DEC. 16, 1828.] 1821, 1822, 1823, 1824. 1825, Drawback on Refined Sugar. $156,527 177,065 55,187 57,908 50,017 168,991 236,744 1826, 1827, From which statement it appeared, [said Mr. G.] that so far from the export having lessened by the operation of the present law, more refined sugar was exported during the last year than any other year since the passage of the law in 1818. Mr. G, observed that he supposed the object of the drawback at present allowed, was, to enable the refiners so to extend their business, as always to have an ample supply for the home market, and in case of the accumulation of any great surplus, to enable them to export without loss. This object was fully attained by the present duty. But, said Mr. G., that object was a very different one from what the advocates of this bill wish to effect by its passage. They desire so to model our revenue laws as to direct thereby the application of a portion of our capital and labor to the manufacture of an article for exportation out of materials of foreign growth. Hitherto, the advocates for the encouragement of domestic manufactures, by means of our revenue system, have confined their views to the supply of the home market, of such manufactures as were made of materials the growth or production of our own country, The present bill goes farther. It designs the creation of a manufacture of foreign materials, and for the foreign markets. He said, that, whenever the situation of the people of the United States enables them to manufacture for the foreign market, without the aid of the Government, they will have the right to do so: and the Government cannot constitutionally restrain them. But the Government [Mr. G. said] had no right to create a manufacture by bounties, nor was it politic to do so, if it had. The Government, he said, had the power to lay imposts, and to regulate commerce with foreign nations. There was no other power granted to it by the constitution, by which the bill could be passed. The creation of a manufacture within the United States cannot be considered a regulation with any foreign nation. And it would be equally absurd [Mr. G. said] to call a bounty of five cents a pound upon refined sugar exported, an impost or a tax for the purpose of revenue. But, [Mr. G. said] he did not intend to enter at large into the discussion of this part of the subject. He wished it not to be agitated during the present session. The question of policy he considered of great importance, not so much from any consequences that would follow from this particular bill, but from the principle it would recognize, and the practice that would follow, in relation to other subjects. [H. OF R. sented the great cities upon the Atlantic, [Mr. GORHAM, from Boston, Mr. CAMBRELENG, from New York, Mr. SERGEANT, from Philadelphia, Mr. BARNEY, from Baltimore, and Mr. DRAYTON, from Charleston.] These gentlemen, no doubt, represented the interests of their constituents; but, [Mr. G. said] it would be well worthy of consideration, whether that interest was not, in this instance, peculiar, and such as had little connexion with the interest of the nation The manufacture of refined sugar for exportation, and almost entirely that for home consumption, must necessarily be confined to the large importing cities upon the seaboard, because sugar is too heavy an article to be carried into the country, refined, and then returned for exportation. Mr. G., therefore, felt himself authorized to say, that the great object of this bill was, to give employment to an increased capital and labor, in the cities on the Atlantic. Mr. G. said that he had admitted that the consequences of the passage of this bill would be an increase of wealth. But, said he, wealth is not the sole source of the strength of a Government, or the happiness of a people. He doubted, himself, whether any manufacture, within the United States, solely for foreign exportation, and created by the forced action of the laws, would be beneficial to the country. He believed that such an interest would always require as great an expense to defend it as it was worth. Mr. G. then observed that his great objection to the passage of the bill was the inducement it held out for the accumulation of capital and labor in the cities. He said he had not become a convert to the doctrine of the present Secretary of the Treasury, that it was the business of the Government to depress the labor of the country, or that it was its true policy to draw population from the country into the towns, that, by the more minute division of labor, profits might increase. The Secretary was right, [he said] if the accumulation of wealth was the sole object of our support of Government. It might sometimes become a question whether wealth or liberty was most valuable to a people. Mr. G. said he supposed, from the Secretary's opinions, that he would prefer wealth. He thought differently himself. He believed that the freedom of a nation depended upon the high sense