service is the most difficult and the most sensitive. It is the question which has most occupied the attention. of the country. It has been most discussed in the newspapers, and also in conversation. I presume it is the ground of objection most often made against the draft. Now I think all Senators will unite in any proposition that promises in any way to smooth these difficulties, in short, to popularize a part of the bill which has been open to so much objection among the people.

January 12th, in the course of debate, Mr. Sumner replied to Mr. Sherman, of Ohio.

THE Senator from Ohio, not contenting himself with opposing the amendment, introduced other and extraneous matter, which has been under discussion since, diverting our minds from the original proposition. But if I can have his attention for a few minutes, it seems to me I do not know I may even satisfy him that his argument was not well founded.

If I understand the Senator, he objects to my proposition on the ground, in the first place, that it is an unusual tax. Sir, what is the draft but a tax? The draft compels all persons drafted to contribute strength, muscle, life, to the defence of the Republic. That, if I am not mistaken, is the highest tax the country can impose. But, still further, what is the commutation which the statute positively requires but a tax? If, then, there be anything in the argument of the Senator, both the draft itself and the commutation of three hundred dollars are a tax, and both are therefore objectionable. But neither the one nor the other is a tax in a received sense, because neither the one nor the other is an imposition

for revenue; and I ask the attention of the Senator to the distinction, neither the one nor the other is an imposition for revenue. Not on any such ground do I present this amendment, but simply and distinctly on the duty of equalizing this burden, that it shall bear, so far as we can make it, with something like.equality upon the rich and the poor. Now I have to say that at present the burden is not equalized, and that it does not bear with anything like equality upon the rich and the poor. You make the poor man pay three hundred dollars; but the rich man pays no more. Is this equality?

But the Senator went further. Not satisfied with objecting to the amendment on the ground that it was a tax, he complained that it was an exorbitant tax, and asked me whether in all history I could point to any instance of a tax of thirty per cent on income. It seems to me that it should be the pride of our country, at this moment and on an occasion like this, that it is not to be deterred by history from an endeavor to equalize a burden upon the rich and the poor. Because other nations have not undertaken to equalize this burden, is that a reason why we should not set the example? But is the tax exorbitant? I will read it.

"On all income over six hundred dollars and not over two thousand dollars, ten per cent; over two thousand dollars and not over five thousand dollars, twenty per cent t; and on all income over five thousand dollars, thirty per cent."

Now the Senator complains of the thirty per cent, that is, thirty per cent on an income over five thousand

1 Afterwards modified according to the text in the Introduction to these Remarks. Ante, p. 42.

dollars. Suppose a person drafted with an income over five thousand dollars, I put it to the Senator, what sum would be too great for him to pay for exemption, carrying with it, as the draft does, exposure to death, disease, wounds, with the absolute consumption of time during the period of one, two, or three years, according to the duration of the service? Is thirty per cent on an income above five thousand dollars too much for the exemption? Is it exorbitant? Is that the estimate the Senator puts upon such exposure? He requires three hundred dollars from the poor man who has no income, but he thinks it exorbitant to require thirty per cent on an income over five thousand dollars. Sir, I do not think that even in the requirement of this amendment there is equality. If any objection can be brought forward, it is that it is too lenient, that it does not go far enough.

I am sure, eminent as the Senator is, and justly representing his own State, that he does not represent on this question every citizen of that State. I have in my hand a letter, received since this amendment was first mentioned, from a most respectable citizen of Cincinnati, and with your permission I will read three or four sentences from it. I read simply to show how this proposition strikes citizens at a distance, yet having the same interest in it that we have.

"Permit a stranger to address a few words to you, expressive of approbation of your bill"—

He calls it a bill, when it is only an amendment.

"providing for a revision of the Enrolment Act, so as to afford a sliding scale of commutation for the draft, the object being to rate commutation according to the means

of the drafted individual. I quote from telegrams of this morning's news. In my humble opinion you have hit the nail on the head. I think this is the only method to equalize the burden, and satisfy all claims for justice and equitable dealing. When any fixed sum is indicated as the commutation fee to exempt from actual military duty, it needs but little reflection to see that it indirectly imposes a premium upon property while it taxes the poor."

Then he goes on to suppose a case, somewhat at length, quite elaborately indeed, between two citizens of Cincinnati, neighbors, whom he minutely describes, and finally winds up that part of his communication by saying,

"Suppose the latter person [whom he calls John Smith] is drafted. Why, three hundred dollars is no more to him than a three-penny loaf to the other person. Am I not right, that a fixed sum for exemption imposes a tax upon honest poverty and a premium upon wealth?"

This intelligent constituent of the Senator objects to his whole theory as a tax upon honest poverty and a premium upon wealth. The Senator opposes my amendment as a tax upon wealth. Call it, if you

please, a tax upon wealth.

The time has come when it should be levied. But I put aside such language. I put aside the idea, except in the general sense, that the draft itself is a tax, and the amendment simply aims to equalize that tax.

The amendment was lost, Yeas 15, Nays 25.

January 15th, Mr. Sumner moved his amendment as an additional section. Again it was lost, Yeas 16, Nays 28.

June 20th, the Senate having under consideration a bill to prohibit the discharge of persons from liability to military duty by reason of

the payment of money, Mr. Sumner moved again the former amendment, with the further proviso : —

"That the contributions thus made shall be employed by the Secretary of War as a fund for bounties to be paid to the men actually drafted and mustered into the service under any call subsequent to the date of this Act, whenever they shall be honorably discharged, or, in the case of death, to the widow and minor children of any such man, according to rules and regulations established by the War Department."

Mr. Sumner again vindicated his amendment. In the course of his remarks, he said:

-

WHEN a citizen is drafted as a soldier, and the question arises of his ransom by a pecuniary contribution, there is no element of equity which is not shocked, so my conscience tells me, if you fail to regulate the requirement of money according to the wealth of the individual. What is there which a man will not give for his life? What is there which a man, having the means, and indisposed to military exposure, will not pay for his exemption? And yet, Sir, by the law as it now stands, you compel the poor to pay the same as the rich. The rich man is drafted, and he pays three hundred dollars, which to him is nothing; he puts his hand into his purse, as you put yours into your pocket to find the change for a newspaper; whereas the poor man, perhaps, is driven to sell all that he has to save himself for his family. Sir, is that just? To my mind it is not.

Suppose the Senator himself were drafted; indisposed, as he probably would be, to the toils of war, what is there that he would not consent to pay for exemption? To him, under such circumstances, the required amount would be nothing; and yet to the poor man it is everything. In short, there are many who have it not; and there are many, who, by calling upon their friends,