H. OF R.] Internal Improvement.-Drawback on Refined Sugar. instructed to inquire into the expediency of increasing the annual appropriation for the supply of ordnance for the fortifications of the United States. In introducing this resolution, [DEC 17, 1828. fications already ordered, with a due supply of ordnance, would require, according to the present rate of supply, not less than half a century. The question being then put on agreeing to the resolution moved by Mr. WARD, it was decided in the negative. INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT. The resolutions which were moved by Mr. HALL, yesterday, in relation to the "powers of the General Govern ment, on the subject of Internal Improvement," came up for their second reading; which having received, Mr. HALL moved their reference to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union to which is committed the bill for the preservation of the Cumberland Road; which motion was rejected. Mr. BARTLETT then moved their reference to the Committee on the Judiciary; which being also rejected, They were, on motion of Mr. HUNT, laid on the table. DRAWBACK ON REFINED SUGAR. The engrossed bill "allowing an additional drawback on sugar refined in the United States and exported therefrom" came up on its passage. Mr. WARD said that, in compliance with the request of the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. DWIGHT] he would observe, that the present appropriation for the supply of ordnance (under which is included guns, mortars, shot and shells,) is one hundred thousand dollars per annum, only seventy thousand dollars of which sum, he stated, was applied, as he had been informed, to that object. The balance of the one hundred thousand dollars, he stated, was applied by the Department for the supply of gun-carriages and ordnance stores. This sum of seventy thousand dollars [said Mr. W.] now furnishes two hundred and fifty twenty-four pounders annually. Mr. W. farther observed, that the whole number of cannon required for the old fortifications, and for the works now progressing, and nearly completed, is two thousand six hundred and forty-six; and for the works projected three thousand eight hundred and seventyfour-making, in the aggregate, six thousand five hundred and twenty guns. Mr. W. farther stated, that, according to the estimates made by the Ordnance Depart- Mr. GURLEY, of Louisiana, said that he had voted ment, the Government will have on hand, in the year one yesterday against ordering this bill to a third reading, and thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, in all, one thou- should vote against its final passage. It had not been his sand five hundred and seven guns, leaving a balance of intention to offer any remarks in relation to it, or he should five thousand and seventy-three to be provided for to fur- have taken an earlier opportunity to address the House; nish all the works now authorized by Congress to be and he had now risen merely with a view to make some erected; to supply which, he said, under the present ap- statements of facts by way of correcting declarations ofpropriation of one hundred thousand dollars per annum, fered yesterday, on the subject of domestic sugar, which it will require a period of at least forty-five years. And he knew not to be correct. He should not enter into an he said that, should the Department hereafter deem it ad- examination of the principles involved in the bill. Vavisable to furnish the fortifications with thirty-two pound-rious views had been taken on different sides of the ers, instead of twenty-four pounders, which he said he House, as well of the principle of the bill as of its practiwas informed was in contemplation by the Department, cal operation. Its object was to allow our domestic indusand which, he said, would, no doubt, be found expedient, try to be employed in improving the form of a foreign at least to a limited extent, then, he said, it would require material, and to permit the articles so improved to be exa period of fifty years to supply the fortifications with ported from the country free of duty. Much as had their ordnance. been said by some gentlemen as to the injurious effect of the bill upon the sugar grower, he, so far as he represented the sugar growing interest, should entertain no fears as to the effect of the bill, for some years to come. That interest would not, at present, be affected by the bill, either one way or the other. It certainly could have no direct influence on the growth of domestic sugar, and its only influence would be of an indirect kind, operating in a way which he would shortly explain. In the mean while, he could not but express his amazement that a bill like this should receive the approbation and support of the friends of what was denominated "the American System." Here is an instance in which the nation has within itself the raw material. What is the policy advocated by the friends of that system, constituting, as appeared, the majority of this House? They had uniformly maintained that, in such a case, the true policy of the country was to foster the manufacture of the domestic article, by keeping out foreign competition; and yet here they advocated a bill which went on a policy directly the reverse. had said that this measure would indirectly affect the sugar-growing interest, and it would do so by retarding the period when the domestic article could be produced and furnished of a quality fit, in all respects, to supplant the foreign article, and