TAX ON SLAVE-MASTERS.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNAL TAX BILL, MAY 28 AND JUNE 6, 1862.

WHILE voting and speaking against a tax on cotton, Mr. Sumner was anxious to tax Slavery, and this he sought to accomplish by a tax on those who pretended to hold slaves.

May 28th, he moved the following amendment :

"And be it further enacted, That any person who shall claim the service or labor for life of any other person, under the laws of any State, shall pay, on account of such person so claimed, the sum of ten dollars."

R. PRESIDENT, — A tax of ten dollars on ac

count of each slave will give $40,000,000. And in putting the tax at ten dollars I follow the precedent of the Constitution, which taxes slaves imported at ten dollars. I do not disguise that on this question I have shared the doubts of others. Of course, no tax would be tolerable which gave any sanction to property in man; and it has been feared that a tax on slaves might be interpreted into such sanction. This fear is not unnatural to persons shocked by the idea of Slavery. It was early avowed by Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, whose sensibility is recorded by Madison in his report of the debates in the Federal Convention.

"He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse, because it implied they were property." 1

Again, a few days later, when the same clause of the Constitution was under discussion, Mr. Sherman repeated his objection, and the following debate occurred, which seems to exhaust the argument on both sides.

"MR. SHERMAN was against this second part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

"COLONEL MASON. Not to tax will be equivalent to a bounty on the importation of slaves.

"MR. GORHAM thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them.

"MR. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS remarked, that, as the clause now stands, it implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.

"MR. SHERMAN, in answer to Mr. Gorham, observed, that the smallness of the duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation.

"MR. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not, like merchandise, consumed, &c.

"COLONEL MASON, in answer to Mr. Gouverneur Morris. The provision, as it stands, was necessary for the case of convicts, in order to prevent the introduction of them." 2

"2

After this discussion, the clause as found in the Constitution, laying "a tax or duty on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person," was adopted, nem. con. Thus it appears that Sherman, Morris, Frank

1 Debates in the Federal Convention, August 22, 1787: Madison Papers, Vol. III. p. 1396.

2 Debates, August 25: Ibid., pp. 1429, 1430.

lin, and Gerry, to say nothing of Madison, all known for opposition to Slavery, and determination to give it no sanction, concurred in this proposition. They felt that a tax or duty, thus arranged, was not a sanction of Slavery.

The same question is now presented to us. Clearly there can be no such thing as property in man. The whole idea is offensive and odious. There is no revenue, whatever be its amount, to compensate for this recognition. Better be poor, better be pinched in means, better forego much needed supplies, than obtain help through any such sacrifice. But the same considerations which induced our fathers, with all their avowed scruples, to sustain such a tax or duty, may properly influence us.

It is the boast of the Constitution that it knows nobody as a slave. All are "persons." But at the same time it does not assume to interfere with a wellknown State institution by which "persons" are degraded to be property. The condition of the slave is anomalous. He is property by local law; he is a "person" by the Constitution. But nobody questions the existence of Slavery. It is a monstrous fact, beyond reach in the States, except through the War Power, and yet none the less a fact, which taxation will only recognize, and not sanction. It is an intolerable nuisance intrenched in State lines; but we shall not treat it otherwise than as nuisance, when we tax it. In taxing it we do not assume its rightfulness; we only assume its undeniable existence as a fact, and nothing else.

If our tax were an encouragement, it would be clearly immoral. But it is a discouragement. Exemption

from taxation is encouragement. Taxation is discouragement just in proportion to its extent, until, in the progress of events, it becomes destructive. Regarding the present question in this light, our course is plain. It is not permissible to encourage Slavery, while every principle of economy and every sentiment of justice and humanity urge its discouragement.

But it is said that the Constitution prohibits a capitation tax, "unless in proportion to the census." The tax I propose is not a capitation tax, any more than the tax on auctioneers, or lawyers, or jugglers, or peddlers, or slaughterers of cattle is a capitation tax. According to lexicographers, a capitation tax is a poll tax, a tax on each individual. Now this tax makes no pretension to be a poll tax, or a tax on each individual. It is a tax on a person who claims the service or labor of another for life, proportioned to the extent of his claim. In other words, it is a tax on a claim of property; and when I tax this claim, surely I do not recognize its morality, nor do I accord to it any

sanction.

If it be said, that at one time I insist the slave shall have all the rights of "persons" under the Constitution, while I now insist that his master shall pay a tax on his claim of property, I reply, that there is no inconsistency, but perfect harmony. By an unquestionable rule of interpretation, applicable to the Constitution, every word must be construed in favor of Liberty, so as most to promote Liberty. According to this rule, every presumption is in favor of Liberty. But, while insisting upon every such presumption, it does not follow that the counter claim shall not be taxed. Indeed, the same principle which inclines in favor of the slave

must incline also to tax the claim of his master, so long as this claim exists in fact. Freedom is to be enlarged in every way possible, whether by encouraging the slave or discouraging the master. Therefore do I say fearlessly, that the slave, whenever he appears within the national jurisdiction or before national tribunals, is entitled to all the rights of " persons"; but the master, who asserts this odious property, cannot claim any immunity for it on this account. The indulgence is all for the slave, and not at all for the master. For the slave Congress must do everything in its power; for the master Congress must have nothing but disapprobation and discouragement.

These are reasons that influence me, and I present them now in order to influence those who hesitate to impose this tax, on the old idea of Roger Sherman, that it will be a recognition of property in man. Of course, where Senators have no such scruple, the argument for this tax is unanswerable.

It is easy to levy.

It is profitable.

And so far as it exerts an influence, it must be a discouragement to an offensive wrong, which is the parent of our present troubles, and the occasion of all this taxation. It would be strange, if Slavery, after causing our national calamity, should escape from all its consequences. It would be strange, if Slavery, which has played the tyrant thus far in our history, should now, like the tyrant, be so far indulged as to escape burdens of all kinds. It shall not be by my vote.

Subsequently Mr. Sumner modified his amendment, by accepting a substitute drawn by Mr. Simmons, of Rhode Island, in behalf of the