necessary either to take it away altogether, or considerably to reduce it. They had chosen the latter way of reinedying the evil. Mr. B. said. it appeared from the report of manufacturers of different kinds of snuff, that, if the duty continued as at present, it would operate very unequally, and that manufacturers of wet tobacco ought not to pay more than one-third of the duty paid by those who manufactured it dry. The bill was conformed to this principle, and seemed to be agreed to, both by manufacturers of wet and dried tobacco. Mr. GALLATIN wished, before he made any observations on the subject, the gentleman last up would give the Committee more information relative to snuff manufactured wet and dry, and whether it was not calculated, that, when it was manufactured wet, less was done in the same time, and of a better quality, than when manufactured dry. and whether that manufactured wet did not sell at a higher price than that manufactured dry. [MAY, 1796. paper, sent to the Committee of Ways and Means by the Secretary of the Treasury, from James Miller, collector of revenue at Newcastle, stating that a snuff-mill in that neighborhood, (of which Mr. Jones, of Philadelphia, was the owner,) made 1,100 pounds of snuff a week, worked months in the year, and paid $1,120 duty; which reduced the duty to three cents per pound. This, he said, was the only official paper they had respecting Scotch snuff. If a duty of three cents per pound was paid upon Scotch snuff, a drawback to that amount ought also to be given. At the same time, if they were to reduce the drawback to three cents, it would be vastly too much to be allowed to the other manufacturer above alluded to. If this last could, as was asserted, manufacture 500,000 pounds a year, and he paid for his mill $2,200, it reduced the duty of his snuff to less than one cent. Hence arose great difficulty in laying down a system for eollecting this tax. It was so difficult, that the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures had reported a bill to take off the drawback altogether. That bill was recommitted, and this had been brought in. A drawback certainly ought to be allowed in proportion to the money paid. Mr. G. said he had collected some information on the quantity exported before the tax was established. He found the exports, by the custom-house books, Mr. GALLATIN believed the snuff manufactured had increased from 12,000 to 37,000 pounds a year wet, was of a better quality, and would sell for in three years. From information, he understood more money than that manufactured dry. It was that the quantity thus entered on the customwell understood that the law, as it now stood, in-house books was not more than one-third part stead of being productive, was a bill of cost, more of the whole exported, because a part of the snuff being paid in drawbacks than was received for manufactured in this country was sent to the duty. This arose, chiefly, from the exportations English West India Islands, which could not go, of one manufacturer, who, it seemed, manufac-except smuggled. He might state the yearly extured a larger quantity than was supposed to be possible when the bill passed. He did not know whether this arose from the snuff manufactured by him being of an inferior quality, or whether it was from the introduction of new machinery into the manufactory. Yet, he believed, that, shape the bill as they pleased, no revenue would ever be drawn from snuff. Mr. BOURNE said, he was not very well acquainted with the manufacture of snuff. He would read the petition, which he had in his hand, on that subject; by which it would appear that three times the number of mortars was necessary for the manufacturing of wet, that were necessary in manufacturing dry tobacco. At present, to remedy one grievance, another was introduced, which would be as disadvantageous as the drawback, by giving leave to a manufacturer making snuff wet to pay only one-third of the duty paid by those who manufactured it dry. He knew no way of discovering whether snuff had been manufactured from wet or dry materials. This provision was meant to apply to a manufacturer who made snuff of a superior quality to any other person, but he was informed it would equally apply to one who made very large quantities of a quality which sold cheaper at market, so that he would only pay one-third of the duty paid by other manufacturers, although he made more. He believed he might depend upon the information he had received, though it was not from the person himself. He objected to another part of the bill. It reduced the drawback from six cents to one cent. This might be even too much to be allowed to some manufacturers, but certainly was too little for others. He would beg leave to read an official ports before the tax, at 100,000 pounds year. Mr. G. read a letter from the Commissioner of the Revenue to the Committee of Ways and Means, in order to prove the great difficulty which lay in the way of making this tax equal, just, and to prevent fraud. One of the instances of fraud, was the using small