of individual independence felt by all classes of the people. It had been generally thought that we owed success in our Revolutionary struggle to the love of liberty engendered by agricultural habits. And it is still the opinion of many of the wisest men of the age, that the continuance of our free institutions will depend upon the continuance of the virtuous habits and independent feelings which belong to the people of the country. He asked, if that were so, whether it was our policy to force capital and population into our cities, which might otherwise go to the improvement of our agriculture? For himself, he thought not. And he was sorry to think that the honorable member from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] was, in the present instance, departing from his usual de Mr. G. admitted that this bill would not affect injuriously the productions of domestic sugar, and that its general effect would be to add some wealth to the country. He admitted that the five cents bounty to be paid, must, how-mocratic course. ever, be previously secured by the Government, from the Mr. G. again repeated, that it had not been his object duties on raw sugar, which would not otherwise be import- to discuss at large either the unconstitutionality or imed. Mr. G. said it might seem, from this admission, that policy of the bill. He had only intended, upon rising, to he ought not to apply the term "bounty" to the five cents show that the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBREto be paid upon exportation rather than drawback. He LENG] was mistaken, when he informed the House that the justified himself from the circumstance of this five cents present bill adopted no new policy, and that the same prinbeing paid in a manner that would not authorize the pay- ciple was recognized as sound, soon after the present Goment of a drawback upon any other article; and he called vernment went into operation; and also to show that the upon the gentleman from New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SERGEANT] was mistato say whether this was not so. The sugar which the refi- ken, in saying that the export of refined sugar had decreased ners use is not imported nor entered for the benefit of draw- under the operation of the present law, allowing but four back. They refine, indiscriminately, from the mass of su- cents a pound upon the exportation of refined sugar. He gar imported for the home market, and do not send it thought he had fully succeeded in that object. abroad until some favorable foreign market is offered. Mr. G. said there was one circumstanoe with which he had been particularly struck; and that was, that all the zealous advocates of this bill were gentlemen who repre Mr. SILAS WOOD, of New York, observed, in reply, that the gentleman from Georgia was certainly mistaken in supposing that drawback in relation to the present article was intended for revenue, by way of excise. At the H. OF R.] Drawback on Refined Sugar. time the law was originally passed, there was an excise duty as well as an impost, and if the object had been to raise a revenue from refined sugar, by way of excise, when the impost was remitted by granting a drawback, the excise duty would of course have been continued, but the fact was the reverse. The excise duty was remitted as well as the impost. The object of the law was entirely different: it was intended to foster and increase the commerce and navigation of the country. [DEC. 16, 1828. comply with it would, in his apprehension, be both politic and just. Mr. WEEMS said he was in favor of the bill, and would briefly assign the reasons which induced him to support it. He considered the carrying trade as important to agriculture, and held it to be a duty of Congress to encourage it-not, indeed, by granting it a premium; but he did not consider the drawback allowed to sugar refiners as a premium at all. He entirely concurred in the very able view of the subject which had been presented by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. SPRAGUE]. It was merely a paying back to the importer what he had paid in the shape of duty. It could make no difference to the Treasury whether the Government paid this back to the importer himself or to a third party. The importer, when he sold it to that third party, would, of course, include in its price the duties he had paid; and when the article left the country, the duty ought to be remitted to whoever happened to be the holder. He could see no reason why such a manufacture ought to be encouraged; would to God that all the partiality lately exhibited by the Government in the encouragement of manufactures could be justified on Mr. W. said that he viewed the subject as a farmer. He did not pretend to be versed in all the depths of commercial science, but he was in favor of this branch of business, because it carried from our shores the surplus products of agriculture; it carried away our flour, butter, lard, and a variety of