Mr. Speaker-Some gentlemen have expreffed a wifh, that I would be fatisfied with a tax of 10 or 12 cents per gallon on homediftilled fpirits. This would not anfwer the purpose I have in view; it would not raife the money required; and would not enable us to get rid of the other odious internal taxes propofed by the committee. This object I have steadily in view, to reduce the number of the taxes propofed, which will, I conceive, proportionably reduce the trouble, expenfe, and diftrefs that will refult from the propofed fyftem of taxation; each tax will have its laws to be confulted, its officers to control your will in the management of your concerns; each will produce its peculiar difficulties and diftrefs; and the more you can reduce their number, the more you will diminish the troubles and diftreffes of the fyftem. But I have voted the expenfe, and I will not refuse the means of payment; I will take the taxes in the best form I can get them. I have thought a tax of 25 cents a gallon on home diftilled fpirits neceffary to equalife the burthen of taxes, as they will operate on the different fections of the Union, and on the different claffes of fociety.

Mr. Speaker-This tax is objected to by my friends from the weftward, as operating with peculiar hardship on that_fection of the country. We are told by my honorable friend, who laft fpoke, (Mr. Grundy) that almoft their entire crops of grain are diftilled; that whiskey is in general use to the weftward; that it is the general beverage of the country; and if a tax be laid on this article, it will be a tax on the industry of the western country that muft check its rifing profperity; that I may well advocate this tax, coming from Maryland, where no whiskey is distilled, and where I would not be affected by it.

Mr. Speaker-Confiderable quantities of fpirit is diftilled in Maryland; and confiderable quantities of it is confumed there ; and much that comes from the western country, whence it is brought for a market, is there confumed. The confumer pays the duty. People of the western country make it-those on the feaboard confume it; and as far as this goes the people on the feaboard pay the duty; and those to the weftward enjoy the benefit. But I have no doubt this kind of fpirit is produced in much greater abundance in the interior, and to the weftward, than it is in Maryland.

Mr. Speaker--Our weftern friends have generally voted freely to impofe an additional duty of 30 or 40 cents per gallon on imported spirits. The original duty on the importation of this lux. ury was 30 or 40 cents per gallon, it will now, by the aid of their votes have to pay a tax of 60 or 80 cents, and I do not know but 100 cents the gallon. Foreign fpirits are confumed almoft exclufively in the towns, and on the feaboard; they are fcarcely to be met with in the interior except in towns and in public-houses; and is it juft or equal to lay a tax that fhall oblige one fection of

the country to drink spirit, if they drink it at all, under a tax of from 60 to 80 or even 100 cents per gallon, and to fuffer other fections to drink it at about one cent the gallon, for the duty propofed to be laid on the capacity of ftills, will produce about one cent per gallon on the quantity diftilled in the United States? What is there in this article, that it must not be approached by the unhallowed hand of the taxgatherer? It is not a neceflary of life, but a pernicious luxury, injurious to morals, and in its effects tending to disturb the peace and happiness of fociety. The ag. gregate quantity diftilled in the United States is great, but the individual confumption fmall. It is in general ufe; you can fcarcely enter a houte, where you may not get a glafs of fpirits. It is therefore a fit fubject of revenue; and when we are obliged to refort to internal taxes, I can fee no reafon why this article fhould be exempt from the common fate of other luxuries.

Mr. Speaker The heavy additional duty, which our western friends have enabled us to impofe on foreign spirits, will act as a bounty on home diftillation. The more we embarrass the importation of foreign fpirits by taxation, the more we encourage home diftillation; and I do think our western brethren ought to bear a fimilar burthen to that they have voted to impofe on other fections of the country.

