H. OF R.] Drawback on Refined Sugar. DEC. 15, 1828. exporting the productions of agriculture. If it be true, that every tax falls ultimately upon the consumer, I cannot exactly comprehend the patriotism, to say nothing of the justice, of a system which raises to the highest point the duty upon those articles which are consumed by our own citizens, and absolutely exempts from duty those which are consumed by foreigners. been vindicated, as well as to the practical effect of the law, will demonstrate that it is in fact, and in truth, a bounty upon the exportation of refined sugar, manufactured in the United States. Disguise it as we may, said Mr. McD., this is the commencement of a system of bounties upon the exportation of domestic manufactures, and can only be regarded as an extension, in a new form, of that system of policy which has been recently exemplified, in raising the duties upon imported merchandise, almost to the point of prohibition. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GORHAM] has very truly said, that it is perfectly immaterial, both to the manufacturer and to the community, whether the refined sugar is made from brown sugar, grown and made in the United States, or from that which is imported from abroad. In point of fact, the law will operate precisely as if the drawback were allowed indis-operation of refining; the result of which was, that the criminately upon sugars refined either from domestic or imported brown sugar. It cannot, therefore, with any propriety, be regarded as a branch of the drawback system, which is confined specifically to the refunding of the duty paid to the Government by the importer. Now, is it pretended that the five cents a pound which is to be paid to the exporter of refined sugar, goes into the pocket of the importing merchant, by whom the duty upon the imported brown sugar was paid to the GovernI put it to gentlemen to say whether, under the disguise of a drawback, this is not the first step towards a complicated system of bounties and prohibitions, each sustaining the other, and all concurring in the oppression of the community? ment? We have been repeatedly told on this floor, by the advocates of the prohibitory branch of this "American System," that the effect of high duties upon the foreign production, laid with a view to protect the domestic, is to render both the foreign and domestic article cheaper in our market. For example, it is said that, by giving this kind of protection to the domestic grower and maker of sugar, you create a competition between the foreign and the domestic sugar that will lower the price of both. Upon what principle is it, then, that the manufacturer of refined sugar can call upon the Government to pay him five cents a pound upon the exportation of his manufacture? Not only has he paid no direct duty to the Government, but, if there be any truth in this great foundation principle of the American System, he has not paid any indirect duty by being compelled to pay a higher price for the raw material in consequence of the duty paid upon its importation. When the manufacturer of refined sugar calls upon the Government to refund him five cents a pound, every advocate of the "American System" will surely be ready to reply, "the duties imposed by the Government upon imported brown sugar have enabled you to obtain it cheaper, and, consequently, you are really the debtor instead of the creditor of the Government." Regarding this bill as the inception of a system of disguised bounties upon the exportation of domestic manufactures, I cannot perceive, said Mr. McD., how we can avoid extending the principle to every manufacture made of a raw material that is the subject of an impost duty. The claim of the manufacturers of cordage, heretofore rejected by Congress, stands upon precisely the same footing with that of the sugar refiners. Mr. McD. said he was not disposed to repeal the drawback now allowed, because he did not feel inclined to disturb what had been done in this respect. He thought the present allowance of four cents a pound a very liberal one. In fact, he could not perceive any just grounds for exonerating that portion of the capital of the country which is engaged in the carrying trade, and in the business of exporting manufactures, from all the burthens of taxation, and throwing the whole weight of the system upon that portion of the capital of the country which is engaged in the direct trade of consumption, and in importing manufactures and Mr SERGEANT observed, that, if he understood the provisions of the bill, the drawback it allowed was only upon sugar refined in the United States from raw sugar imported; and if he understood the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELING,] very nice and minute calculations had been made, in order to ascertain how much of the imported article is actually contained in that which is reexported, and what proportion of it is consumed in the difference amounted to the fraction of one cent on the pound of sugar as exported, and that that which leaves the country has, therefore, paid a duty of more than five cents per pound. A part of the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McDUFFIE] went against the whole system of drawback, the true and only tendency of which was to support the trade and navigation of the United States. It was but a few days since that the House had passed a bill still farther to extend the drawback system, by giving up the 24 per cent. heretofore retained by Government, when duties were remitted, so that the House, at this very session, had deemed it proper to give greater facilities than ever before, to the carrying trade of this country. But