other articles. The sugar which came in in exchange employed the industry of our own citizens; and all they asked of the Government was, that it would not make them pay for thus benefiting the country. Another beneficial effect was this, that the surplus of imported sugar over that which was refined, went into the consumption of the country, and thus helped to reduce the price to the poor consumer. He confessed his astonishment at the arguments adduced in opposition to the bill, by the gentleman from New-York [Mr. STORRS], and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McDUFFIE]. One of them had told the House that it would crush the growth of American sugar; while the other as strenuously contended that it would give a premium to the sugar grower. thought that the arguments of one of the gentlemen furnished a sufficient reply to those of the other. The article of sugars forms an essential article in our commerce. Our exports to the West Indies, by which we paid for them, amounted to upwards of $4,000,000, and three-fourths of these exports consisted of the products of agriculture; there was not an article in all our list of imports which tended more directly to encourage the agriculture of the country. It furnished a market for three millions of dollars' worth of our own products, and a vast proportion of that amount consisted of bulky articles, such as lumber, live stock, and fish, the transportation of which gave employment to much tonnage, so that this branch of trade gave encouragement at once to the agriculture, commerce, and navigation, of the country. From the beginning of the Government the policy of the drawbackground as solid as this! system had been to make the drawback equal to the duty; but experience had proved that such was not now in fact the case. The duty was three cents per pound upon the raw sugar, and including what was lost in the process of refining, every pound of clarified sugar required two pounds of the raw material. The loss in refining was found to amount to something less than a cent; to indemnify the refiner, therefore, the drawback onght to be something more than five cents. The bill, however, fixed it at five; and in so doing, it but continued the policy heretofore invariably pursued from the foundation of the Government. For want of this equality the business was found to languish, and the true reason why it had not flourished and increased of late years, as it had done formerly, was, that the Government was drawing from the pocket of the refiner a portion of the proceeds of his industry-it was sharing with him the profits of his business. In all other commercial countries the drawback fully equalled the duty paid; the consequence of which was, that sugar refiners were able to undersell, and actually do undersell, those of the United States, and thereby monopolize the foreign market. In Great Britain this branch of manufacture was husbanded with assiduous care, as furnishing a valuable branch of commerce; its amount there, fluctuated from 20,000,000 to 28,000,000 of dollars, averaging 24,000,000 annually; and while they import 24,000,000 of dollars' worth of the article in a raw state, they export in the same state only seven millions, while of refined sugar they export the same amount of seven millions, the balance going to home consumption. Now the British manufacturer is less favorably situated than the American, for he is at a greater distance from the sugar market; and yet, there, they export by millions, while we only by thousands. Why cannot we manufacture as much of the article as the English? The true reason is, that the English manufacturer has his whole duty remitted, while the American only has a part; the one enjoys his whole profit-the other shares his profit with the Government. If, then, the effect of this bill will be to encourage a branch of business favorable at once to manufactures, to commerce, and to agriculture, why would gentlemen refuse a bill so evidently advantageous to the country? As things stood, while Great Britain exported seven millions, we exported but twenty-seven thousand. The business, therefore, was in a languishing state; nor could any one wonder at this, when he considered that the Government were retaining in their own hands nearly one-third of the duty. The manufacturers had invested a large capital in building. Their business was beneficial to the country, and injured nobody. Their request was reasonable, and to He Mr. JOHNSON, of New-York, demanded that, when the question was taken, it should be taken by yeas and nays; and they were ordered by the House. Mr. CAMBRELING said, that the question had been so ably debated, he should have offered no remark upon it, but for the very extraordinary opposition the bill had encountered, and the importance of the principle on which a debenture system was founded. Gentlemen had debated the question as if some new principle was about to be introduced into our laws. By adverting to the