Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 36, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 October 1884 — SENATOR VOORHEES. [ARTICLE]

SENATOR VOORHEES.

Ail Explanation of His Vote on j the Biil Raising the Whisky Tax. Editor Indianapolis Journal: In a prominent editorial in your paper of yesterday I am called on, in a bitter accusation, to explain to the people of Indiana why, in January, 1864,1 voted against the amendment offered by Fernando Wood, of New, York to the revenue bill (H. R. No. 122), providing for an additional tax ou whisky already distilled, and on wflich the tax already required by law had been paid. As you have no reason to treat me with personal injustice, I address this communication to you with full confidence that you will cheerfully publishut. The Thirty-eighth Congress, in which this measure was considered, met on the 7th of December, 1863, the Senate being composed of thirty six Republicans and nine Democrats. In the House Schuyler Colfax was elected Speaker by a vote of 101 to 81 for all other candidates, the real majority of the Republican party being about twenty-five, as shown by repeated test votes. On the 14th of January following Thaddeus Stevens. Chairman of the ways and means, and the acknowledged leader of the House, moved to suspend the rules and take.up. for* consideration the revenue bill in question, wl ich he had introduced prior to that time. In explaining the provisions of the bill, Mr. Stevens, among other things, said: The gentleman will see that alt whisky that has paid a tax is exempt from this increased taxation. We did not think we had a right to go back and tax that which had been once taxed by the' government, whether it is in a warehouse or not. But wherever the distiller has failed to comply with the law, no. doubt from fraudulent purposes; where.he has not made his monthly returns, and paid his tax, we impose this duty on him, and we impose none on the distiller who has made his return or paid his tax. On this principle the bill came from the Republican Committee of the House. On the 23d of January the amendment offered by Mr. VV ood to tax whisky on hand and which had paid one tax, was adopted by the House with my vote against it, In company with Thaddeus. Stevens, James G. Blaine, Henry Winter Davis, William A. Wheeler, George S. Boutwell, and others of lesser note on the Republican side and with William S. Holman, Samuel J. Randall, George H. Pendleton, and other distinguished gentlemen on my own side of the chamber. Do you think all these eminent men wanted the rebellion to succeed? Do you assume that it would have been gall and wormwood to their souls as w r ell as mine to have seen the revenue increased?

When this bill, thus amended, reached the Senate it was, under the rules, referred to the Finance Committee of that body, of which William Pitt Fessenden was Chairman. You will hardly doubt his patriotism or his ability, even for the pleasure of striking a political opponent. ' He reported the bill back to the Senate with the Wood amendment stricken out, and, in the course of debate, he said: To tax an article of this kind on hand —and more especially in the hands of an owner—whether an imported article or whether an article subject to domestic duties, which has already paid a tax or which, perhaps, nas not, is a thing entirely new *in the revenue system of any country. I am told, and on authority (I have not personally

examined it myself, because I was told there was no doubt about the fact) that it has never been done in England in any case: and if we introduce it here, it will be the first time*, in the. history of any system of this kind that you take an article ot propertv which* has already gone through the hands of government, and paid this tax to government, and again assesses a tax upon it in the hands or the owner. lam told it has never been done at all heretofore in any country, and consequently we should be introducing an entirely new system, and one which might be attended with considerate embarrassment

On a vote in the Senate Mr. Fessenden and the Committee on Finance were sustained and the principle of repeated taxation of the same article was condemned by a majority of more than two to one, the two Senators from Indiana, Henry S. Lane and Thomas A. Hendricks, voting together against it. When the bill was returned to the House, with the " ood amendment stricken out. Mr. Stevens called it up February 15 and said:

It will be recollected that the Committee on Ways and Means recommended that after the 12th of January, the time the bill was reported, all whisky distilled ana sold, or removed for sale, should pay forty cents per gallon, in addition. to the present tax of twenty cents. The House, on motion of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fernando Wood), changed that so as to put the tax upon all stock on hand, without reference to the time when the same was distilled or whether it had been taxed or not. The House adopted that amendment, and in. that shape the bill was sent to the Senate. * * t * The Senate acted upon the bill, aud they, in short, amended the bill so that it should be entirely prospective etc. * •* * The q Ueß ti on now j g whether the House will accept the amendment of the Senate or will adhere to their own bill. The Committee on ays and Mean? are clearly of the opinion that the Honse ought to accept the Senate bill 2 first, because it is more consistent with the principles of taxation adopted by this and every other government in laying a tax upon future products, and because it is consistent with Congress made to the community at the time they passed the tax law.

Upon such reasoning as this the House concurred with the Senate in striking out the amendment offered by Mr. Wood, and which was at first adopted. I simply agreed with Mr. Stevens, Mr. Fessenden, and other able leaders in both branches of ‘ ongress in opposing a principle of continuous taxation, which' involves the right of confiscation; and if for this you think best to assail me before the people of Indiana. I am content for you to do so. J his is my explanation which you demanded; and if it is different from what you expected it is because my record is better than you thought it was I have the honor to be very respectfully yours,

D. W. VOORHEES.

Terre Haute, Sept. 17,1884.