favor of two hun" feet. - hat Mr. BUTLER. I have said three times" I am not in favor of it. - in

Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, he is o opposed to six hundred feet. . It is well o to every gentleman here who looks the su ". honesty" and squarely in the face.” o business of making whisky, if the * o: to the Government upon it, must be in from the cities. Talk about making wo * the city of New York or Boston, bo. corn from the country where it is P. ten and twelve cents a bushel, and o: with the men who make it there in "* . the fields; it is useless for gentlemen." o with me that it can be done honestly * tax paid to the Government, for I know

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"our Government, by which the property of

a man Ina
Without compensation being made either by || hundred feet distant.
under the wall of a house a pipe was

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

not be done. Take Chicago as a criterion. | It costs about seven cents a gallon to take the corn from Chicago to the city of New York || before making it into whisky, while you can transport the whisky at about three cents a gallon. The difference in the cost of making || ibe whisky in the West and the cost of making || it in the city of New York, or any of our eastern cities, is about four cents per gallon. You cannot make whisky in a legitimate way in New York, Boston, or any of your eastern cities and compete with those who make it in the West. If the tax is honestly paid this business must be carried on not where ground is reckoned by the foot or the hundred feet, but where it is reckoned by the acre. In the West you do not find the distilleries in the large cities, but outside, near the large corngrowing sections. It is there that whisky can be made cheaply; and when the business is honestly carried on those who desire whisky in New York, Boston, &c., must send out there to get it. The more protection you can by legislation throw around this branch of business the better it will be, and the more taxes will be collected. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. PRUYN. Mr. Chairman, I entered upon this discussion supposing the question at issue to be that indicated in the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER, J not as to the particular distance which it may be proper should exist between the distillery and the rectifying establishment, but whether, when the two establishments are situated within a given distance of each other, the smaller should be sacrificed to the greater, That is the question involved here, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. ALLlson] has, it seems to me, been battling a shadow. do not make any point as to the proper distance, whether it be two hundred or five hundred or one thousand feet; but the question is whether when one man owns a property— Mr. LOGAN. I would like the gentleman to explain to the House, if he can, at what time this thing of putting the rectifying establishment close to the distillery began, whether it did not begin within a year or two, about the same time these frauds commenced 2 ... Mr. PRUYN. I know nothing about that; it is not the question involved here at all. The question of distance is a minor question. Mr. ALLISON. The gentleman says I have been “battling a shadow.” Why does he not o: a substantial amendment embracing 18 point? r, PRUYN. The question really presented here, and that which I propose to discuss, is this: if there are two establishments near to each other, one worth $10,000 and the other worth $9,000, shall the man owning the $9,000 establishment be required to close it up and sacrifice his property, while the man own. ing the $10,000 establishment is permitted to #3 on with his business? Is this just or right? The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. But. *] has put distinctly to the House the ques. on whether the license to the party owning the $10,000 establishment cannot and ought * be conditioned on his paying for the $",000 property. I hold that there is no moral right, no right under the established principles

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

y be sacrificed for public purposes

he Government or by the other party involved n the matter. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I wish to under. "d the gentleman's position, and therefore "ould like to ask him this question: does he *y the power of Congress to provide by law * no license shall be issued to a rectifier !ose establishment is within six hundred feet f a distillery? Mr. PRUYN. That is not the point at all. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. It is precisely the

Mr. PRUYN. The question which we have look at is not as to the extent of an arbitrary

five or ten years. Now, let me suppose a case the parallel of which can be found in any town

where distilling is carried on to any considerable extent. On one lot there is a distillery valued at $75,000. On another lot, within three hundred feet of that distillery, is a rectifying establishment worth $50,000. Both have been in operation ten years. They were not established to aid each other in defrauding the Government of its revenue. Both were established to do a legitimate business, (we have recognized the whisky business as legitimate by licensing it and collecting revenue from it.) By this bill it is proposed that a valuation of the two establishments shall be made, and that if the distillery shall be found to be worth more than the rectifying establishment the latter shall be confiscated. You do confiscate it if you deprive the owner of the use of his property for the purpose for which it was

