THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. The matter has been referred to the committee, and the House is functus officio on that subject for the present. The committee has the custody of the case of the so-called members from Arkansas; and under the resolution of the House it is not in order for the committee to report. Only the Committee on Enrolled Bills can report during the pendency of the tax bill. The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York upon the ground stated in the remarks which the gentleman has read from the Globe, and which were, at least, tacitly assented to by the House, and also, upon an additional ground, which the Chair will state. There are two classes of questions of privilege which cannot, in the opinion of the Chair, be set aside by any resolution of the House. The first are messages from the President of the United States returning bills with his objections to the House in which they originated. The Constitution requires that those objections shall be entered upon the Journal, and that the House shall proceed to the consideration of the same. That is the imperative requirement of the Constitution. The second class of questions of privilege are those relating to election cases; and the reason these are questions of the highest privilege except veto messages of the President is that the most imperative duty which can devolve upon a legislative body is to ascertain who are its members. All those who are really entitled to seats upon this floor as members have the right to vote upon every proposition coming before the House. It is upon this ground that all Presiding Officers, during the whole history of the Government, have recognized reports from the Committee of Elections as questions of the highest privilege, which can be presented at any time when there is no other business before the House. When such reports are presented they are subject to the control of the House, which can, of course, lay them upon the table, recommit them, or postpone them. But the right to present reports from the Committee of Elections upon the cases of persons claiming to be entitled to seats as members and to vote on all propositions is a right that no rule or resolution of this House can set aside. tions have carefully examined the credentials Resolved, That the oath of office be now adminis- Mr. BROOKS. I now move to reconsider the vote by which these credentials were referred to the Committee of Elections. Mr. SCOFIELD. I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. Mr. BROOKS. I do not yield the floor. The SPEAKER. The motion to reconsider question is pending. The rule on page 163 of is not debatable while the call of the previous hills, but covers this same point, will be read the Digest, which applies more particularly to by the Clerk. The Clerk read as follows: "It is in order, even pending the demand of the previous question on the passage of a bill, to move a reconsideration of the order of engrossment, But of course, if moved at such a time, it is not debatable." The SPEAKER. After the bill has been the Speaker. Let me say to the gentleman Mr. SCOFIELD. The gentleman can sub- Mr. BROOKS. I do not dispute the right forty odd members of the House have prepared Mr. BROOKS. Let me suggest that when of the Committee of Elections under ordinary circumstances to present, as a question of priv-gentleman avoided from his parlimentary exa respectful protest and wish to present it, the ilege, a report on an election case. point I make is that the House has, by unaniBut the perience, well knows it cannot be, in this way. mous consent, changed the order of business, it will go before the public and be read by the It can be presented in a variety of ways, and and ordered that during the pendency of the public. It cannot be suppressed. tax bill no reports from committees shall be in order except reports from the Committee on Enrolled Bills; and it is this point to which I wish to call the attention of the Chair. The SPEAKER. The Chair, for the reasons he has already stated, overrules the point of order. It is of course within the power of the House to lay upon the table, recommit, or postpone the report of the Committee of Elections; but if these gentlemen, whose cases the committee now report upon, are really entitled to seats on this floor, they have the right to vote to-day. Mr. BROOKS. Would it be in order for me to make a motion to reconsider the vote by which the cases of these so-called members from Arkansas were referred to the Committee of Elections? The SPEAKER. It would not be, while the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ScoFIELD] is on the floor. Mr. BROOKS. Is not that a privileged motion which I have the right to make? The SPEAKER. Not while the gentleman from Pennsylvania is on the floor, unless he yields for that purpose. Mr. SCOFIELD. I do not yield. The SPEAKER. Unless the motion to reconsider was laid on the table yesterday, the right to make the motion to reconsider will accrue whenever any gentleman can obtain the floor to make it. Mr. SCOFIELD. The Committee of Elec Mr. SCOFIELD. Whenever it is in order Mr. BROOKS. I withdraw the motion. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, NAYS -Messrs. Adams, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, NOT VOTING-Messrs. Archer, James M. Ashley, June 24, Axtell, Baker, Banks, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman, So the resolution was adopted. Mr. GETZ stated that his colleague, Mr. Mr. SCOFIELD moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. Mr. SCOFIELD. The Arkansas members are now present, and I move that they be sworn in. Mr. BROOKS. Before that is done I do not avail myself of the parliamentary opportunity to again offer the protest to their admission, because I believe it is the understandafforded to me to present it. ing on the other side of the House, after the members are sworn in, opportunity will be A MEMBER. I object. Mr. SCOFIELD. I have no objection to the gentleman presenting his protest after we get through with this, that is if it is a respectful protest, as I presume it is. Mr. LOGAN H. Roors, Mr. JAMES HINDS, and Mr. THOMAS BOLES then presented themselves, and were duly qualified. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio is entitled to the floor on the tax bill. Mr. KERR. I wish to submit a resolution. Mr. SCHENCK. I am willing to yield for ten minutes while the House is filling up. Mr. KERR. I wish to present a resolution which will give rise to no debate. Mr. SCHENCK. I desire to say in regard to the protest that I have no objection to its being introduced if the gentleman presenting it will say that it is in no way disrespectful to the House or disparaging to its action. Mr. BROOKS. The best authority I can give for that is the signature of forty members of the House. Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman will understand me. I am unwilling to have the special order put out of the way for anything. Therefore I cannot yield for the gentleman to offer a protest if it requires a division of the House or will occasion debate. If it is a proper paper to be presented I have no objection to its being introduced, ordered to be printed, and brought up at any time hereafter as the will of the House may determine. no Mr. BROOKS. It would lead to no division Several MEMBERS. Let it be read. Several members objected. me Mr. SCHENCK. Let it be printed in the Globe to-morrow, and we will then see what it is. I do not wish to stop the course of the regular order for the purpose of reading a long paper. Mr. INGERSOLL. The gentleman says it will not require more than ten minutes to read it. I ask to have it read. Several members objected. Mr. KELSEY. I call for the regular order. The SPEAKER. If the regular order is insisted upon the House will immediately solve itself into Committee of the Whole on the special order. re Mr. KELSEY. I withdraw the call to allow the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. KERR] to introduce a resolution. Mr. HARDING. I renew the demand for the regular order. The SPEAKER. The Chair understands that the protest is received, and will be entered on the Journal and printed in the Globe: ARKANSAS MEMBERS-PROTEST. The recognized presence of three persons on the door of this House from the State of Arkansas, sent here by military force acting under a brigadier general of the Army, but nevertheless claiming to be members of this Congress, and to share with us, the Representatives from free States, in the imposition of taxes and customs and other laws upon our people, makes it our imperative duty in this, the first case, to remonstrate most solemnly, and to protest as solemnly, against this perilous and destructive innovation upon the principles and practices of our hitherto constitutional self-government. The so-called reconstruction acts which created the military government in Arkansas and like governments in other southern States to share with us in the legislative power of the northern and western free people we have every reason to believe have been held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, the public declaration of which fact was avoided only by the extraordinary and strange device of this Congress in snatching jurisdiction from the court in the McCardle case when such a public decision was about to be made. Of the three great branches of the Government it seems, then, that after the Executive vetoed these acts as unconstitutional, the judiciary adjudicated them to be so, while a Congress, the creation of but twenty-seven of the thirty-seven States of the Union, overrides these equal and coördinate branches of that Government, first by voting down the vetoes, next by nullifying the judgments of the court! In an era of profound peace, when not an armed man rises against the Government from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, there, in ten States, our American historical way of creating the organic law has been utterly subverted by the bayonet. Ever since the Declaration of Independence, with scarcely an exception, and even amid the battles of the Revolution, conventions have been convoked through, and constitutions created by, the electors of the States, the only authorized depositaries of the sovereign power of every State without exterior dictation or domination, as well under the old confederation as under the existing Federal Constitution. The hardest and harshest test-oath required from 1766 to the peace of 1783 was an abjuration oath of allegiance to Georgo III, while some of the now so-called bayonet-mado constitutions from the South propose absurd and cruel tests, absurd as in Arkansas, where is interwoven in the organic law a mere party test between the Radical reconstructionists and the Democratic conservatives, such as would exclude from voting, if living there, the thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Democrats in the free States, (art. 8. sec. 4.) or cruel, as in Alabama, where no white man can vote who will not forever forswear his own race and color, and perjure himself by swearing in defiance of the law of God that the negro is his equal and forever to be his equal at the ballot-box, in the jury-box, with the cartridge-box; in the school, in the college, in house and home, and by the fireside; in short, in every way, everywhere, (art. 7, sec. 4.). Now in these and the other southern States in the midst of war President Lincoln, in his proclamation, December 8, 1863, offered amnesty and pardon to rebels then in arms, if they would lay down their arms and take an oath of fidelity, while now, not a Union man in Arkansas or Alabama can vote unless in the first place he swears allegiance to the majesty of this Congress, and in the next swears off his Americanism and Africanizes himself. Hitherto constitutions with us have been the outgrowth of popular life, springing from the exuberance of our enterprise and energy in the settlement of the forests or prairies of our country; but here, before us now, are nine constitutions, with one if not three more yet to come from Texas, which have all been imposed upon the people by five military satraps or pentarchs, in a manner never before known under our law, but borrowed at best from imperial Roman military colonization, or from the worst