the gentleman had asked why those engaged in that trade should be exempted from burthens borne by others? Admitting this to be the case, the answer was easy-the remission of these duties had a direct tendency, by cherishing the trade and fostering the navigation of the country, to increase the national wealth. But, said Mr. S., I doubt very much whether the merchant engaged in the carrying trade is exempt from the burthens borne by his fellow-citizens. He pays the same taxes as others, and is subjected to the same contributions; but, be this as it may, the great question for us to consider is not whether Mr. A. or Mr. B. will derive advantage from the bill we are about to pass, but whether the nation will derive advantage from it? It is certain that she does from every extension of her trade and navigation. The drawback on refined sugar is no novelty in our law; it has stood upon the statute book from the year 1794 until now, and during the greater part of that time the law went farther than it now does. It allowed the whole amount of the duty actually paid; and as one pound of refined sugar takes two pounds of the raw article to make it, on every pound of the one a drawback was allowed, double in amount to the duty on a pound of the other. But when it became necessary to raise the duty on foreign sugar imported to three cents per pound, the drawback, instead of being proportionably increased, and thereby raised to six cents per pound, was fixed at four cents only; the effect of which disproportion has been to destroy entirely the exportation of sugar refined in the United States. A branch of commerce existing from the foundation of our Government, and which was thriving in the country, has, by this means, been totally cut off. Has the nation been a gainer by this arrangement? The gentleman from South Carolina affirms that the drawback now asked is what was never paid. But the sugar was not imported but for the purpose of re-exportation. What the manufacturers ask is only that you will allow them to do this. They will give to the national prosperity the whole effect of their capital, industry, and skill. They will add to the value of the exports of the country, and thus augment its wealth without abstracting one cent from the amount of its revenue. It is no advantage to the refiner to make his article from imported sugar. Neither he nor the consumer cares whether the material from which it is made be of foreign or domestic growth. This is certainly true as to that which is consumed at home. But if the refiner is obliged to make his article from foreign sugar, which pays a duty of six cents a pound, it is plain that he cannot meet foreign refined sugar when imported into this market. This is the error of the gentleman from South Carolina. He says that, if a duty on sugar renders sugar cheaper, then refined sugar cannot need a drawback when exported. His error lies in this though duty does make the article cheaper in our own market, it does not make it cheaper in a foreign market; and when our refined sugar paying duty without a drawback, goes abroad, it will have to enter into competition with the foreign article on which no duty is paid. The result is self evident. Now suppose we paid for sugar imported more than it cost us to raise it, whatever affects the price to us affects it to foreign nations; for the market is but one. If a British merchant carries sugar from the West Indies to England, he pays the same price for it as we do, who bring it into the United States, and, supposing for argument's sake, the freight to be the same, the sugar is delivered in England for the same price that it is here. The English manufacturer buys it at that price, refines it, and sends it abroad free from duty. Our own manufacturer buys it at the same price as the English manufacturer, but pays a duty amounting to six cents on every pound of refined sugar, that is, nearly one-third of the price of the article. It is perfectly plain that here there can be no competition, and hence, the decline of this branch of business. Mr S said that he had heard it stated that the sugar made here was not fit for refining, and he presumed such to be the fact. Let gentlemen, then, look at the actual state of things, and ask themselves whether they could refuse the one cent now proposed to be given. You give to the growth of domestic sugar a protecting duty of three cents a pound. You thus give to that sugar a great advantage; you give, in fact, the whole consumption of the United States, and is not this a great national advantage? As to the drawback on other articles manufactured in the United States, from foreign materials, no argument would lie against the present drawback, which had existed since the foundation of the Government. There migh: be many reasons for allowing a drawback on this species of manufacture, which would apply to others. When a merchant imports sugar, and re-exports it in its raw state, you make him pay as the law now stands, but two and a half per cent. You allow him the whole of the duty he paid, when he exports the article raw. Will you deny him the same advantage when he adds to it all the value of his own labor? The argument is more striking in the case of sugar than in any other article, because here the value of the raw material bears a larger proportion to that of the manufactured article. Nothing else goes into it. The article used in the process of refining are merely the instruments of clarifying it. It is merely sugar still, though in a different state, and the raw material forms a large proportion of the price. [H. OF R. why, if he wore a superfine broad cloth of foreign fabric, (which, however, his