Mr. Speaker-I think the western section of the country has lefs reafon to refufe a fair participation in the taxes to be railed,' than any other section of the Union, because they will derive more benefit, probably, from the expenditure of the tax than any other. The army of the United States has been for years past almost exclusively within the reach of their market. They have enjoyed, and will enjoy, the benefit of the foldiers' pay expended among them, and the benefit of a market for their provifions, their whiskey and other articles, to fupply the army which the tax is intended to fupport; and I did expect that they would not have refused to fuffer their whiskey to bear a part of the tax.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Pennsylvania, (Mr Smilie) the correctnefs of whofe political courfe I have had fo many occafions to admire and refpect, confiders a tax on domeftic diftilled fpirits an odious tax, because it is an excife, and he has taken the trouble to quote Black stone, at confiderable length, to prove that it is odious and oppreffive. The gentleman might have fpared this trouble-it was not neceffary to invoke foreign aid on this fubject; we all know that it is odious; we have all had the experience of an excife at home; and of a ftamp tax, and of all the other internal taxes now propofed to be laid. We know that they were all odious, and that they were all oppreffive; and this knowledge makes me wifh to reduce their number, to diminifh their odium, and as far as poffible avert the oppreffion; for the odium and opreffion will be nearly in proportion to the number of taxes embraced by the fyftem.

Mr. Speaker, let us fee what it is, in this tax on home distil

lation that is fo odious and oppreffive-the people generally will have nothing to do with it, they will neither fee nor feel its operation in any other way than in the price of the fpirits they confume. The diftiller pays the entire tax, and recovers it back in the fale of his liquor. It will give the distillers fome trouble, and we may fuffer fome abufe in the collection; but I fee no necef. fity for more trouble and abufe in this, than in the fugar excife. the land tax, or almost any of the other taxes propofed; and this being much more productive than all the others together, is on that account entitled to our preference. The people at large can only be affected by this tax, in a pecuniary way, in an amount not greater than the amount of duty on the quantity of spirits they feverally confume, which cannot be much.

Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to an opinion, that it would, among the lefs wealthy part of the community, be a family of fome little extravagance that would ufe more than one barrel of this fpirit in a year. The tax on the quantity, at 25 cents, as proposed, will be $7,50; but it is probable that more than 15 gallons a year would not be confumed by a common sized family of fuber habits-and if they be not fober, no care of ours can fave them from difficulties. The duty on 15 gallons will be $3,75— wealthy families, if they ufe more of the article, have more abundant means to pay; the rich are never in diftrefs in this way; if it is oppreffive to any part of the community, it will be fo to the poorer claffes of fociety. But neither $7,50, nor $3,75, to a family, can be confidered as a burthenfome contribution for the fupport of government. The rights and intereft of the American people muft, indeed, be estimated at a low rate by that man, who would not cheerfully pay either of these fums for their de fence.

Mr. Speaker, I have thought it my duty to fubmit these obser vations to the confideration of the Houfe. I think the amendment I had the honor to move, important in the bearing it will have on the cafe and comfort of individuals, and on the profperity of the nation.

On the question of reconsidering the vote on the

SALT TAX.

MR. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker-I regret that the honorable member from Virginia (Mr. Gholfon) who on Friday laft voted against the tax of twenty cents on falt, fhould now propofe the reconfideration of that fubject, with a view of fixing the unequal, and of course unjuft tax on the people of the United States, or rather on a part of them; however, I hope, that all the "out-ofdoor management," which the gentleman politely calls the interference of his friends, will not produce fuch a refult, particular. ly as the gentleman ought to acquiefce in the decifion of a majority, the vital principle of a republican government.

The reconfideration of a fubject reflects on the Houfe for the immaturity of their decifion, and ought not haftily to be adopted. Sir, are we a fet of weathercocks, to be turned about by every idle wind? No! I hope not, let it blow from what quarter it may. Are we ready to prefent the ungracious fpectacle of recording our opinions for and against the fame thing? In the first cafe, on a full difcuffion of the fubject on both sides; in the fecond, under the "out-of-doors" influence, which the gentleman has informed us has induced him to make the motion. For the honor of the House I hope this motion will not fucceed.

Sir, at the laft feffion, when the queftion for rechartering the odious British Bank was before us, we had to encounter the influence of the fecretary of the treafury; and after it was rejected by the Houfe, he, in reply to the enquiries of the Senate, where it was agitated, but fortunately rejected, endeavored to impress its importance on the nation, and by thefe means to force it on the people. Now at this feffion, he has told us, that if we had a national bank, we fhould have no occafion to refort to internal taxes, thereby calling the American people to review the conduct of their reprefentatives, in not continuing that bank, and thereby to fix the odium of thefe odious taxes on the national legiflature. Now a fyftem of taxes is prefented, truly odious, in my opinion, to the people, to difguft them with their reprefentatives, and to chill the war fpirit. Yet it is, under treafury influence, to be impreffed on the committee of ways and means, and through them upon the House.