to supply the whole demand, not merely for the purpose of table consumption, but also for the use of the refiner: for there was no foundation whatever in the assertion, which had been so confidently advanced, that the American sugar was, in its own nature, Guns, he said, of the size required, made in haste, were generally good for nothing, as the experience of the last war had taught us: for most of those made by order of the Government, at that period, have since been condemned as totally useless. But those made in time of peace were generally well-tried before they were accepted, and would probably last for ages. The seaboard and frontier fortifications were now built on correct principles and of solid materials, and were, in his opinion, among the best permanent property of the nation; and he submitted it to the House whether it were not better, under these circumstances, to augment the appropriation to such an extent as to give the Department of War the means, on any emergency, to arm our fortresses in such a manner as to answer the rational calculations of the nation, when they made the expenditure for their erection. Mr. VANCE said that there was no need for Congress to urge on the Department in proposing measures for the defence of the country. It had rather been found necessary to hold a tight rein over those gentlemen, who are always sufficiently ready in devising ways and means to apply the resources of the country. There was not the least danger of the Department's not moving sufficiently fast in advancing our fortifications. He trusted the resolution would not pass, but that the House would at least wait till it had estimates from the Department, and would not anticipate the Executive officers, by taking that part of the public duty into their own hands. He Mr. WARD made a few remarks in support of the re-improper for the process of refining. It was true that solution. He had no doubt that, if the House would call on the Department for information on this subject, the statements he had made would be fully confirmed; and they would find, as he had said, that, to furnish the forti the domestic article is not at present employed for that purpose; but why? The foreign article yielded the refiner a drawback of three cents a pound, and, of course, so long as this was the case, the foreign article would be DEC. 17, 1828.] Drawback on Refined Sugar. [H. of R, levees, and swept all before them. It required a favorable season and a good crop to yield 12 per cent. Mr. G said he felt no particular solicitude as to the fate of the bill, but, for himself, should vote against it on the grounds he had now stated. He put it to gentlemen who were the advocates of the American System, to show on what possible principle they could support such a measure. It happened in this case, as in some others on the subject of manufactures, that there were nearly as many opinions as speakers. Gentlemen differed entirely in the views they took of the practical effects of the bill. Some insisted that Louisiana was to be ruined by it, while others as strenuously maintained that it would augment the overgrown wealth of the sugar growers. In his opinion, it would produce neither of these effects. Its influence on the sugar growing interest would, he believed, be injurious rather than otherwise, chiefly by retarding the time when we shall be able to supply the home demand. He hazarded little in saying, that, according to the rate at which the sugar business had increased, for some years past, it would not be more than five years before the home market would be completely supplied, and then, as he had before remarked, the bill would be attended with injurious effects. It certainly was adverse to what was called the American System, because it encouraged the the same kind was seeking the same market. It might, and probably would have some effect in increasing the shipping interest, but he believed it would be far from producing the effect anticipated. What the country had to send abroad would still go abroad, whether sugar came in or not. If we did not import sugar, we should import some other article in the place of it: for it was out of the question to stop the trade of such a nation as this. preferred. This alone was sufficient to account for the fact. But there was another reason for it. The sugar of native growth, commanding a certain and ready market, was not suffered to remain on hand a sufficient time completely to drain from it the molasses which it contained. But when it should obtain complete possession of the home market, and be made in such quantities as to lie on hand for eighteen months or two years, as the West India sugar frequently did, there was no reason to believe that it would be any less fit for refining than the imported sugar. When such a period should arrive, the operation of the bill would be seriously detrimental to the sugar-growing interest, by putting a preference upon the foreign article; and, in the mean while, its practical tendency was to postpone such a period. He would take the liberty of assuring gentlemen that such a period was not so distant as some appeared to imagine. Let them look at facts on this subject. In the year 1825, we made 40,000 hogsheads of domestic sugar, and in two years afterwards that amount had swelled to 71,000, so that the product had almost doubled in two years. The returns of 1825 would show, that, while 40,000 hogsheads were produced at home, 59,000 were imported. He knew that the consumption of the country