hand-mills which were worked without the least noise. He wished the law was repealed, since it was vexatious and unprofitable; the whole tax not producing more than $12,000 a year, if all was paid; and if no drawbacks were allowed, and costing, perhaps, $20,000, it drawbacks were continued. As this bill was under consideration, and something seemed necessary to be done, he would only propose such amendments as he thought would improve the bill. Mr. G.'s amendment was, that, instead of allow ing a certain drawback on snuff, the drawback should vary, and should be per cent. on the value of the snuff, according to its quality. Mr. G. withdrew, afterwards, this amendment, in order to make room for another which went to repealing, altogether, the law, and which was carried. Mr. S. SMITH hoped the amendment would not prevail. It would be going more in the dark than they had yet gone. The tax had always appeared to him an insignificant one. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania had persevered in his first intention of proposing a repeal of the tax, he would have joined him in it; for, he said, it had been a sinking fund, instead of an advantage to the United States. Indeed, one manufacturer had raised a very large bounty, indeed, from it, who now came forward to pray the House not to repeal it, as it would ruin him. The deeper, he said, they went into a tax on manufactures, the more difficulties would be experienced, without having the effect to raise any revenue. Mr. VENABLE said, the more this subject was looked into, the more evident it appeared that nothing could be done in the matter at this late period of the session. In order to try the sense of the Committee on the occasion, he should move to strike out the first section. Gentlemen appeared to be fond of this system of taxing manufactures, and seemed desirous of continuing to harass the people with further experiments which, he was confident, would not be more successful than the past. As the tax stood at present, it was a loss, instead of a gain. to the United States. Gentlemen said this tax could not be repealed, until it was replaced by another; but, he said, if nothing was received from it, there was no necessity for providing a substitute for it; but, on the contrary, to repeal it, would be to do away a constant drain upon the Treasury. He would, therefore, either repeal the law altogether, or suspend it until next session. [H. of R. gentleman would think it possible to repeal the snuff tax this session, without violating the public engagements. Indeed, if they were to agree to such a repeal, without a substitute, the PRESIDENT and Senate would probably not concur. The duties aris ing from snuff and refined sugar were appropriated, by an existing law, to the payment of a loan which had been made, and the faith of the United States was pledged to make good any deficiency. He conceived it was not a sufficient reason for repealing the law, because it did not produce as much as was expected from it. An argument of this sort would go to the repeal of every other duty. He thought, when a tax was pledged which was not productive, it should either be so modified as to become so, or a new one substituted in its place. If the tax on snuff was not productive, and could not be made so, the gentlemen opposed to it should substitute another for it; but, until this was done, he hoped they would endeavor to modify it so as to make it productive. The same reason which was given for repealing this tax, might be applied to sugar, and to the excise on spirits; and, by this means, instead of adhering to any system for increasing the revenue, they would fritter away the existing revenues. Some members were perpetually complaining about the increasing of the debt. It was certainly desirable not to increase it; but, if they were to go on this way, an increase of debt was inevitable. But they say this tax produces nothing, because it is not properly modified-let it, then, be properly modified. The manufacturers themselves do not generally wish the tax repealed; they wish only to have it regulated in the manner proposed by the bill. Individual manufacturers, Mr. S. said, had no claim upon the United States for any loss they may sustain on account of any necessary changes in their revenue laws; the manufacturers of snuff themselves, in a pamphlet written in their behalf, had exposed the practices made use of to deceive Government in the business of drawbacks. [Mr. S. read some extracts from the pamphlet.] He thought that, as the revenue had not been so productive as it might be, they ought to endeavor to make it so. He believed the mode proposed would have that effect. He would rather do away the Mr. SWANWICK was of opinion, with the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. VENABLE,] that the act ought to be repealed, believing that it would never produce anything but uneasiness and dissatisfaction in whatever way the tax might be collected. A proposition was now made to reduce the draw-drawback altogether, than repeal the law; but back of