laws they would be satisfied of their mistake. Mr. C. gave a brief sketch of the legislation on the subject, from 1794 to 1818, to show that, whenever the attention of Congress had been directed to it, they had uniformly sanctioned the policy of allowing a drawback on exportation equal to any internal excise that may have existed, and also, a drawback equal to the impost levied upon the foreign raw material consumed in the manufacture of refined sugar. In every law, anterior to the late war, the drawback was always double the impost duty on the raw material. In revising our laws in 1816 and 1818, this rule was departed from. The duty on the raw material was placed at three cents, in 1816; in 1818, the drawback on the refined was fixed at four cents only, instead of six, which would have been allowed according to our ancient rule. The refiners petitioned for the restoration of this rule. The subject had been twice before the Committee of Ways and Means, and a bill, substantially the same as that now under consideration, had been twice reported by that Committee, in 1825 and 1826. It was a mere question of inquiry, before the Committee on Commerce, as to what should be the rate of drawback. They were satisfied that five cents might be allowed, with perfect security to the revenue and justice to the refiner. The Committee had not attached any great importance to the bill, but the House had made it important, by questioning the policy of such debentures. He thought, when the practical effect of drawbacks of duty on raw materials was understood, the advantages of them would be admitted on all hands What is, [said Mr. C.] the proposition now before us? Our sugar refiners have been for forty years engaged in supplying our own consumption; they have the means of enlarging their establishments, and propose to you to do so, for the purpose of refining for exportation, provided you will permit them to export their manufacture free from our consumptive duties; in other words, provided you will allow them a drawback on the refined sugar equivalent to the duty you impose on the raw material. They merely ask you to remove a restriction on our export trade. Can any advocate of the principles of free trade oppose their petition? Suppose you refuse to allow the debenture? You merely keep this branch of industry as it has been kept for twenty years-restricted to your own market; while the refiners of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the Hanse Towns, opposed by no such restriction, will be employed in furnishing this manufacture for exportation as well as for their own consumption. Take off the restriction, and your refiners will gradually share in this trade. The number of our refining establishments will be increased; our importations of the raw material for refining will be enlarged; we shall gradually create a new branch of commerce, by adding another article to our exports; each additional establishment will make annual contributions to your Treasury, through the consumption duties on the Muscovado sugar and molasses which are produced in refining, and on which, as yet, our laws do not allow any drawback upon exportations; and by enlarging your importations of the foreign raw material, you enlarge your market for the productions of your agriculture and your forests. [H. OF R. fits of every such change. This bill, sir, can do no injury to any interest, while it removes a restriction on an export trade; makes a small addition to our Treasury, without adding one cent to the price in consumption; increases an existing manufacture; enlarges the market for our agricultural productions; and extends the navigation of the country. I have no disposition [said Mr. C.] to prolong this debate; but I cannot avoid noticing some of the extraordinary doctrines which gentlemen have advanced. The gentleman from Georgia asks whether I have abandoned my democratic principles Sir, I have ever been the advocate of the principles of free trade. I will strike off a restriction whenever I can reach it, whether it be on exportation or importation And if I cannot strike it off, I will relieve our industry from its operation. I wish every man in the country to have the market of the world open to him, whether to supply his wants or to purchase the surplus produce of his labor. Are these not democratic principles? Would the gentleman from Georgia substantially refuse the American refiner the privilege of seeking a market for the surplus produce of his labor? What becomes, sir, of his doctrines of free trade? I regret very much, sir, to find this measure opposed by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. McDUFFIE] with whom I have been so long associated in resisting restrictions and vindicating the doctrines of free trade. If that gentleman had not entirely mistaken the nature of the question, he certainly never would have opposed the principle of this bill. He assumes, that the refiner does not pay the duty while he