the House that the Senate, on a similar reconsideration, have, by a two-thirds vote, agreed to the passage of the bill, I do, by the authority of the Constitution of the United States, declare that, notwithstanding the objections of the President, the bill (S. No. 213) to amend an act entitled "An act to amend the Judiciary Act, passed the 24th of September, 1789,' has become a law."

In the House, on July 11th, Mr. Boutwell, from the Committee on Reconstruction, reported back a joint resolution from the Senate,

which as amended was as follows:

That none of the States whose inhabitants were lately in rebellion shall be entitled to representation in the Electoral College for the choice of President or Vice-President of the United States, nor shall any electoral vote be received or counted from any of such States, unless, at the time prescribed by law for the choice of electors, the people of such States, pursuant to the acts of Congress in that behalf, shall have, since the 4th day of March, 1867, adopted a constitution of State government, under which a State government shall have been organized and shall be in operation, nor unless such election of electors shall have been held under the authority of such constitution and government; and such States shall have also become entitled to representation in Congress, pursuant to the acts of Congress in that behalf:

Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to any State which was represented in Congress on the 4th of March, 1867.

The resolution was adopted-yeas 112, nays 21.

The Senate approved of the amendment, and the resolution was sent to the President, who, on July 20th, returned it with the following message :

To the Senate of the United States:

I have given to the joint resolution, entitled "A resolution excluding from the Electoral College votes of States lately in rebellion, which shall not have been reorganized," as careful examination as I have been able to bestow upon the subject during the few days that have intervened since the measure was submitted for my approval.

Feeling constrained to withhold my assent, I herewith return the resolution to the Senate, in which House it originated, with a brief statement of the reasons which have induced my action.

This joint resolution is based upon the assumption that some of the States whose inhabitants were lately in rebellion are not now entitled to representation in Congress and to participate in the election of President and Vice-President of the United States.

Having heretofore had occasion to give, in detail, my reasons for dissenting from this view, it is not necessary at this time to repeat them. It is sufficient to state that I continue strong in my conviction that the acts of secession, by which a number of the States sought to dissolve their connection with the other States and to subvert the Union, being unauthorized by the Constitution, and in direct violation thereof, were, from the beginning, absolutely null and void. It follows necessarily that, when the rebellion terminated, the several States which had attempted to secede continued to be States in the Union, and all that was required to enable them to resume their relations to the Union was, that they should adopt the measures necessary to their practical restoration as States. Such measures were adopted, and the legitimate result was, that those States, having conformed to all the requirements of the Constitution, resumed their

former relations, and became entitled to the exercise of all the rights guaranteed to them by its provisions. The joint resolution under consideration, however, seems to assume that, by the nsurrectionary acts of their respective inhabitants, those States forfeited their rights as such, and can never again exercise them except upon readmission into the Union on the terms prescribed by Congress. If this position be correct, it follows that they were taken out of the Union by virtue of their acts of secession, and hence that the war waged upon them was illegal and unconstitutional. We would thus be placed in this inconsistent attitude, that while the war was commenced and carried on upon the distinct ground that the Southern States, being component parts of the Union, were in rebellion against the lawful authority of the United States, upon its termination we resort to a policy of reconstruction which assumes that it was not in fact a rebellion, but that the war was waged for the conquest of territories assumed to be outside of the constitutional Union.

The mode and manner of receiving and counting the electoral votes for President and Vice-President of the United States are in plain and simple terms prescribed by the Constitution. That instrument imperatively requires that the President of the Senate "shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted." Congress has, therefore, no power under the Constitution to receive the electoral votes or reject them. The whole power is exhausted when, in the presence of the two Houses, the votes are counted and the result declared. In this respect the power and duty of the President of the Senate are, under the Constitution, purely ministerial. When, therefore, the joint resolution declares that no electoral votes shall be received or

counted from States that since the 4th of March, 1867, have not 66 adopted a constitution of State government under which a State government shall have been organized," a power is assumed which is nowhere delegated to Congress, unless upon the assumption that the State governments organized prior to the 4th of March, 1867, were illegal and void.