patriotic feelings forbade him to do) did not the merchant who imported the cloth pay the duty? He must surely understand that it was the wearer who paid it, in the price of the cloth; and so, in the case of the sugar, the importer was the mere agent of the consumer. And, as to the American sugar grower, it was perfectly plain that every pound refined and taken out of the country was a benefit to him. The whole exportation was clear gain to the grower. The gentleman had asked why Government would not extend the same drawback to manufactures of wool and cotton. The answer was plain. The United States were able to raise both wool and cotton, sufficient for their own consumption, and, therefore, a law granting drawback would be only a dead letter. It might be said, in reply, that we should soon raise sugar enough for our own consumption. Of this he was by no means sure. The amount now raised was sixty thousand hogsheads-the amount consumed was one hundred and twenty thousand. It was very true that the culture of sugar was increasing, but so was also the population of the United States. The soil and climate fit for raising sugar were of limited extent, and while the country was growing, they would not increase. Gentlemen surely need feel no alarm while the Government was receiving a million and a half in duties, and paying but eleven thousand dollars in drawback. Even if this disputed cent should be added, the drawback would be thirteen thousand; and, as to fraud, that was guarded against in the only way in which the revenue could be guarded-by the solemn sanction of oaths, and all the penalties of perjury. Gentlemen would not surely slander the character of their country, by supposing that, for so paltry a gain, American merchants would sacrifice their conscience, and expose themselves to all the penalties of the law. The opposition to the bill was sustained by an argument which went to prostrate the interest of the United States. Let gentlemen carry back their recollections to '93, the era of our commercial prosperity, when wealth flowed in upon us from every quarter. And why? Was it that our agricultural products were so much more abundant? They were not so abundant then as they are now. No, it was because we had the carrying trade in our hands, while all Europe, was in a state of convulsion. But, without this law of drawback, the carrying trade would have been lost to us entirely. The direct colonial trade was interdicted both by France and England, but the indirect was permitted by both those Powers, and it was this which left its golden deposit on all our shores. Hence the origin of our commercial prosperity: and would gentlemen now defeat a bill which went to extend the same policy? He trusted they would not succeed, but that the bill would be ordered to its third reading. As to Mr. STORRS said, that the remarks that he had made when last up, had been misunderstood. He was not opposed to the system of drawback, but he did not consider this bill as legitimately pertaining to that system. Mr. S. concluded by insisting that the drawback asked, the importation of articles intended for transit merely, he would not, in the least, interfere with the revenue, would thought that a reasonable time ought to be allowed for infliet no injury on manufactures, would establish no dan- the payment of the duty, whether it were twelve or twengerous precedent, while it extended the trade and fosteredty-four months. But the present was a different question, the navigation of the country; and, as to the risk of fraud, it would be time enough to apply a remedy when such an evil should arise. The bill, in the mean time, was reasonably and sufficiently guarded. Mr. BARNEY said, that the Committee of Commerce, in proposing this increase of drawback, merely wished to do justice to an industrious and useful class of citizens. The law, as it now stood, allowed the sugar refiner but four cents a pound drawback. This was less than they acually paid. The gentleman from South Carolina had asked why the refiner should get the drawback, when the importer paid the duty? He was somewhat surprised at this question. The gentleman might have as well inquired and always had been so considered. The present was a question respecting articles imported into the United States, and altered by the manufacturer before they were re-exported for the benefit of drawback. There were but a few articles thus situated, and the regulations respecting them did not constitute any general system at all. They were, for the most part, articles which we did not raise, such as silks, afterwards stamped in the United States, and one or two others of a similar kind. The present bill went to enlarge the principle, and to extend the system. A ship was an article manufactured in the United States; but did any body ever think of asking or granting a drawback on the iron employed in its fabrication? Such a H. OF R.