was increasing, but it did not increase with near so much rapidity as the means of supply. He wished to make a remark or two on the statement pre-introduction of a foreign article, while a domestic one of sented to the House by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. M'DUFFIE], as to the enormous profits of the sugar growers. That gentleman had represented them as clearing $800 per annum on every slave employed on their plantations. The gentleman, no doubt, had been told so. But this was one of those pictures of the fancy, which, if it could be realized, would, he believed, draw even that gentleman himself from his beloved South Carolina, and would furnish the sugar growers with the pleasure and advantage of his presence among them. But, whatever might be the authority on which the gentleman relied in giving such a statement to the House, he could assure him that it was all a delusion, and that, if any persons should come to the sugar growing districts with any such expectations, they would be far from realizing such golden dreams. A healthy negro slave would cultivate, upon an average, five acres of sugar cane a day; the product of which, when brought to market, would be about five hogsheads, averaging an hogshead an acre. The hogshead weighed, generally, 1200 weight; and this, at six cents a pound, yielded $300. But would the gentleman attribute this profit to the labor of the slave ? He might as well attribute it to the horses which turned the mill, or to the mill itself which ground the cane. Did the gentleman forget the capital which was employed? It was scarcely practicable to ascertain the exact profit derived from the labor of each slave, or, in fact, of any other indivividual; but the matter resolved itself into this, that capital vested in the sugar growing business yielded about ten per cent. A capital of $40,000 would, perhaps, yield a profit that would average about $300 a piece upon each of the negroes employed. But would the gentleman say that it was the negro who earned that amount? Supposing a steamboat yielded an annual profit of ten thousand dollars, and it took five hands to navigate her, would the gentleman reckon each hand on board the steamboat as yielding $2,000 a year? Mr. G. said he would venture to affirm, that, even crediting the whole profit of a plantation to the slaves employed on it, it would not yield more than $200 a head, instead of $800. They considered a crop that would average from $150 to $200 a slave as a good crop. Sugar estates produced from 10 to 12 per cent., and some of them, in very favorable seasons, might possibly yield 15 per cent., but their produce was subject to great and various vicissitudes. One early frost ruined the planter's hopes, while, at other times, the waters of the Mississippi broke down the VOL. V.-15 Mr. J. S. STEVENSON said, the passage of this bill is insisted on upon the ground that the existing law, giving a bounty of but four cents, does injustice to the refiner of imported sugar; and its advocates claim the sum of five cents per pound from the Treasury, on the exportation of a pound of refined sugar, alleging that a sum equal to this had been paid as duty on the imported brown sugar used in the manufacture. This allegation is in the face of the facts, as the refiners of sugar admit, that one thousand pounds of good brown sugar will yield 510 pounds of refined sugar, and leave 230 pounds of unrefined (equal in value to the brown used) and 80 gallons of molasses. Now, the 1000 pounds of brown sugar pays a duty of $30; deduct $6 90 from this on the sugar remaining, but unrefined, and 10 cents a gallon, the duty on molasses, equal to $3, and allow a drawback on the exportation of 510 pounds of refined sugar, at the rate of 5 cents, equal to $25 50, and the whole amounts to $35 40, or an excess over the duty paid of $5 40. This, all must admit, is an actual charge on the citizens of the United States for the benefit of the sugar refiner. He is, in fact, enabled to sell refined sugar in the foreign market at four or five cents a pound less than he can sell it to our own citizens. Surely it is a strange perversion of legislation to tax our own citizens, and expend that tax in a bounty, to enable foreigners to use refined sugar at a lower price than our own citizens, who pay this tax. The principle of the bill is also objectionable in this: that, by giving a bounty to the refiner of foreign sugar, and refusing it to those who manufacture that of your own country, you make it largely the interest of the refiner to purchase foreign and refuse domestic sugars; and he who does so can drive the refiner of domestic sugar from the foreign market, by your bounty for refining foreign materials. This bill, like coming events which cast their shadows before, is but the forerunner of a new system, which will be attempted. An alliance is forming between the merchant and the seaboard manufacturer. The merchant is to introduce foreign raw material, and the seaboard manufac turer is to work it into fabrics, which, when exported, is to have a return of the duty paid on the raw material. How are our agriculturists, our farmers, and producers of raw material, and the interior manufacturer from these domestic raw materials, to stand the competition for the foreign markets? Let members examine the principle of this bill. The consumption of sugars in our country is equal to one hundred and twenty millions of pounds: of this, Louisiana produces eighty millions, or two thirds of the whole. You