precedents of the French revolution. France is then recorded to have had five constitutions in three years, so frequently made and so frequently changed that they were ironically classed by the French people with the periodical literature of the day. Louisiana, a colony of that France, has had four constitutions in four years, and a constitution there has now become periodical literature, as in France, in the agonies and throes of the great revolution. Laws, mere statute laws, which can never be created by conventions, are appended, more or less, to all these constitutions, and bayonet created, one-branch governments, with no Executive, no senate, no house of representatives, no judiciary have ordained irrepealable, irreversible laws in the very organisin of the State, such as cannot be thus created by the Executive, the senate, and the house of representatives of legitimate governments when acting in unison and all combined. All this has been done, without regard to preceding constitutions or precedents, or to the common law of the States or the law of nations. The military, which, under legitimate institutions. can only be used in time of peace to conserve or preserve the State, have here been used to destroy States. The General of the Army, who represents the sword, and only the sword of the Republic, has been exalted by acts of Congress above the constitutional Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, in 40TH CONG. 2d Sess.-No. 216. order to execute those military decrees, and as the surer way to root out every vestige left of constitutional law or liberty. The same General of the Army, in order to prolong or perpetuate his military domination North and West as well as South, has been selected in party convention at Chicago to head the electoral vote for the Presidency in ten of our States which are as much under his feet as Turkey is under the Sultan or Poland under the Czar of Russia. But, as if only to add insult to the injury of this military outrage upon popular government in these ten States, either by act of Congress or by these Congress-soldier-made State constitutions, at least two hundred and fifty thousand whites have been disfranchised, while seven hundred and fifty thousand negroes, inexperienced in all law making, and more ignorant than our children, have been enfranchised in their stead, and have thus been created absolute masters and sovereigns over the whole white population of the South. Because of all this, and in opposition to all this, we. Representatives of the people from the free Scates, in behalf of our constituents and of thousands and tens of thousands of others who would be here represented if the popular power without could now constitutionally act here within, earnestly and solemnly protest against this violence upon our Constitution and upon our people, and do hereby counsel and advise all friends of popular government to submit to this force and fraud only until at the ballot-box, operating through the elections, this great wrong can be put right. There is no law in the land supreme over the constitutional law. There is no government but constitutional government; and hence all bayonet-made, all Congress-imposed constitutions are of no weight, authority, or sanction, save that enforced by arms, an element of power unknown to Americans in peace, and never recognized but as it acts in and under the supreme civil law, the Constitution, and the statutes enacted in pursuance thereof. We protest, then, in behalf of the free people of the North and the West, against the right of this military oligarchy established in Arkansas or elsewhere in the now reënslaved States of the South to impose upon us, through Congress, taxes or customs or other laws to maintain this oligarchy or its Freedmen's Bureau. We protest against going into the now proposed copartnership of military dictators and negroes in the administration of this Government. We demand, in the name of the fathers of the Constitution and for the sake of posterity, not its reconstruction, but the restoration of that sacred instrument which has been to us all a pillar of fire from 1787 on to its present overthrow; and in all solemnity, before God and man, under a full sense of the responsibility of all we utter, we do hereby affix our names to this protest against the admission of these three persons claiming to be members of Congress from Arkansas. JAMES BROOKS, S. S. MARSHALL, D. M. VAN AUKEN, The House, under the order heretofore made, resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. BLAINE in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of 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. The pending question was on the amendment of Mr. HARDING, to add, at the end of section ten, the following: Provided, That this act shall not be deemed to prohibit the producing of alcohol in a distillery by primary continuous distillation. Mr. GARFIELD. This proposition is an old acquaintance in this House. It was offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HARDING] at the first session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and was rejected. It was offered in the second session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and atter full debate, the gentleman from Illinois speaking in its favor, it was rejected without a division. So that this is the third time that this proposition has been brought before the House, and I hope it will be rejected as before, without a division. Mr. PAINE. I move to strike out the last word of the amendment. Mr. SCHENCK. Before the gentleman proceeds, I ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HARDING] whether he will not be as well satisfied to offer that amendment at the end of section eleven, where it more properly belongs. Mr. HARDING was understood to decline. Mr. PAINE. It is not sufficient for me that the gentleman from Ohio should inform the House that to him this is an old acquaintance. It does not satisfy me to be told that under some former state of the law the Committee of Ways and Means, or even this whole House, rejected it. He must do more than that to convince me that the amendment of the gentleman