six cents to one. How could gentlemen reconcile this with the law imposing the duty. Undoubtedly, said Mr. S., there was a good deal of force in the argument of a manufacturer who complained of the instability of our laws on this occasion; for, upon a supposition of a continuance of this law, he had enlarged his manufactory; but now, all at once, the drawback was proposed to be reduced from six cents to one cent per pound. He hoped the motion would be agreed to, because he believed to repeal the law would eventually be the least loss to the Union. Mr. W. SMITH said, that gentlemen would not accomplish their object by striking out the first section. It went to modify the tax in a way which, he believed, would be generally acceptable to the manufacturers. If the first section was struck out the tax would still exist; and, he supposed, no some gentlemen had thought this would be violating a principle of the Constitution, by laying a tax on exports; he was, therefore, willing to put it at one cent. If it were the object of gentlenen to destroy the bill, they had better let it pass to the third reading. and then negative its passing. When the tax was first laid, it was laid upon the pound; but, on the manufacturers' complaining of great inconvenience, in order to accommodate them, another law was passed, changing the mode of collecting the tax. by laying it on the mortar. This did not satisfy some of them, and he believed, however, if a tax was laid, there would be some complaint against it. It was in the nature of taxes to be inconvenient and unpleasant; but, because a clause in the bill before them was not perfectly agreeable to gentlemen, was that a reason for giving up the duty altogether. If the manufacturers pre H. OF R.] Duty on Snuff. [MAY, 1796. Gentlemen had said that snuff was a fit article from which to raise a revenue; but, he believed, whatever methods were taken to tax it, they would prove ineffectual, and would only encourage fraud and vice. Since the establishment of the tax, it had been a continued vexation to the Government and to the people, and the new law had always been worse than the old one; and, if the law now proposed were to pass, he doubted not there would, next session, be occasion again to change it. But the gentleman from South Carolina said, why not substitute this tax with another, if it was to be repealed? He had always considered of a substitute. He had no douht there was a mode of raising more money than was raised at present by excise laws, without complaint; the mode he meant was by a national lottery, which would be a tax collected with ease, and was a practice which had been adopted by all nations. He thought it would be an unexceptionable source of revenue. There were various other means of raising revenue, and why should they be hobbling along with this tax on snuff, which, in fact, proved a tax upon the Government itself. ferred returning to the original mode of paying | He believed it was a tax which would never be the duty by the pound, he had no objection to it. beneficial. Whatever bill they might pass, he beMr. SMITH was of opinion, there was no article lieved no revenue would be produced, but that the a more proper subject for taxation than snuff. tax would continue to be vexatious. It was said, why not extend the tax to tobacco? He would inform them that the report of the Committee of Ways and Means originally stood so, but tobacco had been struck out. It might be remembered, that snuff imported, formerly paid a considerable duty; but to favor our own manufactures, the duty had been increased on foreign snuff so high as to amount to a prohibition, and, unless it produced a revenue in this way by excise, none would be derived from snuff; and he could not see why they should lay a duty on brown sugar and spirits, and not on snuff, which was certainly a mere luxury, and an article of caprice. He did not know a more fit article of taxation, and, if the prohibition of foreign snuff was to be continued, he thought the excise ought also to be continued. He was of opinion that, to alter the law as now proposed, would improve the revenue, and give satisfaction to the manufacturers in general. With respect to the particular manufacturer who was to be disappointed by this alteration of the law, if he suffered loss he should be sorry for him; but they were not to consider his interest alone in preference to that of the United States. That manufacturer could not have considered the law as passed merely as a bounty to him; if he did, the Legislature certainly thought otherwise; they thought of raising from forty to fifty thousand dollars a year from the tax, and this would have been raised if the duty had been fairly collected at six cents per pound. The sums laid upon the mortars, as an equivalent to the six cents, were taken from Mr. Leiper, one of the manufacturers, by himself, and now he was dissatisfied. He hoped they would pass the bill, and continue the drawback at one cent; but, if it was proper that Mr. Gernon, or any other person, should take $100,000 from