allow five cents per pound bounty on refined sugar, if made from foreign sugar,and exported. Who, then, will refine and export domestic sugar? No one. The iron used in the United States is equal to one hundred thousand tons; we produce two thirds of this, and import one-third. If you allow a bounty or drawback on the foreign iron wrought into nails, &c,, who will manufacture domestic iron into articles for exportation? and of nails alone, we now export one million of pounds.) Your own unwise legislation will exclude your own product from the competition in the foreign market, by giving a bounty against the use of the native raw materials. It will be the same as regards manufactures from hemp, flax, wool, &c. &c. ; nay, even beef, pork, and other provision salted for exportation, will be cured with foreign salt, and a demand will be made of the duty paid on the salt when imported. Mr. S. said he should have regarded this bill in itself as a small matter, but for the important principle it seems to sanction. He made objections to this principle now, so that, when heavier claims were made, (and made they would be,) the House and nation should have had due warning and time for reflection. It has been boldly asserted that the exportation of refined sugar is on the decline, and that the refiners have suffered by your injustice. Now, this assertion, like many others, is the reverse of the fact. The export of refined sugar never was greater, in quantity nor amount, since the sum of four cents was fixed as the drawback, than for the last year. It has increased from about fifty thousand pounds, exported in 1818, to two hundred and thirty-six thousand pounds, exported in 1827. In strictness, the sum drawn from the Treasury by the exporter of domestic refined, is a bounty, not a drawback as the sugar refiner almost invariably buys the sugars which have been so long in the country as to have lost the right of drawback or debenture. He buys it lower, and it suits him better, because it is usually very dry. The reason the Louisiana sugar is not used is obvious; it is new, not so perfectly drained of its molasses, and the sugar refined from it is not entitled to the bounty on exportation. Your laws have given the home market exclusively to the sugar refiner, by a duty of twelve cents on imported refined sugar. The reason we export but little is not because you do injustice to the sugar refiner, as was alleged by the gentleman from New York, but because other nations, pursuing a policy similar to our own, have also levied high duties on imported refined sugar, so as to give the home market to their refiners. It is folly to attempt to overcome these duties by a system of bounties. This would be to pay other nations for consenting to receive your products. I must object to the principle of this bill. It is unjust as regards the general interest. It will, if extended generally, lead to a system of fraud and falsehood, hitherto unknown in extent. It is sound doctrine, that raw material of domestic product should be, whenever practicable, the basis of your manufactures. It renders both the manufacturer and the nation more independent of foreign nations for supply. When these States entered into their federacy, it was, at least, an implied part of the compact, that no one of them should be deprived of the natural advantages of soil and climate, by legislation. Will it not be an interference with this if a system is introduced, giving a decided advantage to the manufacturers of foreign raw material, over that DEC. 17, 1828. of your own soil, and this for the benefit of a few manufacturers in a particular section of the Union? Sir, [said Mr. S.,] let your own farmers share in the advantages of the manufacturing system, and this can only be done by giving, in every practicable instance, the preference to a system based on the use of the raw materials of domestic growth or production. But, say Mr. BRENT, of Louisiana, said, that he hoped the House would excuse him for trespassing upon their attention at this period of the discussion; that it was unusual for him to force himself into debate, and nothing but the peculiar attitude in which he stood, as a representative of the sugar growing interest of Louisiana, could now have called him from his seat. A strange state of things had occurred; and [said Mr. B.] I find myself voting against the passage of this bill with those gentlemen who avow their hostility to its passage because they fear it may encourage the domestic growth of sugar in Louisiana. I have come to a very different conclusion, and am opposed to it because I believe the bill will give a preference to the foreign sugar imported into the United States, over the domestic sugar of our own country, and because it repeals the law imposing a duty upon the foreign article to a certain extent, and to that extent comes in competition with our domestic sugar, and because, in its effects, in some degree, the faith of the nation, under which our sugar manufactories have grown up, will be violated. Can gentlemen doubt that this bill gives a preference to the foreign sugar over the domestic? It is a well known fact, that the Louisiana planter sells his sugar at this time for three cents of profit per pound more than the seller in the United States of the foreign article, owing to the duty paid by the latter; and if this duty be repealed so far as to allow the refiner of foreign sugar to be repaid the duty on every pound of foreign sugar refined and exported, is not this