from Ilinois [Mr. HARDING] ought to be rejected. He must give me some reason for rejecting the amendment. He has not done it, and I undertake to say that he cannot do it. It may be true that under the law as it formerly stood there was good reason for refusing to the distillers the right by continuous distillation in their own distilleries to bring up distilled spirits to the grade of alcohol. But under the provisions of this bill, under the law as it will stand if this bill passes, the gentleman can find no reason upon which to base his opposition to this amendment, and the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means will not say to this House that there is in this bill any objection to this amendment, or anything in conflict with it. Nor can any member of the committee give to this House any reason, founded on facts of the case under this bill, why this amendment should not be adopted. Common sense requires that distillers should have the right, if they see fit and are able, to carry the spirits up to the grade of alcohol in one continuous process of distillation. They will pay all the tax in that case which they will be required to pay in any other case; and no one has so far given, I think no one can give, any good reason why distilled spirits should be necessarily and always withdrawn from the distillery and be rectified at some other place. Now, sir, I have no especial interest in this matter; no constituent of mine has any to my knowledge; but I am not satisfied to be told that this amendment is an old acquaintance of the gentleman from Ohio. My recollection of the history of this matter is moreover very different from that of the gentleman from Ohio. My recollection is entirely in accordance with that of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. HARDING,] who moved this amendment, that this House inserted this provision in the bill, but I know not what became of it in the Senate. But if it is true, if it ever has been true, that in any state of the law, under any regulations that were in force for the collection of the tax, that this would have embarrassed that collection, there is, so far as I can see, no objection as the bill now stands, as the law will stand if this bill is passed; and I call upon the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means to inform the House whether, in the law as it will stand when his bill is enacted, there is to be found any reason why this amendment should not be ingrafted upon it? I yield him the remainder of my time, to enable him to inform the House on this subject. Mr. SCHENCK. In answer to that appeal I will state precisely what my understanding is. By the eleventh section of this bill it is provided, substantially as in the present law, that no other business than distilling shall be THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. carried on within a distillery with the exception of the manufacture of saleratus and the grinding of grain into meal. I understand that it is claimed at the Department that to double over, to redistill by successive and continuous distillation, is really the carrying on of a second business in the distillery, and on that ground they have decided that it cannot be done. I do not myself, I confess, see any objection to this redistillation, provided nothing is produced but alcohol. But if there be in this process anything equivalent to the rectification of whisky, there will be an escape then from the special tax the rectifier has to pay. Our object is to get a special tax from the distiller on every barrel he produces of proofwhisky, and then from the rectifier a further special tax for rectification. Mr. INGERSOLL. I desire to inquire of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means Mr. SCHENCK. As this thing appears to me, it is only a process of continuous distillation, equivalent to redistillation, so as to prevent the production of alcohol in the ordinary distilleries of the country. Mr. HARDING. I desire to ask the gentleman Mr. SCHENCK. I do not think there is any rectification in it. Mr. HARDING. No rectification is contemplated. It is primary distillation and only a degree of spirits. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. GARFIELD. I rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. PAINE.] Mr. HARDING. If the gentleman will yield to me a moment, I will say that although I made the motion it was withdrawn on the suggestion of the committee that they would insert the words "continuous distillation." Those words were inserted, and the bill went to the Senate. What was done there I do not know. But I have always understood that since that bill was passed in all the large distilleries of the West they have been running high wines up to the alcohol point. Mr. GARFIELD. I did not say nor think that the mere fact that this proposition had been twice rejected would be of itself sufficient to secure its rejection again, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] seemed to suppose. But I did think it ought to give this committee pause before they make a change of this sort. Before coming into this House this morning I read over very carefully the entire debate on this subject when it was formerly under consideration. That was in my mind, as I stated to the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, [Mr. SCHENCK,] for I recollected distinctly the debate in Committee of the Whole. It is recorded upon the page of the Globe before me that the amendment of Mr. Farquhar was rejected, and that was the end of it. The argument in that case is stated in the speech of Mr. CONKLING, a passvery well age from which I will read: "Now, sir, the proposition of the committee in this regard was, after a careful investigation by the subcommittee, in conjunction with the Government officers, that this process, called in parliamentary language continuous distillation'-called again in another phrase 'repeated doublings'-is a process which passes the comprehension of detectives, which oludes any mode of detection which we could apply. and enables those men not only to distill and redistill but to distill afresh, and make in place of one quantity