the Treasury for drawbacks, it would be proper to agree to the motion. Mr. SWANWICK said, no gentleman wished more to preserve the public faith inviolate than he; but he was sure that the gentleman who was so zealous for the public faith, as it related to the doing away of this law altogether, did not pay so much respect to it, as it related to the manufacturer who would be injured by this new law. The present law, he said, was passed in 1795, and was to continue in force till the year 1801; it allowed six cents per pound drawback on exportation. In consequence, a certain manufacturer had turned his whole attention to the exportation business, and had drawn large sums of money from the Treasury; but now, when he had enlarged his works, relying upon a continuance of the act till the time mentioned, the drawback was proposed to be reduced from six cents to one cent. There was at least instability, if not injustice, in this. In other countries, he knew, when a change in their imposts took place, there was always some time given before the new act took place. If gentlemen expected any revenue would be raised by this new bill, he believed they would be disappointed. The gentleman from South Carolina said, that if this House were to repeal this tax, the PRESIDENT and Senate would not concur. He could see no reason for such an assertion as this. He wished the tax to be repealed; but, however, if gentlemen chose to go on with another experiment, he must submit; but, in that case, he hoped some time would be allowed for the change taking place, as he did not think it should be momentarily effected. Mr. W. LYMAN hoped the motion would prevail to strike out the first section; as he was of opinion they might lose money by a tax on snuff, but he believed they should get none. He always thought the tax an improper one; and he believed no gentleman contemplated a tax upon this article without a drawback, as this would be contrary to the Constitution. If no other consideration would influence them to do away this tax, motives of policy ought to do it. One-half, if not three-fourths of the snuff consumed throughout the known world was the produce of America. It was true wisdom, therefore, to endeavor to export it in its manufactured state, and by that means draw the money which is paid for that process in other parts into the United States. I they were to let this manufacture alone, he believed, this would soon become the case; and surely, for a few thousand dollars a year, it was not worth their while to risk the defeat of so great an object. When he contemplated the drawback to be allowed on the exportation of this article, it always appeared to him impossible so to regulate it as to prevent it from being eluded. They had had some experiment of the unproductiveness of this tax, and other countries might hold out instructions to us on the subject. He believed no article upon which the taxing hand of Great Britain was laid, eluded MAY, 1796.] Duty on Snuff. [H. OF R. Gentlemen had said, that if the drawback was reduced or discontinued, it was a breach of faith with certain manufacturers. He thought the objections were equally strong against a repeal of the law. The chief objections were against the disproportion of the drawback, and not against the duty itself. He hoped, therefore, the first section would not be struck out; but, that the bill before the Committee would be candidly gone its grasp more than this article of snuff. It was out of their power to collect any great revenue from the article. The State from which he came had made attempts to tax snuff and tobacco; and whilst the tax remained, there was not a session of the Legislature passed without alteration, till at length they abolished it. It was considered by their Government as an eligible article of taxation, and gentlemen were unwilling, as at present to relinquish it; but at length they saw the wis-through. He believed with the gentleman from dom of doing so. He trusted that House would follow their example; for, he observed, if they were to adopt the plan proposed in the bill before them, they should be acting in the dark, by not knowing how it would operate, and they had no business to make laws at random. South Carolina, that to repeal the law, would be a violation of public faith, and they could not consistently do it without substituting another tax for the one repealed. When a law was unproductive, the proper way was to modify it and not repeal it, until due experiment had been had of its being an improper tax. He did not think the experiment had yet been fairly tried. With respect to repealing the law, he believed it would be more profitable to do that, than to suffer it to operate as it now did; some manufacturers, he believed, would suffer from this, but that Mr. VENABLE was surprised to hear from the was not a consideration for them. The tax was gentleman from South Carolina that the United laid for the purpose of producing revenue; if it States were obliged to keep a tax in force, though failed in this, and the failure did not appear to be