placing the foreign article not only upon a footing with the domestic, but giving it a preference? as it is well ascertained that the foreign sugar is manufactured at a less expense, and can be sold lower, when made, than ours. gentlemen, Louisiana ought not to complain, she has no right to do so, "because there is not enough sugar made in the United States for home consumption; and even should there be, the sugar of Louisiana cannot be refined." I ask the same gentlemen, who make this sfatement, if such was their reasoning when they urged a protecting duty for hemp, iron, wool, &c.? It was not pretended by them that these articles were made in sufficient quantity for home consumption at that time, but their argument was, that our country had the capacity to supply them. fact, they told us, was all that was wanted to be ascertained; and having ascertained it, they urged the protecting duty to encourage the establishment of their manufactories. Is not this the case with our sugar establishments? Experience shows that we can grow the sugar at home; and as to our capacity to supply it, every year develops the rapid increase in that article manufactured at home, to an extent to justify the opinion that, in a few years more, we shall not only supply our home consumption, but can, with proper encouragement, become exporters of the article to foreign countries. I ask the attention of gentlemen to facts. I well recollect that, during tho session of 1824, when the tariff was under discussion, we were then told that Louisiana could never supply one-third of the sugar necessary for home consumption. I then endeavored to remove that erroneous opinion; and what has the last three years shown? Why, facts have answered those assertions-let them speak. In 1824, there was exported from New Orleans 40,000 hogsheads of sugar; in 1827, three years afterwards, there was exported 71,000 hogsheads from the same place, besides the exportations from Nova Iberia, on the Teche, and what was used for home consumption, supposed to be about 6,000 hogsheads more, making in all about 77,000 hogsheads of That sugar made in Louisiana in 1827, and nearly doubling the amount made in 1824; and from every information I can obtain, the present crop of cane now manufacturing into sugar in Louisiana will increase the manufacture of sugar for 1828 to at least 90,000 hogsheads, within 40,000 hogsheads of all the sugar necessary for home consumption and foreign exportation in the shape of refined sugar. If, then, in the last four years, the manufacture of that article has increased 50,000 hogsheads, is it not fair, is it not irresistible, that, in the next four years, we shall make more than we can use at home, if we have the lands to cultivate? and, as to that, I state that there is in Louisiana alone, within what is called the sugar region, 300,000 acres of land adapted to the culture-a quantity of land enough to supply for ages to come all the sugar that will be wanted for any purpose in the United States. This is no visionary scheme You are not called upon to believe these things from statements made by interested persons. The documents upon your tables, your official treasury reports, show what I say to be true. Have we not then capacity to make the sugar? Certainly we have, and if so, I invoke the advocates of the duties upon foreign hemp, wool, iron, molasses, &c., to oppose this bill, and thereby to be consistent in their principles. But some gentlemen have said, and particularly the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG] that the sugar of Louisiana will not answer to be refined. I would ask, why? Is not our sugar as good as the foreign, and is it not preferred for domestic purposes ? If the refiner of brown sugar has not used it for that purpose, it is not because we cannot make it to answer, but because, by your allowing a drawback upon the foreign article, the refiner buys it cheaper than ours, and we can get no encouragement to make it for the refiners. Why cannot the sugar of Louisiana be made to answer? I should like some reason to be given for it. The gentleman [Mr. CAMBRELENG] can give none. I say it can be made as fit for that purpose as the sugar of any other country. The fact is, in Louisiana, the sugar is so far preferable for ordinary uses, to the West India and other sugars, that the purchasers buy it up and throw it into market so soon as it is made, whilst the foreign sugars remain for months on their plantations during the summer heats, cleansing and separating itself from the molasses, leaving only a firm and hard grain. Let our sugars undergo the same purification, they will be equally good. This must sooner or later be the case: for, once that we make sugar enough for home consumption, our manufacturers will become rivals at home in its sale, and the market will not be so brisk; and then our sugar, like the sugars of other countries, will be left to cleanse and harden in the purgeries. If gentlemen's preference to this bill is founded on such fears, I trust and hope they are dispelled, and they are satisfied that we possess, in Louisiana, the capacity to supply sugar for any purpose wanted; we can make sugar to supply the refiners, and this law enables them to prefer foreign sugar to ours. Does it not injure the manufacturer of sugar in Louisiana? If this drawback was not allowed to the refiner of foreign sugar, he would be obliged to use for that purpose our domestic sugar. It is equally clear that, to the extent foreign sugar is refined in