of liquor repeated quantities, only one quantity being taxed. That was the proposition, and to meet it this provision was adopted.' Now, on that argument, still further enforced by other members, the amendment was rejected. Now, let me state in brief the objection to this amendment. In the first place liquor is run through and converted into raw spirits, or high wines. Now, if they may take this liquor, after it has once gone through the process of distillation, which subjects it to the Government tax-if without paying the tax it may be put back and run through again, and then put back and run through again and again, and made into per fect alcohol, or something a little short of per- It is on that ground that the Committee of The CHAIRMAN. Debate is exhausted. Mr. INGERSOLL. I renew the amend- But the advantage to the western distiller is Mr. INGERSOLL. There is no more waste Now, sir, there is not a single distillery in and I shall be done: SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That proof-spirit shall be held and taken to be that alcoholic liquor which contains one half its volume of alcohol of a specific gravity of seven thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine ten thousandths at sixty degrees Fahren June 24, heit; and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for the prevention and detection of frauds by distillers of spirits, is hereby authorized to adopt, procure, and prescribe for use, at the expense of the United States, such hydrometers, saccharometers, weighing and gauging instruments, meters, or other means for ascertaining the quantity, gravity, and producing capacity of any mash, wort, or beer used or to be used in the production of distilled spirits, and the strength and quantity of spirits subject to tax, as he may deem necessary; and he may prescribe rules and regulations to secure a uniform and correct system of inspection, weighing, and gauging of spirits. And gallon of proof-spirit, according to the foregoing in all sales of spirits hereafter made, where not otherwise specially agreed, a gallon shall be taken to be a standard set forth and declared for the inspection and gauging of spirits throughout the United States. Now, that is all there is about it; and there is no more chance of fraud in allowing them to run up" their wines above "proof" than to compel them to ship one and a half barrels when they could ship over the railroad one barrel containing the same number of "proof" gallons at a saving of an immense amount to western manufacturers in the cost of transportation from Peoria to New York. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. LOGAN. Mr. Chairman, I desire to state one objection to this, and to say that the gentleman from Illinois is mistaken in his premises. There is nothing in this bill to prevent a man having an alcohol column in his distillery provided he is bound by the rate of tax on spirits prior to its becoming alcohol, and the Government does not lose the decrease or its return. The Government loses this difference, proof-spirits, when you redistill that into alcoand that is the disadvantage of this system.. The tax being reduced to fifty cents on the hol you have to return less than when it was redistilled into alcohol. This bill provides that the Government shall receive the tax on the difference between the proof-spirits and after its redistillation into alcohol. By the adop tion of this amendment the Government will lose the tax upon the difference in the redistillation into alcohol after its return. Now, sir, so far as the distillation into alcohol is concerned at the distillery, there is no objection to that. Alcohol cannot be made in the common stills. The gentleman from Illinois knows that, for there are a great many distilleries in Peoria. He knows that alcohol cannot be made in common stills. There is no objection to it provided the Government is to obtain the tax upon the decrease in the quantity between the proof-spirit and after it has been redistilled into alcohol. I myself have no objection to the distillation of alcohol in a distillery provided the tax is paid to the Government on the spirit before it is redistilled into alcohol. I want the tax put upon the proof gallon of distilled spirits. Mr. BROOMALL. That is what I am for. by the adoption of this amendment. The Mr. LOGAN. That will not be the result Government will lose the tax upon the difference between the proof gallon and the alcohol. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. INGERSOLL. I withdraw the amend- The question then recurred on Mr. HARD- No further amendment being offered, the SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That no person any or flour only to be used for distillation on the prem ises. Mr. INGERSOLL. I move to strike out "meal or flour," and insert "grain of all kinds." Mr. SCHENCK. I understand the Department has never interfered with the repair or keeping in order of cooperage, as an incidental business. The reason why we make one exception in this section in regard to the grind The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen must sending of grain to be used only for distillation on up their amendments in writing. Mr. INGERSOLL. ment. I withdraw the amend Mr. KOONTZ. I move the following amend ments: In line five, strike out the words "or on any premises;" In line nine, strike out the words or where any other business is carried on;" In lines eleven and twelve, strike out the words "or other premises;" and In line thirteen, strike out the words "or other business is carried on." Mr. Chairman, this section absolutely prohibits any person from carrying on any other business on the premises if he is engaged in distilling. The word "premises" is rather a comprehensive term, and may embrace a tract of land of two or three hundred acres, as well as a lot in a town or city; and if this section is enacted into law a person engaged in farming will be prohibited from carrying on a distillery. It often happens in the rural districts that a man may be engaged in carrying on a saw-mill or grist mill or a store on the premises. Now, he must either dispense with this other business