ever so unproductive, until it was substituted by remediable, there surely could be no good reason another. As nothing was produced by the tax, assigned why they should continue to harass one no reasonable objection, on the ground of revenue, part of their citizens for the sole purpose of en- could be brought against its repeal. He objected riching others. As to what had been said about to the duty and drawback in the bill before them replacing this tax with another, before it was as out of proportion, and said if it were to pass, abolished, as it confessedly produced nothing, it would certainly be a duty on the produce of the there was no necessity for a substitute for it. He United States, as much as if a duty of a dollar thought there were many objects of taxation more per barrel was laid upon flour, and a drawback of fair and equal than this. Mr. L. was of opinion three quarters of a dollar was to be allowed on with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that lot-exportation. There would then evidently remain teries was a good way of raising revenue. one quarter of a dollar duty on all flour exported. Mr. BOURNE did not expect a motion would The gentleman from South Carolina had read have been brought forward to repeal this law; if an extract from a book which proved that whereit had been brought forward earlier in the session. ver such taxes were laid, they were evaded by some other tax might have been substituted in its the cunning of those whose interest it was to deplace. Gentlemen say the tax ought to be repeal-ceive Government. He believed this was true, ed, because it would always be unproductive. If, and that it would always continue to be so, and indeed, they were convinced of this, it would be therefore the sooner the law was repealed the good ground for a repeal; but, he asked, if a fair better. experiment had been made with it? He said there had not. Many manufacturers ceased their business, when the tax was first laid, and it was changed. The present law had been equally injurious to small manufacturers, for want of authorizing their mills to be entered for a less time than a year. Under this sort of experiment it was that gentlemen wished the tax to be repealed. Why, asked he, cannot revenue be raised in this country, from this article, as well as in other countries? Had not this Government as much energy? Was it not equally capable of carrying a law of this sort into effect? He believed it was, and that the bill now proposed, would remedy the grievances complained of. Mr. FINDLEY said, the question was rather an unusual thing. It was not whether they should make a law, but whether they would go into an experiment. He had no objection to the experiment's being made, but he believed it would prove like the rest. There were difficulties on every side. If the drawback was entirely taken off, an article in the Constitution was broken; and if any were allowed, it seemed too much for some manufacturers. His colleague had given instances in which the tax was evaded. Indeed, he thought the impediments were so great as not to induce a continuance of the tax. Mr. GALLATIN had not intended to have troubled the Committee again on this subject, had it Few of the manufacturers, he said, had asked not been for what had fallen from the gentleman for a repeal of the law. None except in Pennsyl- from South Carolina, on the subject of public vania, notwithstanding they had petitions from faith. But he could not see how any faith could many of the States; all that was asked for was a be violated by repealing a tax which produced modification of the law. Whatever objections nothing, as had been shown with respect to the there might be to different parts of the bill, they tax on snuff. But supposing the tax to have been might be obviated in passing through it, if gentle-productive and that from its being repealed there men were not determined to do away the tax al-was a deficiency in the revenue, would it affect together. the interest of the public debt? Certainly not. That must be paid; and if there was any deficiency in the receipts of the revenue it would fall upon the current expenses, and not upon the interest of the public debt. But this was not all. To what purpose was the amount of this appropriated? It was to be applied, with four other taxes, to the year 1801, to pay the interest and principal of the Algerine million loan. The Secretary of the Treasury had said the interest of this loan was fully secured; but, the taxes were not productive enough to reimburse the principal. From this report, a bill had been passed to borrow five millions for the purpose of paying the bank this million, together with the anticipations which had been advanced upon the revenue. The whole argument, therefore, of public faith, fell to the ground. It had nothing to operate upon. The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. BOURNE] had said, that an objection to the drawback was not an objection to the bill. It was an objection to the whole plan. If, said Mr. G. you allow a drawback larger than