receives a bounty from the Government of five cents per pound on his manufacture. He is mistaken, sir, both in his facts and his conclusion. The refiner not only pays the duty to the importer, but almost uniformly anticipates the payment of the bond. The gen tleman has converted a mere drawback of impost into a positive bounty to the refiner. This bill has nothing to do with the question of bounties. It simply returns to the refiner, on the exportation of the manufacture, the tax which you may have, from necessity or from folly, imposed on the foreign raw material consumed. On what principle do you allow a drawback of internal excise on your proCan any gentleman, who is willing to encourage indus- ductions, when exported? Simply because other nations try, even at the sacrifice of other interests, and at the ex- never can and never will buy them when charged with pense of the consumers, refuse to give his vote for a mea- your internal duties. They cannot buy any of your prosure tending to produce such results, without levying any ductions, the price of which has been increased by your imposition whatever on the Treasury, or on the country? taxes, whether of impost or of excise; whether on the raw What interest is to be injured? Is Louisiana to be in- material or on the manufacture. If you will have enormous jured? Sir, there is no portion of the country which will duties on importations, the debenture system is inevitable; be more benefited by the measure. That whole region of it is the only partial relief which we can ever obtain from country upon the Mississippi is in the immediate neighbor- the famous American System. Gentlemen can now see hood of Cuba, and the Islands from whence we are to pro- one of the consequences of loading the industry of the cure an additional supply of the raw material for the pur-country with heavy imposts on raw materials, and on impose of refining. Will not the exports of its productions be increased, in exchanging for the raw material? But the bill is to jeopard the interest of the sugar planter. Sir, it is more profitable for the planter to continue, as he now does, to supply the wants of our vast and growing population, and to leave the refiner to seek that raw material from abroad which it is most profitable to apply to the uses of refining. If you refuse to pass the bill, you do not aid the sugar planter; the refiner will go on as he now does, to seleet from that which is imported, the small portion of white, dry, or crystalized sugar which will yield him the largest result. The operation of this measure is almost entirely external, and cannot sensibly affect the consumption of the country, which will still remain regulated by our domestic demand. What influence can the small contributions to our consumption, flowing from the few additional refineries which may spring up under the influence of this bill, have upon the profits of the sugar planter, when contrasted with millions which a nation consumes ? His income will never be diminished by enlarging or opening any new channel of trade; while the thousands around him will feel the bene portations generally; they can see how their system is designed, not only to cut off importations, but to destroy the exportations of the country. Under no debenture system can we ever relieve our exports from the heavy tax the American System imposes upon them. We cannot engage in the foreign trade in competition with other nations, except in such articles as are produced in our own country. I hope, sir, we shall have a general revision of our revenue laws, when we are less under the influence of political considerations; and when we may legislate with a just regard to the true interests of the country. In the mean time, I hope the gentleman from South Carolina will unite with me in removing as well as in resisting restrictions on our commerce, whether on the export or the import trade. We cannot oppose the bill without abandoning the doctrines of free trade. Again, sir, he is equally in error about the carrying trade. He asks if that is to be exempt from taxation? That gentleman must certainly be aware that every thing which enters into the manufacture of a ship is already most heavily taxed; that our mariners are taxed-our ship owners taxed. Would he make the navigating interest an H. OF R.] Drawback on Refined Sugar. exception, and charge it with more than its fair portion of the taxes of the country? Sir, we have gone far enough in our measures to keep down the navigating interest and naval power of our country. It is impossible that our national affairs can be permanently regulated by such principles as are advocated by the friends of the American System, or by such doctrines as have been advanced by my colleague [Mr. STORRS] and by the gentleman from South Carolina. The affairs of no country can be regulated by such rules of Government. Suppose that the British Parliament were to adopt the maxims of both the gentlemen: my colleague's