Sir, I, as a reprefentative of the people, feel it my duty to refift it with all my energies, and not to facrifice the intereft of my country at the fhrine of the fecretary of the treafury, or any other department; though I ftrongly incline to believe his projected fyftem of taxes has not their preference.

Sir, is there any thing of originality in this fyftem? No! it is treading in the muddy footsteps of his official predeceffors, in attempting to ftrap round the necks of the people this odious fyftem of taxation, adopted by them, for which they have been condemned by the people, and difmiffed from power. We all recollect the clamor against Mr. Adams' adminiftration for this fyftem of odious stamp taxes and excifes, and the more odious hoft of taxgatherers, who were let loose upon the people, by whose appointment and patronage the country was then overrun with electioneering agents for that adminiftration. We all had a hand in impreffing this opinion upon the people at that time, and I yet religioufly believe it to have been a correct one.

When Mr. Jefferson came into office, he as Prefident advised us to put down these odious taxes, and we repealed the law; he alfo advised us to repeal the law impofing a tax on falt, as oppreffive to the poor, and we did fo. And now, fir, as with the view of destroying this adminiftration, with this fentence of difmissal of our predecessors in office before our eyes, a fentence not only

fanctioned but excited by ourselves, we are to be prefsed into a fyftem known to be odious in the fight of the people, and which on its first prefentation in a letter from the fecretary of the treaf. ury to the committee of ways and means, and by them fubmitted to us, produced fuch an excitement in the Houfe.

Sir, having heretofore made these charges against our political opponents, how can we defend ourselves against their juft odium? Are we prepared to urge their correctness now, which we then fo fuccefsfully denounced? No, I acted then on principle, which is immutable; and I am fatisfied the people did fo too, and that they will not be found to approve in us what they condemned in our predecessors. I am not fo delirious as to take the deleterious draught, by which our political enemies were destroyed; it would be political fuicifm.

Sir, the propofition to lay a tax of feventy cents on falt ought to be rejected; it is unequal in its operation on the U. S. and it is oppreffive to the poor. By the conftitution it is provided, as a guard against the inequality of taxes among the ftates, that direct taxes fhall be apportioned among the ftates by the rate of reprefentation; this fixes the principle by which the ftates fhall contribute to the "common defence and general welfare." Does the tax on falt operate in this ratio on the refpective states? No, fir, the ftates of Kentucky, Tenneffee, Ohio, the Wettern Territo ries, are entirely fupported by home-made falt; the greater part of New-York, the weftern parts of Pennsylvania, and the weftera parts of Virginia, are in a great measure, and at fome of the falt works, we are informed, at a price not exceeding ten cents. These parts of the Union will therefore pay no tax on imported falt. On Friday it was propofed to lay a tax of ten cents on home-made falt, that they who did not contribute by the tax on imported falt might pay fomething to the fupport of the war by the tax on country falt; but this was not only rejected, but thofe who oppofed the tax of twenty cents on imported falt were denounced as being opposed to taxes to carry on the war, and infinuations made that they were against the war. I think those who do not use imported falt, and who oppofed the tax of ten cents on country falt, ought to have had the modefty of being filent on the fubject.

Sir, the tax on imported falt will operate as a bounty on home made falt, a net profit to the manufacturer of that article, which he will levy on the confumer; ten cents of which, by way of tax, I wished to draw into the treasury, but this was rejected.

So much have I urged against the unequal bearing of this Salt Tax on the refpective ftates; but, fir, I have a still stronger objection to it, its oppreffion of the poor. Salt is not only a neceffary but an indifpenfable, which the poor cannot do without, and a poor family in proportion to their numbers will confume as much falt as a rich family, and of course pay as much of the tax on falt, Sir, can this be right? No! Let us lay it directly on