or be prohibited from carrying on the business of distillation. I think that would be unfair. I do not think we have a right to prohibit a person who by his industry and energy has built up several kinds of business from carrying them on. Mr. SCHENCK. I may say of this amend ment as my colleague [Mr. GARFIELD] did of another this morning, and with more reason, that it is an old acquaintance. An attempt has been made uniformly whenever an internal tax bill has been up to amend it so as to allow the distiller to carry on any other business in and about his distillery; but it has been found absolutely essential for protection against frauds on the revenue that these men should be confined strictly to their business on the premises selected for that business. And such is the law now, even to the very use of the word that the gentleman particularly objected to. The present law is that no person shall use any still, boiler, or other vessel for the purpose of distilling in any building or on any premises where other operations are carried on. The exceptions have already been stated. The reason why this exception alone should be allowed, even if there be any reason for excluding everything else, must be obvious. Just as you multiply occupations and businesses in and about the distillery you offer an opportunity for fraud. As to the hardship on the farmer who at the same time owns a distillery, that exists only in fancy, I think; because he does not carry on his farming operations in the building or on the premises pertaining to the distillery building. He can have a fence around it, separate it from the rest of his farm, and he ought to do so. The premises of course will be construed in the law to mean just that portion of real estate which immediately appertains to or is connected with the building. Mr. KOONTZ. After the explanation given by the chairman of the committee I withdraw the amendment. Mr. MULLINS. I move to amend by inserting in line nine, after the word "on," the following: Except the making or repairing of such cooper's ware as may be necessary to the barreling of spirits or for mash or beer tubs, flake or cooling tubs: Provided, The same be done in a separate building. I make this motion for this reason: there are a great many little distillers in my section who find it exceedingly inconvenient to import their barrels. They have in their manufacturing establishments cooper's ware, or it may be adjacent to the still-house. It is a great expense and inconvenience to be obliged to transport barrels. I offer this amendment, and would like to hear from the chairman of the committee on the subject. the premises, is that there have been some instances where the revenue officers have decided that that is a different business, while in other districts they have decided that it is incidental to the distillery, and not a separate business. We have put this exception in because there has been objection to carrying on the business of grinding. But I think no objection has ever been made to the repairing of barrels, which has been treated as a business incident to distillation. Mr. MULLINS. After the explanation given by the chairman of the committee I withdraw the amendment. Mr. INGERSOLL. I desire to make an inquiry. It is well known that the business of feeding hogs and cattle is sometimes carried on quite extensively on the same premises. Now, want to know if that business is to be interfered with under the provisions of this bill. Mr. SCHENCK. Not at all. We even recognize it as a part of the distillery business, in another section. Mr. INGERSOLL. All right. The Clerk read the next section, as follows: SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That there shall be assessed and collected monthly, in the same manner as other taxes are assessed and collected, on every registered distillery having an aggregate capacity for mashing and fermenting one hundred bushels of grain or less in twenty-four hours, five dollars per day; and three dollars per day for every hundred bushels of such capacity in excess of one hundred bushels in twenty-four hours. But any distiller who shall stop work, as provided by this act, shall not be compelled to pay on any distillery more than two dollars per day during the time the work shall be so suspended in his distillery. Mr. KNOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out "five dollars" and "three dollars,' where they occur in the sixth line, and insert one dollar." It seems to me, sir, that all Federal legislation in relation to taxing whisky for several years past, whether designedly so or not, has been in the interest of those who are to command an extensive capital, and against | the laboring masses of limited means. Previous to the enactment of our stringent and complicated excise laws upon this subject large numbers of our farmers who raised a surplus of grain for which they had no remunerative or convenient market manufactured it into whisky in small distilleries on their own premises. They were, as a general thing, honest working men, of moderate means, without either the skill, inducement, or inclination to concoct those villainous compounds which are now known as whisky, and the consequence was their production was a genuine, honest, pure, unadulterated liquor. Such I know were the men who gave to Kentucky whisky its worldwide reputation. But the imposition of the enormous taxes we have had for several years past, and a dread of the numberless pitfalls with which our excise laws abound, have driven all this class of whisky manufacturers out of the business, and the production of whisky has been for the most part handed over to immense moneyed monopolies in the large cities and towns, who, instead of old-fashioned, honest, country-made copper whisky, give us a nauseous steamed slop or a poisonous concoction of cocculus Indicus, strychnine, and dog-leg tobacco, compared with which, I had almost said, aqua fortis would be an innocent and wholesome beverage. Now, sir, with the tax at fifty cents a gallon, and the distiller only required to pay it as he sells his whisky, we will have our old-fashioned country still-houses going again. They can