doctrines on the subject of protecting in dustry, and the principles of both in relation to drawbacks of the customs' duty, and refuse to grant them? What would be the result of such a policy? The tide of commerce would neither flow in nor out; every port in Great Britain would be closed; her foreign commerce would be destroyed. It is precisely to that result that the American System, if persisted in, will bring our national concerns. Sir, I have gone farther into this question than I had anticipated-like those who have preceded me, I have found it impossible to avoid the tariff, and have been swept along with the argument. Before, however, I dismiss the question, I cannot avoid noticing a maxim of the Secretary of the Treasury, as connected with our export trade. He says, "It is manifestly what we send abroad that must, in the end, give the true measure of what we are to receive from abroad." Allow me to assure the Secretary that his American System, as carried into effect by his associates, by heaping impositions, from year to year, on the general consumption of the country, is but poorly calculated to cheapen those productions which are to form that "true measure of what we are to receive from abroad." But, sir, the Secretary's maxim goes a little too far. If his rule applies to the United Staies, why not to Great Britain? If we cut off our importations from Great Britain, do we not diminish her exports? and by diminishing her measure of importations, do we not reduce our exports? What then becomes of that famous American System, which is to enlarge our industry, and more rapidly augment the wealth and resources of the country? Importation and exportation are both measures of commerce. You cannot separate them—they mutually and beneficially act and re-act upon each; you cannot restrict the one without an injury to both, and a diminution of the general wealth of the country. Sir, I am anxious that this bill should pass, not for its intrinsic importance, but on account of the sound principle on which it is based. If there ever was a question about which this House ought not to be divided, it is the one now under consideration. The measure imposes no tax upon the country, while its tendency is to give an impulse to our commerce, manufactures and agriculture, and to give additional employment to our navigation, by relieving a branch of our export trade from an injurious and unnecessary restriction. Mr. TAYLOR said he had been anxious yesterday to obtain the floor, merely to call the attention of the House to the facts of this case, as they were exhibited in the documents in possession of the House. So far as he knew, it was not proposed by any gentleman to repeal the existing drawback; the propriety of the principle seemed to be generally admitted. The only question before the House respected the rate at which it ought to be fixed. Now, if gentlemen would turn to the history of the manufacture, they would find that its results presented a singular anomaly in the progress of American commerce and enterprise. It was a branch of manufactures which, at an early date, had obtained complete possession of the American market; and though it had existed for twenty years since that time, it had scarcely advanced a step beyond the ground it then possessed. It retained the domestic market still, but it could not compete with the foreign article in any [DEC. 16, 1828. other country in the world. In this respect it was unlike every other manufacture which had grown up in our country. In the year 1816, we had first commenced the manufacture of cotton, and at that time the House was very gravely warned that the youngest member then on the floor would never see the time when the cotton manufacture would reach the point of supplying our own demand. Yet, it was only four or five years before the American market was fully supplied, and we began to export to a large amount. The channels of commerce required the article, and it went into competition with the foreign all over the world. The same thing was true of the manufacture of hats and boots, more especially since the markets of South America' has been open to us. As to the article of refined sugar, if gentlemen would consult the Treasury returns, from 1821 to 1826, they would find that what we imported amounted to almost nothing. [Here Mr. T. quoted the amount of duties in each of those years.] The American market was fully supplied by our own manufactures, while at the same time we re-exported so great a quantity of crude sugar, that the drawback on it amounted to a very large sum. [Here he again quoted the tables.] This shows that there was more raw sugar brought into the country than was consumed, and of this, doubtless, a large proportion would have been refined had that branch of manufacture been duly encouraged. Why was it that this article alone should remain stationary, or nearly so, while all others were rapidly advancing? Was owing to any want of capital? This could