the duty, it was better to have no law. If the only remedy was either to allow no drawback at all, or to repeal the law, an objection to the first plan was an objection to the whole system of taxing snuff. [MAY, 1796. pensation of the Accountant of the War Department, with amendments. The House took up the consideration of the amendments, which were, that instead of $1,600 $1,800 should be the future salary of the Accountant, and that he should send and receive all letters by post, free of expense. After a few observations on motion of Mr. Heath. the yeas and nays were taken upon the first amendment and stood, yeas 19, nays 50, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Theodorus Bailey, Benjamin Bourne, William Cooper, Jesse Franklin, Ezekiel Gilbert, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glen, Thomas Hartley, Nathaniel Macon, William Vans Murray, Samuel Sitgreaves, William Smith, John Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, Absalom Tatom, George Thatcher, John E. Van Allen, and John Williams. NAYS.-Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount, Theophilus Bradbury, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Gabriel Christie, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, George Dent, Samuel Earle, William Findley, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Chauncey Goodrich, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, Wade Hampton, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, Jno. Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, Daniel Heister, Thomas Henderson, William Hindman, James Holland, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Francis Malbone, Andrew Moore, FredNicholas, Josiah Parker, John Reed, John Richards, erick Augustus Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nathaniel Smith, Israel Smith, Richard Sprigg, Jr., Thomas Sprigg, Richard Thomas, Uriah Tracy, Abraham Venable, and Richard Winn. Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) intended to have observed some time ago that if a repeal of this tax or excise was the object of gentlemen, the proposed motion could not have the effect; because if all the five sections were struck out, the bill would be complete with the sixth section remaining; therefore, the present proceedings were wholly irregular, the sense of the Committee could not be taken with respect to a repeal of the law, but upon the bill before them, to amend it. Mr. NICHOLAS believed they had the power of determining what they would do in this business. If striking out the first section would not have the wished-for effect, they might strike out all the sections one after another. By striking out the first section, he believed the sense of the Com-ed for a drawback on the exportation of domestic distilled spirits, and allowing a drawback on spirits exported in vessels of less burden than thirty tons by the Mississippi. mittee would be determined. The question being put for striking out the first section, it was carried, 40 to 32. This amendment being negatived, the other was put and carried. Mr. W. SMITH, from the Committee of Claims, reported a bill providing for the more effectual collection of certain internal revenues of the United States, also, a bill limiting the time allow These bills were twice read; the former ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole ed for a third reading to-morrow. on Monday, and the latter ordered to be engross Mr. THATCHER proposed a resolution to the fol The Committee rose, reported the bill, and asked leave to sit again, which was refused, 41 to 32. Mr. VENABLE then laid a resolution on the table, to appoint a Committee to bring in a bill for repealing the act imposing a duty on snuff; but the day following it was agreed that instead of repeal-lowing effect, intended to fix an earlier period for ing the act, it should be suspended only till next session of Congress, and that the Secretary of the Treasury should in the mean time prepare a plan of collecting a tax on snuff. The House then adjourned. FRIDAY, May 20. The bill concerning the post road from Portland in Maine to Savannah in Georgia, was read a third time and passed. the meeting of the next session of Congress. Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to report a bill for altering the time of the next meeting of Congress." This resolution was negatived, 43 to 30. Mr. GILES called up the resolution yesterday laid upon the table, to appoint a Committee to bring in a bill to repeal the duty on snuff, which being agreed to be taken up, he proposed to strike out the words "ought to be repealed," and to insert "ought to be suspended until the end of the A message was received from the Senate in- next session of Congress." He had no objection forming the House that they had resolved that the to the law being repealed, but he believed many bill for the relief of Moses Myers, should not pass; other gentlemen wished it to have a further expeand that they had passed the bill altering the com-riment, and he had no objection to have them in |