} Drawback on Refined Sugar. [DEC. 15, 1828. thing was never heard of. In relation to sugar, the state upon the assumption that the same quantity would be imof things was altered since the law was first passed. We ported, if re-exportation was not permitted. If such were now raise sugar in the United States, and that in large the fact, the consequence would be to depress the price quantities. Mr. S. said, he was not for going back and of domestic sugar-an effect which has been so much derepealing the law, since it had now been long established, precated. Having the article here, if we prevent its flowbut he could not see any propriety in now extending it. ing off, in the usual channels of commerce, the accumuThe whole importation of sugar amounted to fifty-five lation inevitably reduces the price. Exportation of the millions of pounds. In 1824, the quantity of domestic foreign article is, in such case, as highly beneficial to the sugar raised was forty millions of pounds; in three years domestic producer, as if the same quantity of his own it had increased to seventy-six millions; half as much again found a market abroad. as the whole had formerly been. It had doubled in three years, and if it should go on increasing in the same proportion, in three years more it would equal the whole amount both of what is now raised and imported. If the product was increasing at this rate, Mr. S. asked whether he had not been right in saying that domestic sugar was a branch of our home product well worthy of our looking to. [He would not use the word protection, as that word seemed to be peculiarly offensive to some gentlemen in the House.] The present amount of drawback was but eleven thousand dollars, paid upon about three hundred hogsheads, and for an object like this, gentlemen were asking the House to introduce a principle which struck at a home product of seventy-six millions of pounds. Was the play worth the candle? The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GORHAM] had said, that if capital sought investment in the carrying trade, ought it not to be allowed to take that direction? Certainly. But would it be a more profitable application of capital to carry foreign sugar refined in the United States, than to apply that capital to the raising and refining both? Then the whole article would be our own; we should have the carrying of it in both cases, and the profit of raising it besides. Should the amount become very large, the argument urged by the gentleman would bear the other way. The principle of the present bill was one which had always been resisted in this House, and he thought it was worth a little consider ation and some delay, before the Government ventured to extend it farther. But this assumption is not founded in fact, nor in the principles of political economy. We now import for two purposes-domestic consumption and foreign exportation; cut off one of these objects, and we can then import for the other only. To stop exportation will not increase the amount of our own consumption, for which alone we can then introduce it. To withhold the drawback is to prohibit exportation. If the American merchant pays five cents the pound to our Government, when the English merchant pays nothing, the latter can undersell the former by that amount in the foreign market. The competition cannot be sustained. You thus destroy the business of importation and exportation, and the manufacture in our own country. As this is so much controverted, permit me to illustrate my views. Suppose a gentleman in New York should now say to us, I will send abroad American produce, and therewith purchase, and then bring into this country, a hundred thousand hogsheads of sugar annually, in our own ships. I will then refine it and transport the same to a foreign market, thus creating a market for the fruits of our soil, giving encouragement to our shipping, and to all the multiplied branches of industry connected therewith, and employing our seamen and our manufacturers without injury to any one, and all that I ask is, thot you will not tax this branch of business-that you will not prevent my finding a market abroad. Should we, could we hesitate to grant such a request? Now, sir, this is in truth what is asked of us by several instead of one, and it is what we propose to grant by this bill. The genMr. SPRAGUE said, he was glad to find that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McDUFFIE] asks, why tleman from New York [Mr. STORRS], for whose opinion should not the carrying trade pay a part of the burthens of he entertained a high respect, agreed with him in the gen- Government? Sir, those concerned in it now pay their eral principles which sustained the drawback system. full proportion. Are not your hemp and iron, and other That gentleman's opposition to the bill resolved itself into materials for ship building, now taxed, and severely too? a question of fact, not of principle. He objected that it Does not commerce by imports pay all the burthens of Gowould interfere with our domestic sugar. Such, Mr. S. vernment? and do not those concerned in the carrying said, would not be the case, for two reasons: First, our trade, the merchants, the ship owners, the ship builders, domestic sugar is not suitable for refining, and the foreign the seamen, pay, as consumers, their full proportion of all sugar alone is used for that purpose. these imports? Why, then, Mr. S. asked, should you think of taxing the carrying trade upon the ocean as a branch of business, any more than the transportation upon the New York canal, or upon our roads, or our great rivers? Why should the employment of ships be oppressed any more than of canal boats and steamboats? Mr. S. said, he might ask why should not the manufacturers, why should not the cotton planters, pay a part of the burthens of Government? The gentleman will tell us that they pay enough already; and I answer that the carrying trade pays enough, and more than enough now. The gentleman asks, also, why should we not make foreigners pay a part of the expenses of our Government? My answer is, because they will not consent, and we have no means of coercion. We may indeed impose the duty of five cents the pound upon this sugar, but we must recollect that foreigners are not obliged to buy, and will not buy of us and pay this duty, when they can purchase of others without paying it; they will take it directly from the West Indies to their own ports, and not