the United States, the present bill will repeal the law imposing three cents per pound upon that article. The law imposing a duty upon foreign sugar intends that no foreign shall be brought into the United States unless subject to that duty. The present bill intends that, if the foreign sugar be brought into the United States, and refined here for exportation, it shall pay no duty at all-that the duty shall be returned-drawn back; so far then the former law is virtually repealed; and, as a Representative of that interest the protecting law is intended to foster and encourage, I must vote against the passage of this bill. Sir, the manufactories of sugar in Louisiana have grown up under the existing laws of the country imposing a duty [H. OF R. To do on the foreign article, with a view to the revenue. any act at this time to injure that interest, would be a violation of public faith. If there be an interest that ought to be protected and encouraged beyond any other, it is the interest of the sugar planter. It is the only manufacture in our country that has shown that it can be perfected; and whilst the enterprising and industrious cultivator of that article, after having encountered every difficulty, is succeeding to an extent to answer the consumption of our country for every purpose, as wise legislators we ought to do no act which might, in the remotest degree, impair that interest. Do gentlemen reflect upon the principle embraced in this bill? If you allow a drawback of the duty upon foreign sugar, refined for exportation, why not, with equal justice, allow a drawback upon foreign wool, hemp, iron, molasses, &c. manufactured in this country for exportation? The principle is precisely the same. During the discussion upon the tariff, at the last session, honorable gentlemen, who now advocate this bill, defended the duty upon foreign wool, &c. upon the ground that it would exclude the foreign articles, and compel the manufacturers of wool, &c. to use the domestic article grown in our own country. It was right to compel the manufacturer to purchase the domestic growth, in preference to the foreign, if you compelled the domestic grower to purchase from the domestic manufacturer. This was fair; but, as it relates to sugar, pass this bill, and you do not do it. Let me appeal to the justice of the growers of wool, hemp, &c. and ask them, if a bill was now before Congress to allow the drawback of the duty upon those foreign articles to the manufacturer of them, for exportation, if they would not oppose it? and, if so, why not extend to our growers of sugar the same justice and protection? I can add nothing, upon this subject, to the judicious and patriotic remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENSON] who has just taken his seat. They are too full and conclusive to receive any lights from me. An honorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McDUFFIE] has said, that Louisiana is more protected than any of the States in the Union, and that she requires it less: for that he had been informed the sugar planter there cleared $800 to every laborer on his plantation, and that labor there cost only twenty cents per day. [Here Mr. McDUFFIE said his statement was, that, in the cotton growing States, labor cost only twenty cents per day.] Mr. BRENT then continued. I did not understand the gentleman; I thought he stated it to be the cost in Louisiana. I know not what it may be in the other cotton growing States, but I assure the gentleman that, in Louisiana, it cannot be procured, if you hire slave labor, for less than 564 cents per day, and if white labor, for less than $1, including maintenance, &c. With the finest climate in the Union, and the best of lands, the planters of Louisiana have difficulties and expenses, and heavy ones too, to ineur, in cultivating the soil. We make cotton and sugar, too, in abundance, and equal to any in the world, but, at the same time, we purchase the provisions and clothes for our laborers from our Western neighbors. This alone subjects us to a heavy diminution of what is made. Our crops of sugar, to be sure, are abundant, and repay the planters for their toil and labor, but not equal to what the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McDUFFIE] has represented them. The gentleman who gave him the information exaggerated the picture. All that I can say is, that I most sincerely wish the fact was as he represents. It is not necessary for me to show tho incorrectness of that statement; it has been fully done, and in a much more able manner than I could do it, by my friend and colleague, [Mr. GURLEY.] I am sorry that I have occupied the attention of the House for even this short time, and would not have done it if I did not think that this bill might ultimately, if not immediately, operate against the interests of Louisiana. I do not suppose that any thing I have said could induce gentlemen to change their opinions, but I conceived it my duty to state what I have. Mr. SERGEANT said he begged leave to make a brief statement of facts in reply to the remarks which had fallen from the gentleman from Georgia yesterday, [Mr. GILMER] and from his colleague [Mr. STEVENSON] to-day. The former of those gentlemen had contended that the view presented by the friends of the bill, as to the decline of the sugar refining business, was not a correct one, and the latter had insisted on the same idea, and had carried it even firther than the gentleman from Georgia, insisting, from the returns exhibited by