The joint resolution, by implication at least, concedes that these States were States by virtue of their organization prior to the 4th of March, 1867, but denies to them the right to vote in the election of President and Vice-President of the United States. It follows either that this assumption of power is wholly unauthorized by the Constitution, or that the States so excluded from voting were out of the Union by reason of the rebellion, and have never been legitimately restored. Being fully satisfied that they were never out of the Union, and that their relations thereto have been legally and constitutionally restored, I am forced to the conclusion that the joint resolution which deprives them of the right to have their vote for President and Vice-President received and counted is in conflict with the Constitution, and that Congress has no more power to reject their votes than those of the States which have been uniformly loyal to the Federal Union.

It is worthy of remark that if the States whose inhabitants were recently in rebellion were legally and constitutionally organized and restored to their rights prior to the 4th of March, 1867, as I am satisfied they were, the only legitimate authority under which the election for President and Vice-President can be held therein must be derived from the governments instituted before that period.

It clearly follows that all the State governments organized in those States under acts of Congress for that purpose, and under military control, are illegiti mate and of no validity whatever; and, in that view, the votes cast in those States for President and VicePresident, in pursuance of acts passed since the 4th of March, 1867, and in obedience to the so-called reconstruction acts of Congress, cannot be legally received and counted; while the only votes in those

States that can be legally cast and counted, will be those cast in pursuance of the laws in force in the several States prior to the legislation by Congress upon the subject of reconstruction.

I cannot refrain from directing your special attention, to the declaration contained in the joint resolution, that none of the States whose inhabitants were lately in rebellion shall be entitled to representation in the Electoral College," etc.

If it is meant by this declaration that no State is to be allowed to vote for President and Vice-President, all of whose inhabitants were engaged in the late rebellion, it is apparent that no one of the States will be excluded from voting, since it is well known that in every Southern State there were many inhabitants who not only did not participate in the rebellion, but who actually took part in its suppression, or refrained from giving it any aid or countenance. I therefore conclude that the true meaning of the joint resolution is, that no State, a portion of whose inhabitants were engaged in the rebellion, shall be permitted to participate in the presidential election, except upon the terms and conditions therein prescribed.

Assuming this to be the true construction of the resolution, the inquiry becomes pertinent, may those Northern States, a portion of whose inhabitants were actually in the rebellion, be prevented at the discretion of Congress from having their electoral votes counted? It is well known that a portion of the inhabitants of New York and a portion of the inhabitants of Virginia were alike engaged in the rebellion, yet it is equally well known that Virginia, as well as New York, was at all times during the war recognized by the Federal Government as a State in the Unionso clearly, that upon the termination of hostilities it was not even deemed necessary for her restoration that a provisional Governor should be appointed. Yet, according to this joint resolution, the people of Virginia, unless they comply with the terms it prescribes, are denied the right of voting for President, while the people of New York, a portion of the inhabitants of which State were also in rebellion, are permitted to have their electoral votes counted without undergoing the process of reconstruction prescribed for Virginia. New York is no more a State than Virginia; the one is as much entitled to be reppresented in the Electoral College as the other. If Congress has the power to deprive Virginia of this right, it can exercise the same authority with respect to New York or any other of the States. Thus the result of the presidential election may be controlled and determined by Congress, and the people be deprived of their right under the Constitution to choose a President and Vice-President of the United States. If Congress were to provide by law that the votes of none of the States should be received and counted if cast for a candidate who differed in political sentiment with a majority of the two Houses, such legislation would at once be condemned by the country as an unconstitutional and revolutionary usurpation of power. It would, however, be exceedingly difficult to find in the Constitution any more authority for the passage of the joint resolution under consideration than for an enactment looking directly to the rejection of all votes not in accordance with the political preferences of a majority of Congress. No power exists in the Constitution authorizing the joint resolution or the supposed law, the only difference being that one would be more palpably unconstitutional and revolutionary than the other. Both would rest upon the radical error that Congress has the power to prescribe terms and conditions to the right of the people of the States to cast their votes for President

and Vice-President.

lowing vote: In the Senate, the bill was passed by the fol

YEAS-Messrs. Abbott, Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conklin, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kellogg, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborne, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Rice, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Welch, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-45.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Doolittle, Hendricks, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, Vickers, and Whyte-8.

ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Dixon, Fowler, Grimes, Norton, Pool, Ramsey, Saulsbury, and Thayer-9. In the House, the resolution was passed by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baldwin, Banks, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blackburn, Blair, Boles, Boutwell, Bowen, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Roderick R. Butler, Cake, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Covode, Cullom, Dawes, Delano, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Ela, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, French, Garfield, Goss, Griswold, Hamilton, Heaton, Higby, Hill, Hinds, Hooper, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hunter, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Alexander H. Jones, Judd, Kelley, Kelsey, Ketcham, Koontz, Laflin, Lash, William Lawrence, Lincoln, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, Maynard, McCarthy, McClurg, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Moorhead, Morrell, Mullins, Myers, Nunn, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pike, Pile, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Pomeroy, Raum, Robertson, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shanks, Smith, Spalding, Starkweather, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Sypher, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Van Wyck, Vidal, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Whittemore, Thomas Williams, William Williams, James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-134.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Archer, Axtell, Barnes, Beck, Boyden, Boyer, Brooks, Cary, Eldridge, Fox, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Haight, Holman, Hotchkiss, Johnson, Thomas L. Jones, Kerr, Knott, Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Nicholson, Phelps, Randall, Ross, Sitgreaves, Stone, Taber, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Äuken, Wood, and Woodward-36.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Baker, Barnum, Beaman, Blaine, Burr, Benjamin F. Butler, Chanler, Cornell, Deweese, Dockery, Dodge, Finney, Gravely, Halsey, Harding, Hawkins, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Julian, Kitchen, George V. Lawrence, Mann, Marvin, McCormick, Morrissey, Mungen, Newcomb, Newsham, Price, Pruyn, Robinson, Roots, Selye, Shellabarger, Aaron F. Stevens, John Trimble, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Trump, and Cadwalader C. Washburn-40.

The Speaker: "On the question, 'Will the House, on reconsideration, agree to the passage of the joint resolution?' the yeas are 134, and the nays 36. Two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, and it having been certified from the Senate of the United States that upon a similar vote upon reconsideration two-thirds of that body have agreed to the passage of the joint resolution, I do, by the authority of the Constitution of the United States, declare that

the joint resolution, excluding from the Electoral College votes of States lately in rebellion, which shall not have been reorganized, has become a law, notwithstanding the objections of the President."

In the Senate, on January 31st, the resolution of the Legislature of Ohio, withdrawing its assent to the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution, was presented.

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said: "Mr. President, I cannot allow these resolutions to be entered upon the Journal of the Senate, without making some remarks upon them. They do not speak the voice of the people of Ohio. Of that I am entirely convinced. The people of Ohio, a little more than one year ago, passed on the amendment of the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and adopted it by a popular majority of about forty-three thousand, electing fifteen Republican members of Congress out of nineteen. In the canvass there was a unanimity of sentiment in regard to the constitutional amendment that scarcely ever occurs on a political question. The people of Ohio have never reconsidered that judgment. The resolutions now read are the voice of a partisan majority in the General Assembly of Ohio, elected by a minority of the people of Ohio, on an issue totally different and disconnected from the constitutional amendment. Their proceeding is in violation of the expressed wish of the people of Ohio, who do not desire to rescind their assent to the amendment. These resolutions may not be a usurpation of authority, perhaps, but they are contrary to the only vote ever cast in Ohio when the subject was discussed or considered."

Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, said: "The resolutions from the Legislature of Ohio are so important in character, and so without any precedent I believe in our history, that I think they justify remark even by a Senator who has not the honor of any special association with the State.

"It seems to me very clear that the authors of these resolutions have accomplished nothing except to exhibit their own blind prejudices. By the Constitution of the United States a State may give its assent to a constitutional amendment. There is no provision for any withdrawal of such assent when once given. The assent of the State once given is final. A State, I do not hesitate to say, can no more withdraw such assent than it can withdraw from the Union; and on the latter proposition I believe there is now a universal accord. But happily, sir, the extraordinary effort of an accidental Legislature is absolutely impotent. The amendment in question is already a part of the Constitution of the United States, and in full vigor, even without the assent of Ohio."

Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, said: "Mr. President, if the honorable member from Massa

chusetts is right in saying that the amendment has been adopted by the necessary number of States, it will, of course, result in the proposition that no one State which has assented to it can withdraw that assent. The honorable member is not now to be for the first time informed that that is a question about which there are differences of opinion; and whether the opinion which he pronounces is right or wrong depends upon the proposition which has been more or less discussed in the present debate whether the ten Southern States are not now States, and have not been States, throughout the war. If they are States within the meaning of the Constitution, then the amendment has not been adopted.