through ours. Sir, we have tried the experiment-we now retain one cent the pound duty, and of course enhance the price so much to our exporter; and what has been the consequence? The almost total prevention of the trade. The whole amount of drawback upon refined sugar is only $11,168, while the duties upon im [Mr. STORRS explained. He said that the foreign sugar was better adapted to the purpose of refining, from having been longer in the country and better drained.] Mr. SPRAGUE resumed. Whatever might be the cause, the fact was not denied by any one, that our domestic sugar never goes to the refiners; it is not suited to their use as the foreign sugar is, and therefore does not come in competition. In the second place, we do not produce domestic sugar enough for our home consumption. We must, for some time, certainly, continue to import largely from abroad. It is said that the quantity made in the United States is fast increasing, but it is to be recollected that our population and consumption is fast increasing also, and we certainly cannot expect to be soon supplied from our own soil; and so long as we import for our own consumption, there certainly can be no competition in the foreign market between our own and foreign sugar. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McDUFFIE] insists that allowing this drawback is giving a bounty upon the exportation of sugars. He says that the importer pays the duty, and that, afterwards, we pay back the amount to the refiner, as a bounty; that the article having been brought into the country, repaying the duties is a dead loss of so much to the Treasury. This proceeds ported sugar are nearly $1,700,000. The gentleman from New-York [Mr. STORRS] says the business is so small that it is hardly worth discussing. It is, indeed, insignificant in amount now, and must be so as long as your laws make a discrimination against it; but the object of this bill is to place our citizens upon a just equality with their foreign rivals, and thus to enlarge their business, and add to the wealth and prosperity of the nation, without injury or inconvenience to any man. : Mr. DRAYTON said he was in favor of this bill. Its operation was not injurious to any, while it produced a benefit (not indeed to any large amount, but still a great benefit) to the commerce and navigation of the United States. How [asked Mr. D.] are we to pay for the sugar on which we refund this duty? Certainly by our native products for there is no way of paying for imports but by exports. This benefits our agriculture. Then we have the transport of the goods-this benefits our commerce and navigation; while, at the same time, we introduce into the country a species of manufacture which otherwise would not exist. Against a bill so evidently beneficial, and productive of no ill effect to any, he was at a loss to perceive what valid objection could be brought. He would briefly notice one or two which had been suggested. The gentleman from New York [Mr. STORRS] had said that the effect of the bill would interfere with the growth of domestic sugar. But how was this possible? If, instead of sugar, the drawback was granted on coffee, or on any other article not raised in the United States, it would as much interfere with the domestic product of coffee as of sugar. Why would it not interfere with the growth of coffee? Because none was grown within the United States. And why would it not interfere with the growth of sugar? Because enough was not raised in the United States to supply our home consumption, and therefore competition was out of the question. Competition could not exist unless the imported article was put on a footing with the domestic. But the duty on the foreign was equal to one-third of its value. Competition was therefore out of the question. Sugar raised here did not sell merely at the cost of production, but at a price in which the duty was included; and as the foreign article was saddled with a duty of three cents a pound, the domestic bore the same price, and that three cents was clear profit. Our own sugar, as every one knew, was used exclusively in its raw state. All the refined sugar in the United States was manufactured from the foreign article alone. If it were not, we should necessarily import the refined article from abroad. That would pay the duty, and this duty would be paid by the consumer; whereas, by allowing its importation with drawback, the article is obtained cheaper, while all our domestic sugar is raised exclusively for consumption in other ways. The effect was unavoidable. We manufactured a new article of exportation. This produced importation, the importation paid duty, and the duties augmented the revenues of the Government. The effects of the system were all beneficial, and injured nobody, and why should it be objected to on mere abstract principles? It had been asked, why should we not extend this principle to other articles of a similar kind? The reason was very simple. It would not be for our interest to do so. There was no drawback on wool, for instance, because the country could raise enough for its consumption. If it did not, and could not, then competition was at an end. It had been observed that this system had been pursued from the commencement of the Government. This surely was a strong ground of presumption that the system had been found to work well. But the House had been told that now there was a change of circumstances. Sugar was now raised in the United States, which had not formerly been the case. This was true; but he questioned the logic of the argument which had been founded upon VOL. V.