Gazette Of The United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 19.

The House being in a committee of the whole on the subject of further revenue, Mr. Dent in the chair.

Mr. Hartley hoped the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut, would not prevail. He did not see that there was a prospect of raising sufficient revenue from impost duties, and they must, therefore, have recourse to direct taxes. The only question was whether the last census should be made use of, or a new one taken; he thought there was no necessity for a new one. He was convinced, he said, that a land tax was necessary; he would vote for it, and pay his portion of it. He hoped, since they must meet the question, that they might do it soon, and not consume more time in debate.

Mr. Dayton (the speaker) said that the words "according to the last census," which were proposed to be stricken out, appeared to him objectionable in every point of view. If they implied that the enumeration made several years ago, should be the rule of apportionment, even though a new one should be taken before the direct taxes were apportioned, or, what seemed more probable, if it was intended in this indirect and covert way, to decide that no new census should be ordered with a view to a more equal apportionment of the burthens, there was in either case a glaring impropriety in retaining and thus connecting them with the principle itself. The important question of direct taxes ought to have been presented to the deliberation of the committee of the whole, in terms the most general and abstract, stripped of every modification not necessarily connected with it, instead of which, there was blended in the same sentence, and they were to decide in the same breath, another question equally, nay to some states more, important than the first. Whether they were to take the relative numbers in 1790 or those in 1797 as the guide in laying the tax upon each state, ought to undergo a full and separate consideration, and not by being wrapped up as it was in the other proposition, pass as the sense of the house without any discussion.

Mr. Dayton said he should be satisfied with striking out those words, and inserting no other, but if any other were to be introduced he should prefer those in the constitution, viz. "according to their respective numbers." He was free to acknowledge that he should not vote for the proposition, even if the amendment, which he advocated, was carried, for he could never consent to resort to direct taxes upon lands and houses, until the less exceptionable, less unequal, and less oppressive means of raising revenue by indirect taxes were exhausted. However, a majority should think different from him, and carry the resolution for the adoption of a system of direct taxation, he should think it his duty to move for a new census to be taken previously to the apportionment. This ought not to be refused, if to equalize the public burthens was an object just and desirable. For if the last enumeration of inhabitants was to be adopted as the rule, every member upon that floor must be sensible that New-Jersey must be rated and taxed very far above her just proportion, and that a farmer in his state must contribute at least fifty per cent. more than a farmer of the same possessions and property in either of the adjoining states. Such, Mr. Dayton said, had been the cause of emigration, and such the shifting of population from one state to another, that a census taken seven years ago, would furnish a very false estimate of the present state of wealth and population. Whilst emigrations had been going on for years past from New Jersey in all directions, many of the other states had received vast accessions of numbers, which ought to be ascertained by a new enumeration, before they commenced their as yet unexercised power of direct taxation which professes to found its apportionment upon numbers only.

He did not at all concur with the gentleman from Virginia, who had said that the apportionment of representatives must necessarily precede the apportionment of taxes under every new census, for they might say with as much propriety that the representation under the new should not appropriate monies raised under the old apportionment.

Mr. Swift said he did not think the present a debate about words, and not of substance, as it had been asserted. His intention was to introduce the words "according to their numbers," instead of "according to the last census." He did not wish the House to decide that the apportionment should be made agreeably to the last census. He wished to leave the resolution open in that respect. If his amendment took place, it would not preclude the use of the last census; but if the resolution passed in its present form, it excluded all idea of a new census. He, therefore, thought the amendment important, and he was sorry to hear gentlemen charge him with improper motives in bringing it forward.

Mr. Swift referred to the words of the constitution, relative to the taking of a census, and laying direct taxes. From these words, he said, Representation and Taxation must go together, and that a census could not be taken for the purpose of the latter, without having effect upon the former also. Admitting that a census could not be taken for the purpose of a direct tax, it could be taken for both purposes; and he would much rather it should be so taken, than that the tax should be laid according to the last census. Nor did he think this would occasion much delay. It would appear, he said, as if some gentlemen thought that a direct tax could be collected as soon as determined upon. This could not be. They must pass a general law, directing the principle of valuation to be adopted. The business could not be accomplished before the next session, however great the want of money might be; and the mode he proposed would effect the business as soon as if the apportionment was at this time made. He thought this a sufficient reason for wishing his amendment to pass. No gentleman had said, that it would be either fair or honest, to make an apportionment according to the present census. The state which he represented, when compared with the state of New-York, would be greatly injured; and ought they not, he asked, to have recourse to some measure, by which to prevent this injury? He thought they ought.