not be the reason for it had just been stated that the sugar factories were seated in the very heart of all the capital in the country. We possessed all manner of facility for such a manufacture, and, from our mere local situation, were better fitted for carrying it on than any other nation in the world. The articles which we exported to the sugar markets were such as found a market no where else. What reason then could be assigned why such a manufacture should languish? The reason already stated was undoubtedly the true one. The Government put into its coffers a part of the profit which ought to go into the pocket of the manufacturer. Very exact calculations had been made, and they went to show that the drawback should be nearer six cents than five. He would consent to fix it at six cents, but as the Committee of Commerce had thought fit to report it at five, he should not insist, but hoped that that amount would meet with general approbation. As to the present exports of refined sugar, they were very inconsiderable. [Here Mr. T. referred to the returns.] This was a mere drop in the bucket; it was as nothing in comparison to the amount of crude sugar re-exported. Mr. McDUFFIE offered the following amendment : "SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That no person shall be entitled to the drawback allowed by this or any former act of Congress, unless the refiner of the sugar shall make oath that the refined sugar which is proposed to be exported was not manufactured from sugar made in the United States." Mr. McDUFFIE said that, in offering the amendment he had submitted, he was governed by an apprehension which he had already expressed, that this law will, at some future time, not distant, become the means of enabling the refiner of sugar to obtain a bounty upon the exportation of his manufacture, under the pretext of obtaining merely a drawback of the duty paid upon imported brown sugar. As the law now stands, the exporter of the refined sugar is required only to swear that he believes the sugar exported was made from a raw material which had been imported, and on which the duty had been paid. Now it is extremely apparent that the exporter of refined sugar may very conscientiously swear that he believes it was made from brown sugar that had been imported upon no better grounds than the statement of the refinerthe very person most interested to deceive him. It will not certainly be imposing any inconvenient trouble upon the exporter to require him to state positively, what he has the means of knowing with positive certainty, that the manufactured article is not made from brown sugar of domestic growth. I am inclined to believe, that, in five years, the domestic production of brown sugar in the United States will be equal to the whole consumption of the country. It will, then, be exceedingly convenient for the refiners of sugar to receive five cents a pound upon its exportation, where there will not be the slightest ground for considering it a drawback. And it is to provide against this approaching state of things [said Mr. McD.], that I am anxious to throw every guard which prudence can suggest around this new system of drawbacks. With a view of illustrating the true character of this measure, and showing the danger their is of its being the ground work of a system of bounties, Mr. McD. adverted to the case of a drawback on woollen manufactures exported, equal to the duty imposed upon the imported raw wool. It was notorious that the price of raw wool was very little affected by the duty upon imported wool, because nearly the entire consumption of the country was supplied by our own domestic wool-growers. Yet, according to the principle of this bill, a manufacturer who should export woollen manufactures to the amount of a million of dollars, would be entitled to a drawback.of $250,000, being fifty per centum upon the raw material required, according to the statement of the manufacturers, to make the amount of the article exported. plying the same remark to manufactures of iron, hemp, and flax, it was difficult to avoid the conclusion, that, if we pursue the principle of the gentleman from New York to its full extent, our system of drawbacks will be as extensive and complicated as that of Great Britain. However, [said Mr. McD] I will not go into the general policy of the measure; my present object being limited to providing a security against fraud and imposition. Ap Mr. CAMBRELENG said, he certainly should not oppose the gentleman's amendment, it was merely re-enacting, substantially, the act of 1816. He would, however, suggest the propriety of some modification. The exporter ought not to be called upon to swear to that which he knew nothing about. The refiner was the only person who could take such an oath. He considered all these provisions as inoperative. The domestic raw material could not be used in refining for many years to come. He had great respect for the judgment of the gentleman from