-14 [H. OF R. it. It was possible, indeed, that some years hence, enough sugar might be raised in this country for our own consumption; but should we not, in the mean while, act wisely for our present interest? Should a gainful commerce not be cherished? And because its benefits were not very general, nor very great, were we therefore to destroy it? He had always considered it a sound maxim of government ever to legislate for the existing state of things, and not to modify the system until it became necessary to do so. The drawback system was beneficial now; and as long as this should be the case, he was for letting the law alone. When it was actually found to check the industry of the country, then it would be time enough to repeal it. It was the great defect of the tariff law that it was legislation in futuro. Its provisions were contended for, not because the manufactures concerned do now exist, but because, at some future time, after a lapse of years, they may exist, and become commensurate with the demand.. Mr. D. concluded by saying that he had not been able to refrain from making these few observations. He considered the present as a wise bill, one of the few which he had heard in that House, respecting either commerce or manufactures, which injured nobody, directly or indirectly. Mr. McDUFFIE said, that in the few words he intended to submit in reply to what had been said on the other side of the question, he would confine himself to the explanation of the actual operation of the proposed mea sure, with a view of showing that it is not a drawback, but a bounty upon exportation, which it provides. He believed there was no other instance in the legislation of this country in which a drawback was allowed, after an imported article had changed its character, as well as its owner; being not only transferred from the importer, but manufactured into a new article. When the raw material is converted into a manufacture, it is, to all intents and purposes, consumed, and is as fairly a subject of taxation as any other article which enters into the consumption of the country. The policy of the drawback system cannot be fairly extended to manufactures of which the raw material is produced in the United States as well as imported from abroad. If we had no brown sugar in the country but what we import, it would be obvious that the price of the article would be increased by the duty imposed upon the importation, în a degree proportioned to the duty. It would also be certain that the Government could not be exposed to fraud and imposition by having to pay a drawback upon refined sugar made of the domestic raw material. But where the raw material is produced at home as well as imported, the drawback not only opens a door for a fraudulent substitution of the domestic for the foreign material, but it destroys the only legitimate ground upon which a drawback can be claimed. Mr. McD. said he would not pretend to argue seriously from the absurd paradox of the manufacturers, that high protecting duties reduce the price of the article subjected to them. But he was equally far from contending, on the other hand, that the price of an article is raised by a sum equal to the duty imposed upon its importation in all cases. There are some articles which we can produce cheaper in the United States than they can be produced in any other part of the world; and these are the productions of Southern agriculture. The cotton planter produces the great staple of the Southern States cheaper than it can be produced in any other part of the world, because, by a system of unjust and oppressive legislation, by Congress, he has been reduced to such a point of depression as to receive not more than an average of from ten to fifteen cents a day for the labor of his slaves. The sugar planter, owing to the duty imposed upon the importation of foreign sugar, and to the smallness of the number who have yet embarked in the business of making sugar, real H. OF R.] Internal Improvements.-Drawback on Refined Sugar. ized, he understood, 500 dollars per annum for every efficient laborer he employs; and he knew one gentleman who had realized, in one year, as much as 800 dollars. It is obvious, from this state of facts, and from the great abundance of sugar lands in the country, that the capital of cotton planters, and other Southern slave-holders, will become rapidly invested in the more profitable business of sugar planting. The result will be, at no distant period, a full supply of the consumption of the United States, from our own domestic resources, and a fall in the price of sugar. Competition will inevitably reduce the present enormous profits of the sugar planter, and, in the same proportion, the price of the article. He had no hesitation in saying, that, if the protecting duty were repealed, the sugar business would be the most profitable branch of Southern agriculture; and he therefore regarded that duty as the most excessive and gratuitous of all the bounties of the protecting system. What, then, is the inference from all this? It is apparent that the price of brown sugar, in the United States, depends more upon the domestic than upon the foreign supply. What is erroneously pretended by our woollen and cotton manufactures is strictly true of our sugar planters. They can make sugar cheaper than any other sugar planters in the world. Under a system of free trade they could successfully contend with the whole world, and would drive the West India sugars out of the markets of Europe. Under these circumstances, a drawback upon refined sugar, founded upon the idea that the price of brown sugar in the United States is increased three cents a pound by the impost duty, would be as unwise as a drawback upon woollen cloth, founded upon the idea that the price of raw wool in the United States is increased fifty per cent. by the impost duty laid upon foreign imported wool. In both cases the impost duty would undoubtedly increase the price of the article subjected to it. But no one who understood the question could seriously believe either that the price of brown sugar would be raised three cents a pound, or that, in the other, the price of raw wool would be raised fifty per cent. Upon the whole, Mr. McD. thought the existing drawback of four cents on refined sugar amply sufficient, and he hoped it would not be increased. [Dec. 16. 