compete, and compete successfully, with these plethoric moneyed monopolies of the cities, and we will hear no more of whisky frauds, of subterranean pipes, no more of hose extending from the still-house over the roofs of the intervening buildings to the rectifying shops. The people will get good whisky and the Government will get its revenue. But impose this tax of five dollars a day upon them, whether their distilleries are capable of running out a hundred bushels of mash or not, and you will keep them out the business as you have driven them out, and continue it in the hands of monopolists, for, sir, the farmer cannot pay this tax of $150 each month in addition to the other direct and indirect taxes imposed upon the production of whisky in this bill. Now, sir, take my word for it, the farmers all over the country who would like to make their surplus grain into whisky will want to know why this discrimination is made between them and all other manufacturers in the country. And they will especially want to know why it is that the small distiller is required to pay five dollars a day on every hundred bushels of mash he is capable of running out while his wealthier neighbor is only required to pay three dollars on each alternate hundred bushels. And, sir, they will demand an answer. If we are legislating for the interests of the wealthy capitalists this section is right, but if we have in view the interests of the laboring masses then we will adopt this amendment, or, what I would prefer, strike out the section altogether. Mr. MYERS. I rise to oppose the amendment, and I do it chiefly because I desire to support the principle contained in the section as it is. I would have no objection to reduce the amount, but I am opposed to reducing it to one dollar. We received last year $13,500,000 from the whisky tax, when at the rate of two dollars a gallon we should have received at least $100,000,000. The causes which the public generally believed led to this were first the inefficient conduct or bad conduct of the officers appointed by the Administration, and secondly the high rate of the tax. I believe both of those causes tended to produce the result, and I voted with a majority of the com mittee to reduce the tax to fifty cents a gallon in order that we might test what effect a reduction would have. But one of the chief reasons why we do not raise the amount we should have done from the tax on whisky, as I take it, was the improper mode of collecting this tax. I believe if we were to assess and collect the tax according to the fermenting capacity of the distillery, that, as was said yesterday by my venerable colleague, [Mr. STEVENS,] we would be able to collect at least three fourths of the tax. Mr. ALLISON. What does the gentleman mean by the fermenting capacity of the distillery? Mr. MYERS. The capacity of the mash tubs in connection with the number of hours necessary for fermentation. If you would secure the proper collection of the tax, then test this new method first. I favor this seetion because it contains that principle to some extent. And I take it that if we take this step toward the principle of the fermenting capacity of the distillery we will receive a large amount of money from this tax. And if we find next year that the tax has not been fully and properly collected we can then adopt the entire principle of the fermenting capacity of the dis. tillery and collect the tax in that way. That will simplify the law, obviate the expense of meters and stamps, and do away with a large majority of the officers employed under the present system. 66 Mr. BROOMALL. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. KNOTT] by striking out one dollar," where it first occurs, and inserting "two dollars;" and also by striking out one dollar" where it last occurs, and inserting "six dollars;" that is, in each case doubling the amount reported by the Committee of Ways and Means. I have very great reluctance to vote for any bill decreasing the tax upon whisky. Nothing but being assured by the Committee of Ways and Means that the present tax cannot be col lected induced me to remain quiet while the tax of two dollars per gallon was reduced to fifty cents per gallon. And nothing but the promise of the Committee of Ways and Means that at least a considerable portion of that THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. decrease should be made up by special taxes Now, when we come to these special taxes I am told that the present tax of two dollars per gallon cannot be collected. Why, then, should we not put a material part of the difference between two dollars per gallon and fifty cents per gallon in a shape in which it is said the tax can be collected? I am very loth to consent to the proposition that any tax which the great body of the community believe to be just and proper, as the great body of the community do believe with respect to the tax imposed by law as it now stands upon whisky; I am very loth to believe that this Government cannot collect all of that tax, every dollar of it. I believe that by the proper selection of the proper kind of officers the present tax upon whisky can be collected, and under an Executive who would look to the fitness of men, rather than to the use that could be made of them in politics, I believe the proper kind of officers would be appointed. If we cannot collect a tax justified by all the thinking men of the community, all who are not interested in producing whisky—if we cannot do that, then I should be compelled to believe our Government a failure. Mr. BECK. I desire to oppose the amendment to the amendment, and for this reason: that it bears unequally upon the distillers of the country. For instance, very many of the small distillers of the country would be very injuriously affected by this amendment. There have been comparatively no frauds in the collection of the tax from the small distilleries; the frauds have been in connection with exportation, redistillation, &c. collected from the makers of genuine whisky, The tax has been and especially the small distilleries everywhere. One of these small distilleries will make perhaps a barrel a day; that is a