"Now, upon the other question, supposing the amendment not to have been adopted, I state, subject to be corrected if I am in error, what my present impression is. The Constitution provides that propositions for amendments of it may be submitted to the States, and that when they are assented to by threefourths of the States they shall become a part of the Constitution. Now, whether, before the assent of three-fourths, it is not in the power of any one of the States or all of the States assenting to withdraw that assent, is a question upon which I am not to be understood as now expressing any decided opinion; but my impression is that they can withdraw; for, if not, it would remain forever binding upon States assenting, and when the proposition should be renewed at any subsequent period, or when the States who had not assented, eight or ten or fifteen years after the time, when there was an absence of that assent necessary to give validity to the amendment, they would have no right to reconsider their action.

the

"As I say, that is my first impression. Now, I look upon what the States do preliminary to a decision of a majority which, when made, makes the amendment proposed a part of the Constitution, as a mere promise or undertaking that each will assent when the others are ready to assent, but that the day after the assent is given, or at any period subsequent to the giving of the assent, if the State assenting thinks that it has made a mistake, and that the Constitution should not be amended in the way proposed, it may withdraw its assent."

The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

In the House, on March 30th, Mr. Washburne, of Illinois, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the resolution of the Legislature of the State of New Jersey, purporting to withdraw the assent of said State to the constitutional amendment known as the fourteenth amendment, be returned by the Speaker of the House to the gentleman who presented it, for the reason that the same is disrespectful to the House and scandalous in character, and that its title only shall be referred to in the Journal of the House and in the Congressional Globe.

The rules were suspended, yeas 80, nays 17, and the resolution was adopted.

In the Senate, on July 21st, the following resolution was adopted without a count:

Whereas, the Legislatures of the States of Connecticut, Tennessee, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, West Virginia, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Maine, Iowa, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana, being three-fourths and more of the several States of the Union, have ratified the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States duly proposed by two-thirds of each House of the Thirty-ninth Congress: Therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That said fourteenth article is hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State.

On the same day it passed the House-yeas 126, nays 35.

The amendment was also adopted on the same day by the Legislature of Georgia, by thirty-four majority on joint ballot.

The following announcement was made by the Secretary of State, on July 20th, relative to the same amendment:

WILLIAM H. Seward, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES-TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS MAY COME, GREETING:

Whereas, the Congress of the United States, on or about the sixteenth day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, passed a resolution which is in the words and figures following, to wit:

Joint Resolution proposing an Amendment to the Constitu tion of the United States.

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representa tires of the United States of America in Congress assembed (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the

several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

ARTICLE 14-SEC. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed; but when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State (being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States), or in any way abridged except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in said State.

SEC. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector, or President or Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; but Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disabilities. SEC. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States authorized by law, including debts incurred for pay

ment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebelliou, shall not be questioned; but neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obor rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the ligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void. SEC. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. SCHUYLER COLFAX,

Speaker of the House of Representatives. LAFAYETTE S. FOSTER, President of the Senate pro tempore. Attest-EDWARD MCPHERSON, Clerk of the House of Representatives.

J. W. FORNEY, Secretary of the Senate.

And whereas, by the second section of the act of Congress, approved the 20th of April, 1818, entitled "An act to provide for the publication of the laws of the United States, and for other purposes," it is made the duty of the Secretary of State forthwith to cause any amendment to the Constitution of the United States which has been adopted according to the provisions of the said Constitution, to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate specifying the States the same has become valid to all intents and purby which the same may have been adopted, and that poses as a part of the Constitution of the United States;

And whereas neither the act just quoted from nor any other law expressly or by conclusive implication authorizes the Secretary of State to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State Legislatures or as to the power of any State Legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification of any amendments proposed to the Constitution;

And whereas it appears from official documents on file in this department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed as aforesaid has been ratified by the Legislatures of the States of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Tennessee, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Illinois, West Virginia, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Iowa;

And whereas it further appears from documents on file in this department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has also been ratified by the newly-constituted and newly-established bodies, avowing themselves to be and acting as the Legislatures respectively of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama;

And whereas it further appears from official documents on file in this department that the Legislatures of two of the States first above enumerated, to wit, Ohio and New Jersey, have since passed resolutions respectively withdrawing the consent of each of said States to the aforesaid amendment;

And whereas it is deemed a matter of doubt and uncertainty whether such resolutions are not irregular and invalid, and therefore ineffectual for withdrawing the consent of the said two States, or either of them, to the aforesaid amendment;

And whereas the whole number of States in the United States is thirty-seven, to wit: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Maine, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, Oregon, Kansas, West Virginia, Nevada, and Nebraska;