1828. the right to execute a complete system of internal improvements. Resolved, That Congress does not, under the constitution, possess this power. The resolutions were read, and ordered to lie upon the table. DRAWBACK ON REFINED SUGAR. The bill increasing the amount of drawback on sugars refined within the United States, being the unfinished business of yesterday, again came up. Mr. GILMER remarked, that, as he was not very conversant with commercial subjects, he should not have engaged in the discussion of this bill, but that the origin of the allowance of a drawback upon refined sugar had not been stated, nor the operation of the present allowance fairly represented to the House. We have been told that the allowance of drawback upon sugar refined within the United States had been coeval with the constitution. We were not, however, informed of any difference in the policy which produced the first law upon this subject, and that which is the evident object, for the passage of the present bill. The first law allowing a drawback on refined sugar was passed in 1794, and was entitled " An act laying duties upon snuff and refined sugar." The duties to be collected by virtue of this act were to be appropriated to the payment of the public debt. In order to secure to the Government the highest possible revenue from this excise upon refined sugar, a heavy duty was laid upon imported refined sugar. The entire supply of that article, for domestic consumption, was thereby given to the sugar refiners For the purpose of enabling them to furnish that supply, and, at the same time, to avoid the consequences of a great surplus in the market, by which the refiners would be less able to pay the excise, a drawback was allowed them, equal to the excise and the duty upon the raw sugar imported, upon all refined sugar exported. They were allowed the benefits of the foreign market, that they might be the better enabled to pay a tax imposed by the Government upon the home consumption. Mr. G. observed, that, from our proximity to the West Indies, and the circumstance that the most essential supplies of the sugar islands were drawn from the United States, a large quantity of sugar was brought into the United States for exportation; so that the sugar refiners were enabled, very soon, not only to supply the home market, but to transport a considerable quantity for the foreign market. The internal duty upon refined sugar ceased after the 30th of Mr. HALL, of North Carolina, rose and said, that January, 1802. In 1813, an internal duty, of four cents, the resolutions which he was about to present had been was again laid upon sugar refined within the United States; suggested by a bill which he found on his table-the Cum- and for the same reason as before, a drawback was allowberland Road bill-the provisions of which he believed con-ed upon exportation. By the act of 1816, the duties upon trary to the constitution, and the fundamental principles of refined sugar were continued, and the drawback inour political institutions. It was not his purpose, himself, creased. By the act of 1817, the duties upon refined to go into a discussion of the abstract constitutional ques- sugar were repealed. By the act of 1818, the drawback tion. But if it should be thought proper by others, the allowed by the act of 1816, of four cents a pound, upon resolutions might offer an option to the House, in discuss-refined sugar exported, was again re-enacted. Mr. G. obing the question separately from the bill. If this should not served, that the act of 1818 was the first which allowed be done, [Mr. H. said] the resolutions would yet serve him a drawback upon refined sugar, unconnected with an interas a protest against the bill and its principles. Mr. H. then nal duty. offered the following resolutions: [Here the debate closed for this day.] TUESDAY, DEC. 16, 1828. INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. Resolved, &c. That the people of the United States, in the formation of their Governments, did not alienate their sovereignty. Resolved, That the rights of jurisdiction and soil are the essential attributes of sovereignty. Resolved, That the power to execute a system of internal improvements within the States, involves the right of jurisdiction and soil. Resolved, That the power to make Roads and Canals, within the jurisdictional limits of the States, and to make laws for their preservation and protection, and to erect toll gates, and to enforce the collection of tolls, involves Mr. G. said, he had been thus particular, in order to show more clearly that the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] was mistaken, in supposing that the policy now contended for had been adopted during the first administration of the Government. He said, he would now attempt to show that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SERGEANT] was mistaken, in supposing that the export of refined sugar had decreased in consequence of the drawback being no more than four cents. The export of refined sugar entitled to drawback was, $58.993 47,788 18,044 |