fair average of the small distilleries throughout Kentucky, Tennessee, &c. They do not make whisky to be exported or rectified or redistilled, but for home consumption. One barrel per day on the average is as much as they can make. Their product is altogether different from the high wines or crude spirits made in large steam distilleries, which never improve by time, and which are only fit for use after rectification, redistillation, or other process. A man who mashes one hundred bushels a day can make, say three hundred gallons, and distilleries run on the average eight months in the year. The man who makes a barrel a day will make about two hundred barrels in eight months. That will be eight thousand gallons, while the man who makes eight barrels a day from one hundred bushels of grain will make sixteen hundred barrels in eight months, or sixty-four thousand gallons. And under this per diem tax which you propose the man who runs one hundred bushels a day, making eight barrels, pays about a cent and a half a gallon in this way, while the man who makes one barrel per day pays over twelve cents a gallon. This is class legislation for the benefit of the large distilleries in which most of the frauds are committed. There is no justice in such legislation. Let each man pay in proportion to what he makes, and then they will all be on an equality. But the section, as it now stands, will ruin the only men who have paid the tax honestly, as the returns show. None of their whisky has gone into the market without the tax being paid. I hope the amendment of my colleague will prevail, the object of which is to bring the tax down to that point where you will not crush [Here the hammer fell.] ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. At this point the committee rose informally; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. HOLMAN, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled an act (H. R. No. 1059) to relieve from disabilities certain persons in States lately in rebellion; when the Speaker signed the same. The Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union then resumed the consideration of the INTERNAL TAX BILL. Mr. KOONTZ. I withdraw my amendment. fifty cents by this tax upon capacity will cer- We have thought that five dollars a day upon June 24, I will not insist on the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BROOMALL] proposing to increase this tax to ten dollars, because this is a part of the system presented by the committee; but I this capacity tax will be increased rather than repeat, that if there is to be any change, I hope reduced. Mr. MULLINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, and I desire to call the attention of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means to the operation of this proposition. In the district of country which I have the honor to represent the capacity of three fourths of the distilleries will not average, I think, over twenty gallons per day. Accord ing to the system of taxation proposed in this bill no distillery is to be permitted to run without paying five dollars per day direct tax to the Government. Now, on the small distilleries, whose production averages about twenty gallons per day this per diem tax would amount to about twenty-five cents per gallon; while as to establishments distilling daily one hundred bushels or three hundred gallons, this per-diem tax will be but a trifle on each gallon. I trust that some arrangement will be devised to relieve these small distilleries; they, in my section of the country, are the for distilleries to which the Government must look for its revenue. In the district which I represent there is more distillation of spirits than in perhaps any other portion of the State of Tenliquor known as the "Lincoln liquor." It is In my district is manufactured the from Lincoln county. They have small and rather indifferent means of transportation for compelled to redistill their corn into spirits for their grain to market. Therefore they are day can be done away with on these small distransportation. If this tax of five dollars a tilleries, then it will be a great convenience for them, and it will induce these small distilleries to keep up the manufacture and thus add revenue to the Government; otherwise it will drive them to the wall. The grain, too, will be lost to a great extent, and the Government will be deprived of the amount of revenue which otherwise it would receive. If these small distilleries can be relieved I shall be glad of it. I have stated what I have to bring the mind of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means to bear on this subject. I look to him as the leader on this bill, and I am bound to stand by him as far as consistency will allow me. nessee. The question was taken on Mr. BROOMALL'S amendment to the amendment; and it was rejected. Mr. KOONTZ. I move to strike out the words " or less." The CHAIRMAN. That it is not in order. Mr. MAYNARD. Iwish to move an amendment, and ask the chairman to observe the terms of the amendment pending. As the bill now reads it provides : That there shall be assessed and collected monthly, in the same manner as other taxes are assessed and collected, on every registered distillery having an aggregate capacity for mashing and fermenting one hundred bushels of grain or less in twenty-four hours five dollars per day. The gentleman from Kentucky moves to strike out five dollars a day and to insert one serting "twenty," so the effect will be to keep dollar a day. I propose to amend his amendment by striking out "one hundred" and in the tax as it now is. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would hardly rule that to be in order to the pending amendment. The gentleman can indicate his amendmen and move it hereafter. Mr. MAYNARD. If this amendment is have one result. If it fails, then my amend voted on, and the bill stands as it is, then we ment would have a different result. stand together. Both must The CHAIRMAN. That would be a good argument for the committee. The Chair rules the amendment is not in order. Mr. O'NEILL. For the purpose of saying a few words I move to strike out "five," and |