Monday, June 26.
Lewis R. Morris, from Vermont, and Lemuel Benton, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.
Stamp duties: Naturalization certificates: Lawyer's licenses: Conveyances.
The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for laying duties on stamped vellum, parchment, and paper; when, the first section being under consideration,
Mr. Kittera moved to add, "any certificates of naturalization —— dollars," as he thought foreigners, who were admitted to all the rights of citizens under this Government, could not be against paying a small tax on their admission to this right.
Mr. Macon thought this tax would fall very heavy upon persons who came into this country to live by their labor—many of whom were not able to pay their passage, but were indented by those who brought them for a number of years; and who, if this tax were paid, would have so much longer to serve.
Mr. Brooks did not see this objection, as such persons might labor all their lives without becoming naturalized.
Mr. Gordon said, that by the naturalization act, no foreigner could be admitted to the rights of a citizen until he had been five years in the country, and therefore the objections of the gentleman from North Carolina could not have any weight.
The amendment was carried.
Mr. Swanwick moved to strike out five dollars, and insert ten, for licenses to practise as a counsellor, attorney, &c. He thought, if these gentlemen were taxed at all, ten dollars would be as low a sum as they could well fix upon for the purpose.
Mr. Varnum thought the tax should be much higher, if imposed at all. He spoke of the high tax laid upon the professors of the law in Massachusetts.
The amendment was carried, there being 53 in favor of it.
Mr. Cochran wished the tax to extend to lawyers who practised in the State Courts, as well as to those who practised in the Courts of the United States.
Mr. Nicholas objected to this proposition. The lawyers, in some of the States, were already very highly taxed; besides, he doubted the right of the United States to tax the lawyers of the State Courts, as they were necessary in the State Governments.
Mr. Swanwick did not expect any objection could have been made to a tax so reasonable, especially when the bill proposed to tax merchants so heavily; they would not be able to turn themselves without a stamp, and surely the lucrative profession of the law could not think much of paying this low tax. It was said, indeed, that the merchant did not ultimately pay the duty, but the consumer; and he doubted not the lawyers would not fail to find out a way of making their clients pay the duty.
Mr. Dennis objected to this tax on the same ground with the gentleman from Virginia. If a tax of this kind, he said, were laid upon the lawyers of the State Courts, it might be extended to any other officer of the Government, and thereby annihilate the State Governments.
Mr. Livingston was in favor of the amendment, because he thought the State lawyers a fair object of taxation. He denied that it would be unconstitutional, or that it would operate hardly upon a particular class of men. It was not laid upon any particular class; but upon an instrument which, indeed, to exercise their professions, lawyers would be obliged to have; but it might as well be said that the tax upon rum and sugar would fall heavily upon the sellers of those articles, and that therefore no rum or sugar would be sold. The one tax fell upon the consumer, and the other upon the client. In the State of New York, Mr. L. said, the lawyers were not taxed at all.
Mr. McDowell said, when he seconded the motion for striking out "five" for the purpose of inserting "ten" he did not intend the tax to be extended to the practisers in State Courts; nor did he think the constitution would warrant such an extension of it.
Mr. Sitgreaves was in favor of the amendment; he wished to fix the principle. He thought that the State lawyers were a fair object of taxation, and that the profits of their business would very well bear it. But there was reason for making a distinction between the two cases. He thought there would be a hardship in extending the tax to practisers in county courts, as that would cause it to fall in some places very heavily. For instance, in Pennsylvania, there must be a separate admission into every court of every county; so that one man would probably have to pay to the amount of from two to three hundred dollars on account of this tax. He hoped the motion would be postponed for the present, and modified. He would do it himself, if time were given.
The motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Sitgreaves said, he understood that deeds for the conveyance of lands would have been amongst the articles taxed. He thought such a tax would be an eligible one, and in order to learn what were the objections to it, he proposed to add to the bill, "any deed for the conveyance of real estate —— dollars."
Mr. R. Williams said, this proposition had been rejected in the Committee of Ways and Means, on the ground that such a tax would clash with the jurisdiction of the States. He had the same objection to this that he should have to laying a tax upon the State lawyers. To say a deed, which was legal by the laws of a State, could not be received in evidence, except it was stamped, would be tantamount to the repealing of a State law.
Mr. W. Smith said, this subject had been frequently under discussion, both in the Committee of Ways and Means, and in that House. On this occasion, the majority of the Committee of Ways and Means was against laying a tax on deeds. He was in the minority. There was a provision, Mr. S. said, which declared that no paper upon which a duty was imposed by this act should be admitted in evidence; but there was afterwards a clause which allowed them to be admitted, on payment of ten dollars over and above the duty thereupon payable. He thought the tax would be a very good and a very profitable one.
Mr. Coit thought this was a tax which should be gone into with great caution, since, if it were carried, it might be the means of losing the whole bill. He thought the bill would be better passed without this provision; and if it were found expedient, it might be added hereafter.
Mr. Giles was opposed to this amendment, as interfering with the governments of the several States. All lands (except such as had been sold by the United States) were held from the States; and if this tax were to be agreed to, he believed the State courts would not refuse to admit a deed in evidence which was not stamped. Nothing would give so much alarm to the States as a subject of this sort.
Mr. Sewall did not understand the distinction made between titles to land and titles to money. He thought the objection made to a tax on a deed, might be made with equal propriety to a tax on a bond or note. If they had a right to say these should not be received in evidence in a State court, unless they were stamped, they had a right to say the same with respect to a deed. Except it could be shown that the farmer was less able to pay than the merchant, he thought no other objection had any weight.
Mr. R. Williams thought there was a great difference between a note of hand and a deed. The State had nothing to do with the former, but much with the latter; since every State held grants of its lands, and a man must show his title from the original grant, before his title could be said to be a good one. He did not doubt the people being able to pay the tax; it was the principle which he contended against, which, if carried into effect, would cause a clashing of the authorities of the two Governments. If the United States could lay a tax of this sort, they might lay a tax upon every commission issued by a State.
Mr. Nicholas did not see the smallest difference between the two cases which had been stated. And when they came to the 13th section, he should endeavor to prove that to say a piece of paper should not be received in evidence in a court, which was lawful to be received by the laws of the State, would be a violation of State sovereignty. He was not of opinion, with the gentleman from Connecticut, that they should take up the subject partially, rather than not pass the bill. He thought it best to consider a tax upon its broadest basis. It was not fair to exclude any thing which stood upon the same ground. He wished the principle to be thus fairly tested. He should, therefore, vote for the tax on deeds.
Mr. Lyon hoped, that if this tax was agreed to, purchases of a small amount would be excluded.
Mr. Swanwick said there would doubtless be a difference made in the duty between large and small purchases. He also disagreed with the gentleman from Connecticut. The principle, he said, was either right or not; if it were right, it should be made general: if not, it ought not to be adopted.
The question was put, and negatived—47 to 32.
On motion, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.