South Carolina, and although he knew that the revolutions in agricultural industry were quick, still he could not believe, with him, that the Louisiana planters would, in five years, supply the whole consumption of the country. He should recollect that it is more than twenty years since we commenced the cultivation of sugar, and that our population is rapidly increasing. He should be mistaken if the planters did not, for twenty years, find it more profitable to continue in the business they were now engaged in, than to undertake to manufacture for the refiner. Discoveries in refining may produce an earlier change, but extended cultivation will not. In yielding to the amendment, he meant by no means to concede the principles involved in it. He had no desire to alter or extend the principle of the law as it now stood. But, whenever a case shall arise, where the manufacture may be made of a foreign raw material, equal in quality to a similar one of domestic origin, he should conceive it immaterial to the Treasury and the country, which was consumed at home, and which was exported, or whether the drawback were allowed to one or the other, so long as the aggregate amount of duties exceeded the aggregate amount of debentures. It was not necessary to anticipate the debate on such a question. Whenever it should oc [H. OF R. cur, the domestic raw material would naturally exclude the foreign, and render both duty and drawback useless. The gentleman still labored under an entire mistake as to the fact that the refiner did not pay the duty. When articles enter into general consumption, it might be difcult to say whether the commerce did or did not pay precisely the duty; the fluctuations of prices render it impracticable to establish any rule. But with the refiner the case is very different. He pays the importer precisely the duty. If the sugar, for example, be, in mercantile language, seven cents short price, which means, when sold for exportation with drawback, the refiner pays two cents to cover the three cents duty. Mr. TAYLOR opposed the amendment, as being very inconvenient in practice, and insisted that the guards in the present law were sufficient for the prevention of frauds; of which, however, there were no complaints; for the domestic article was never employed for refining. Mr. WEEMS supported the amendment, believing that, although American sugar was not now employed, owing to the molasses it contained, yet, that, hereafter, when made in quantities more adequate to the supply of our home consumption, it might have time to drain, and then it could as well be refined as any other. The question was then taken on the amendment, and decided in the negative-yeas 80, nays 90. So the amendment was rejected. The bill was then ordered to its third reading, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS-Messrs Allen, of Massachusetts, Anderson, of Maine, Anderson, of Pennsylvania, Archer, Bailey, Baldwin, Barber, of Connecticut, Barker, Barlow, Barnard, Barney, Barringer, Bartlett, Bartley, Bates, of Massachusetts, Beecher, Belden, Blake, Brown, Bryan, Buck, Cambreleng, Carter, Condict, Coulter, Crowninshield, Davenport, of Ohio, De Graff, Dickinson, Dorsey, Drayton, Dwight, Everett, Findlay, Forward, Gale, Garnsey, Gorham, Green, Harvey, Healy, Hobbie, Hodges, Hoffman, Holmes, Hunt, Ingersoll, Isacks, Jennings, Johnson, Kerr, Leffler, Little, Lock, Long, Magee, Mallary, Markell, Martindale, Maxwell, Maynard, McIntire, McLean, Merwin, Miller, Miner, Newton, O'Brien, Orr, Owen, Pearce, Phelps, Pierson, Plant, Ramsay, Randolph, of New Jersey, Reed, Richardson, Ripley, Rives, Russell, Sawyer, Sergeant, Shepperd, Sinnickson, Sloane, Smith, of Indiana, Sprague, Stanberry, Stewart, Stower, Strong, Swann, Swift, Sutherland, Taliaferro, Taylor, Tracy, Trezvant, Tucker, of New Jersey, Vance, Van Rensselaer, Varnum, Verplanck, Vinton, Ward, Weems, Whipple, Whittlesey, Wilson, of Pennsylvania, Wilson, of Maryland, Wingate, Silas Wood, of New York, Woods, of Ohio, Woodcock, Wolf, John C. Wright, of Ohio.-117. NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Allen, of Virgina, Alston, Armstrong, John S. Barbour, P. P. Barbour, Basset, Bell, Brent, Buchanan, Buckner, Carson, Chambers, Chilton, Claiborne, Clark, of New York, Conner, Crockett, Daniel, Davenport, of Virginia, Desha, Duncan, Earll, Floyd, of Georgia, Fort, Fry, Garrow, Gilmer, Gurley, Hallock, Hall, Haynes, Hinds, Keese, King, Kremer, Lawrence, Lecompte, Lee, Letcher, Lumpkin, Lyon, Marable, Martin, McCoy, McDuffie, McHatton, McKean, McKee, Mercer, Mitchell, of Pennsylvania, Mitchell, of S. C., Mitchell, of Tennesee, Moor, of Kentucky, Moor, of Alabama, Nuckolls, Polk, Roane, Sprigg, Stevenson, of Pennsylvania, Sterigere, Taber, Thompson, Tucker, of South Carolina, Turner, Wickliffe, Wilde, Williams, John J. Wood, of N. York, Wright, of N. York, Yancey-71. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1828. Mr. WARD offered the following resolution: |