And whereas, the twenty-three States first hereinbefore named whose Legislatures have ratified the said proposed amendment, and the six States next thereafter named as having ratified the said proposed amendment by newly constituted and established

legislative bodies, together constitute three-fourths of the whole number of States in the United States: Now, therefore, be it known that I, William H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States, by virtue and in pursuance of the second section of the act of Congress approved the twentieth day of April, eighteen hundred and eighteen, herein before cited, do hereby certify that if the resolutions of the Legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the Legislatures of these States which purport to withdraw the consent of said States from such ratifica

tion, then the aforesaid amendment has been ratified

in the manner herein before mentioned and so has

become valid to all intents and purposes as a part

of the Constitution of the United States.

affixed.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Department of State to be Done at the city of Washington, this twentieth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight and of the independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Mr. Schenck, of Ohio, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill to repeal the tax on cotton. He said: "Sir, I will but say, in reference to this tax on cotton, every one knows and understands it to have been an exceptional tax and a departure from the ordinary principle which prevails in our legislation in the United States, not to impose a burden upon an agricultural product. The tax, on the part of those who voted for it, of whom I was one, under the original proposition was considered justified in some degree, perhaps as a war measure, or rather as a measure following upon the heel of the war and relating to matters which had been affected by the disturbance of the country. It was also supported on the ground that there was but little revenue to be derived from the Southern part of the country except through a tax of this kind. And it was justified generally by the anomalous condition of all that was then existing and in a measure exists up to this time in that part of the country. The time has now arrived, I believe, in the general judgment of the country, and certainly in the unanimous judgment of the Ways and Means Committee, to remove that tax. And it will be observed that we propose to remove it prospectively. If this matter had come up for consideration as long ago as September last, when the cotton crop of the present year was just coming into market, and when it had not passed from the hands of the grower, it is not impossible that the committee might have recommended to the House to make the law take immediate effect upon its passage; but the condition of things has very much changed since that date.

Mr. Brooks, of New York, said: "In the main I perfectly concur in the remarks of the chairman of the committee; that is, I insist upon our retracing our steps, because this matter of the taxation of cotton to the extent of $20,000,000 per annum is a bounty to that ex

tent for the products of Great Britain in her India possessions and the products of Egypt and Brazil. Indeed, the percentage or premium which we give to the foreign cotton by our tax is computed by the Treasury agent, Mr. Wells, to be over fifty per cent., while by cotton brokers and commercial men it is computed to amount to seventy-five per cent. Hence, admitting this tax to have been a mistake, in which all agree, the only difference is when we shall correct the mistake. In regard to that I differ from the honorable chairman of the committee.

"Now is the accepted time, and now is the day, in my opinion, while in the opinion of the majority of the committee this doing right is to be postponed till the crop of another year, and there is to be a continuance of this wrong for a year from now."

Mr. Niblack, of Pennsylvania, said: "I have always been opposed to it for the reason that influences the gentleman from Ohio. In the first place, it was an exceptional tax, so conceded; in the next place I thought it unjust and impolitic. So long as cotton commanded a high price, this tax was not so much felt. It was not a matter of so much consequence to the producer when this tax was put on as it has assumed to be during the present depressed condition of the cotton interest. Still, it was an impolitic measure. Being opposed, therefore, to this tax from the beginning, my first impulse was to agree to something like the proposition of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Brooks), to take off the tax at once. On examining the question, however, I came to the conclusion that we could not do so justly without refunding to those who have already paid taxes upon the present year's crop. Upon inquiry at the Treasury Department, and at the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, I ascertained further that this act could never be carried out without great trouble and considerable cost, and even then perhaps not very satisfactorily. I also ascertained, upon inquiry of those who are more familiar with the subject of cotton-growing than I am, that by this time the greater portion of the small producers, the poor men who are engaged in growing cotton, have already parted with their crop and paid the tax on it, or at least have sold it at a price corresponding to the addition of the tax. In that view of the case, to adopt the proposition of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Brooks), it seems to me, would have the effect to take from these people the amount they have already paid in taxes. It would be a discrimination against men who are least able to submit to the loss."

Mr. Griswold, of New York, said: "Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit a few remarks on the question now before the House, mainly because of the position I occupied at the time the tax was imposed. When the House considered and decided that matter, I differed with the members of the Committee of Ways and Means in