[blocks in formation]

without expense. It is possible, I confess, to remove it; but you confiscate his property when you make him suffer $10,000 damages. I ask whether this is not taking private prop. erty for public use without compensation? Mr. LOGAN. J. What is the remedy? Mr. INGERSøLL, I am nothere to propose a remedy. If you will let the section pass over for the present we will prepare an amendment. We ought to protect the rectifier who has been doing an honest business. We ought certainly to stop a moment before we confiscate property worth perhaps $100,000 without any compeii. sation therefor. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask the gentleman where he gets the power for the regulations provided for rectifiers for the last three years or more? Mr. lNGERSOLL. I say that a man who carries on a fraudulent rectifying establishment

and unqualified power, but as to what is right
and just. I ask the gentleman whether he
interests of anybody without one dollar being
paid for it?
I submit that that
is an evasion of my question, not an answer to
it. If we may declare by law that no license
ment is within six hundred feet of a distillery,
we may provide directly that rectifying estab-
| six hundred feet of each other.
| Mr. PRUYN. It is an established principle
that private property shall not be taken for
ublic purposes without just compensation.
plates the taking of private property, either for
promoting the public interests in this respect,
objectionable, to promote the interests of the
#. owning the larger of two adjacent estab-
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. EGGLESTON. I withdraw my amend-
Mr. PILE. I renew the amendment for the
purpose of calling the attention of the gentle-
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER ]
to what their proposition involves. They say
| distillery are within less than six hundred feet
of each other the owner of the rectifying estab-
distillery, if the latter is worth less than the
rectifying establishment.
Mr. PILE. Now, why should he be com-
pelled to buy it when he cannot use it in his
any more authority in law and justice for com-
pelling one man to buy property which he can-
remove his property? There may be hardship
either way. But when the property of one
another piece of property adjoining, though he
may have five times more property in other
| it right to compel the man owning the more
valuable property, though the difference is only
cannot use, which is worthless to him 7
Mr. PR UYN. The gentleman is supposing,
lation is to take effect. -
Mr. PILE. There is as much injustice one
Mr. PRUYN. Then do not legislate in that
Mr. PILE. If the gentleman's argument
proves anything, it proves too much.
injustice to either party.
Mr. PILE. I wish, while upon the floor, to
Gersoll, J who asks whether there has been a
single case of fraud where the distillery and
two hundred feet of each other. I wish to say
that, in the city of St. Louis, a hidden pipe
to a large rectifying establishment nearly four
By digging in the night

wond like his property to be sacrificed to the
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa.
shall be issued to a rectifier whose establish-
lishments and distilleries shall not be within
of this Government, recognized everywhere,
| The provision of the pending section contem:
or for that which would in this view be more
ment. -
man from New York [Mr. PRUYN] and the
that where a rectifying establishment and a
lishment should be compelled to buy out the
| Mr. PRI.YN. If he wants a license.
own name? I want to know whether there is
not use than for compelling the other man to
man happens to be worth five dollars less than
| localities and in other branches of business, is
five dollars, to buy out a property which he
in the very case he puts, that this unjust legis-
way as the other.
Mr. PRUYN. Not at all. I say do not do
answer the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. IN-
the rectifying establishment have been within
was discovered running from a large distillery

covered running through the middle of a cellar
wall. The parties implicated, including one
man who is a Government officer, have been
Mr. INGERSOLL. This question, involving
the right of the citizen to his property, is of too
reat importance to be passed upon hastily.
ow, sir, let me illustrate the operation of the

provision contained in this section: . Neither the

distilling nor the rectification of whisky is a new
business in this country, both having been car.
ried on years ago all over the United States,

although not so extensively as within the last

is not entitled to any rights; but I propose when
an honest man has invested money in this busi-
ness, and has carried it on without any suspicion
being attached to him, that his property shall
not be confiscated without compensation.
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. PILE, by unanimous consent, withdrew
his amendment.

hundred feet.
Mr. Chairman, let us see what all this storm

means. It is provided no rectifying establishment or distillery shall be within sess than six hundred feet of one another. Gentlemen do not object to that. They would keep these rectifiers and distillers far apart, or some dis. tance apart. That settles the principle so far. What next? It may be there are now existing some within that distance. They propose not to !". the election between those so situated, but to strike out that sentence. If you strike out that sentence what is the condition of things? Neither of them will be permitted to go on. Is that what is desired 2 Is that what they propose?

Mr. PRUYN. No, sir.
Mr. SCHENCK. What is done in this bill?

Gentlemen admit these establishments must be kept apart from each other, and any one who knows anything about the subject will not fail to admit their proximity is one of the great sources of Hous There are some existing within this distance. What do we do? We propose a rule of election. The Government might refuse to permit either of them to go on. The Government might propose one of them might pay a special license and go on with the business, but that would be a greater hardship than if a bill of this kind passed. What is proposed ? If there are one or more within the limited distance, there shall be a rule of election made, so the least damage shall be done. That is the whole of it. Gentlemen concede everything if they say they must be kept apart, but when they are within the limited distance

I move to make it eight

« ForrigeFortsett »