SPEECH OF MIR. McDUfFlE, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, On 0e 1arf, ia Repiy 10 MESSRS M
{"character_count": 5795, "word_count": 1012, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9585000276565552], "ccnet_perplexity": [793.2999877929688], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
LII OE MIR. McDUFFlE, OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

 On Hc 1d,ff, in Repiy 10

 MESSRS EVANS AND HUNTINGTON. In he Seaatc, JaHuay Ie, ls4i-0n Me .eiol,aton

 of Me Committee on Iiaance 10 posfposc ioae6a l

 itey he dN Introduced by hin, for the reduction of

 me present 1ari0fo Hc staHdard ef he eompfo-

 mise act.

 Mir. McDuFrIE, in reply to the arguments urged by Mr. Evans and Mir. Huntington when the resolution was under discussion the day before, addressed the Senate as ful- lows:

 Mir. PRESIDENT: If one of the ilustrcus patriots who framed the Constitution under which we are now delberating, could have presented himself before us during t.le debate Of yesterday, he would have been struck with utter astonishment to find the Constitutional provision-howeyer inadequate 10 it's pur- pose-whlch was designed 10 protect the people of the United States from unjust and oppressive taxation, brought up as a barrier against relieving an indignant people rom tiIe most monstrous, unequal, and unjust system of taxation that ever stained the legislative annals ot this country. In their great anxie- ty to save the people of the United States from unnecessary and excessive burdens, those illustrious patriots, who had been brought up ill the school of tine revolution, where they were taught to regard unconsii- tutional taxation as the greatest of all polti- cal evils, very naturally mterposed every pos sible obstacle which might secure their pos terity from so great curse. For this pur- pose, they provided that no bill raising reve- nue should originate i'll the Senate but that all such bills should originate in that house which more directly represented the people of the United States. Now, sir, l presume that the Senate of the United States will not be disposed to believe that the ilustrous framers of this Constitution meant to deal in mere idle words-that they would insert in the Constitution the United States clause which had no practical utility. ask you then, what rational, what sensible meaning can be given to that clause, but that the ob- jeet was 10 prevent this body from origina- ting bills to raise revenue by the imposition ot 1ares2 It was not that they wished to prevent you from putting money in the trea- sury, but to prevent you from taking money out of the pockets of the people. To raise revenue is, in itself, nothing; but to raise it by imposing excessive burdens on the peo- pie, was obviously the grievance they design ed to prevent One of the Senators Alr. Huntington not now ill his place, uninen- tionally, in answering an argument of my friend from New Hampshire. Mr. Woodbu- ry,I let out what is the true view of this gues- ton. My friend from New Hampshire had argued that, in various instances the Senate of the United States had originated bills pro vidlng public revenue, giving as an instance, laws imposing rates of postage. In answer to that, the Senator from Connecticut MT. Huntington said (though the facts did not justify the argument) that this was not ras- ing revenue by imposing tarcs-clearly ad- hitting the right of the Senate to originate bills raising revenue, which did not impose taxes. Suppose, Mir. President, that we had some mysterious power to raise revenue, without imposing pecuniary burdens on the people-suppose we are endowed with the power of necromancy, and could call down showers of gold from the heavens, or strike the earth with our magic wand, and cause it to throw up it's hidden treasures was il against that, or any similar mode of raising revenue, that our ancestors intended to guard; 1 repeat, that no sensible interpretation can be given to the clause under consideration, that does not look to the imposition of taxes as the sole subject of the restriction 1t impo- ses on the Senate. Regarding it in any oth- CT light, it would be q mere frivolous and uE- meaning waste of words.

 But, sir, let us took to the practical con struction--to the true nature of the bill which have had the honor to introduce to the Senate. Is it in form or in substance, a bill for raising rcvenue' Is its object to raise revenue 1: Will its effect be to raise revenue by its own inherent vigor ito use the words of the Senator from Connecticut Assuredly not. Itis bill, on the contrary, totally and exclusively operating 10 reduce and repeal duties. It imposes no duties whatever It's whole object IS to mitigate the oppressive burdens of unjust taxation; and yet it is 10 be secuted out of the Senate by plea to the jurisdiction; and the people are 10 be told, we have not the power to originate law for any such purpose It is maintained, sir, by the Senator from Connecticut, and also by the chairman of the Committee on Finance, that the duties to be hereafter collected, il this bill should become law, will be impo- sed and collected by its authority. If that be true in any substantial sense, then, sir, | give up the question.

 But how can duty of 20 per cent be col ected under the authority of law which re- peals one-half the duty, and simply leaves the other half unrepealeds And what does the gentleman say of this operation, That, by leaving 20 per cent unrepealed, you i'm pose it! If to repeal part of the duties makes the Senate responsible for imposing the remainder, confess do not understand the force of language. cannot comprehend the argument. It is all absolute puzzle, in- verting the meaning of the words, and con founding the substance of things; so that no analysis, of which it is susceptible, can rem der the solecism more obvious. It has a striking similarity to an argument once used bya sportsman, who bet S20 on horse race, and insisted, when the race went against him, that he had lost $40. s.For,o said he, s.l lost the sp20 staked; but if had won tho hef | eh ho.,lI h,yo cavoJ tbat and