the Treasury, that there had been more done during the year 1827 than for many years previous. It was very true that, if the year 1827 be compared with any one of the last three years since the drawback had been reduced to four cents, that the amount of refined sugar exported would be found to have increased. He acknowledged that, under the discouragement arising from the diminished drawback, the business had nevertheless increased somewhat within the last year. But still its amount was nothing for, with all the increase, it amounted to no more than $34,000. But the true method of ascertaining whether the business was declining, would be to take the average of these last three years while the drawback bore a less proportion to the duty, and compare it with an average of those years in which the drawback had been fully equal to the duty. It would then appear that the business, during one of these periods, had been four or five fold greater than the other. The amount of drawback paid on refined sugar exported, from the year 1795 to the year 1803, was 85,258 dollars, averaging, for each of those years, 9,473 dollars, whereas, an average of the last three years amounted only to 1,733 dollars; but, as at this time the drawback was four cents, and not five, he would add onefourth to make up for this difference, which would put the average for the last three years at $2,166 per annum. Here then was the comparative result. While the drawback was equal to the duty, the export average for nine years was more than $9,000 a year. But, when the drawback was made less than the duty, the average export was but a little over $2,000. That is, less than one-fourth of what it was in the former period. If this showed no decline in the business, he was at a loss to conceive what could be called a decline. Mr. SUTHERLAND said, the argument had been rather curiously conducted by the gentlemen who wish the bill before the House to be rejected. Some of its opponents are seriously alarmed, lest it will give the American manufacturer of sugar the chance of sending the domestic production of the country abroad; while others in the opposition entertain great fears that the refining of sugar, as proposed by the bill under consideration, will materially injure the profits of the sugar planter at home. Such diversified views imply a misapprehension on the subject. It would be most satisfactory if this question could be so adjusted as to allow the American and foreign sugar to be exported indiscriminately. That may happen at some future day. But we are not now called upon to pass such a law, as the refined sugar at this time is, and has always been, made out of the foreign article. When that period shall arrive [said Mr. S.], it would afford him great pleasure to vote with the gentleman from Louisiana, in favor of the American article. He would, however, beg the gentleman to dispel his fears, as to the proposition under discussion proving prejudicial to the interest of his district. It was a matter so clearly self-evident that it scarcely required elucidation. But he would state a case by way of exemplification, and ask the attention of the gentleman to it. If, at this time [said Mr. S.], any given quantity of foreign and domestic sugars was stored in any of our seaports, and an [DEC. 17, 1828. application was made to re-export, with benefit of drawback, a quantity of these sugars, and in consequence of this application the exportation should take place, would not the quantity of the foreign sugar sent abroad add to the value of the domestic article kept at home? Most assuredly it would. It is therefore so clearly to the interest of the domestic manufacturer, that it becomes the honorable gentleman, representing, as he does, a sugar country, to zealously sustain this bill. No more happy expedient could be devised for the American sugar interest than the one now before the House. The support of the member from Louisiana ought therefore to be cheerfully given it. The tenor of the gentleman's [Mr. BRENT] argument [said Mr. S.], is now strongly in support of the American system. He was gratified to witness the gentleman's anxious solicitude about our manufactures, although his views in relation to the bill injuring the American sugar establishments were incorrect. As to the bill, it might be truly said, that it is not based upon any new scheme of commercial enterprise. The system of allowing drawback upon refined sugar had commenced early in '94, and had continued up to the present time. During most of that period, when a duty was imposed on the crude sugar imported into the country, double the amount was granted as a drawback when the sugar had been refined and exported. This increased drawback resulted from the fact that it was said it required two pounds of ordinary sugar to make one pound of refined. When the last law on this subject was enacted, the drawback was fixed at four cents per pound. The refiners were, however, dissatisfied, and contended that, as sugar paid a duty of three cents per pound, two pounds should entitle them to six cents drawback. The refiners of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other seaports, made application to Congress to raise the drawback from four to six cents. The subject was submitted, by the Committee of Commerce, to the then Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Crawford, who, after carefully investigating the subject, recommended that five cents should be the amount of drawback. The ground upon which he rested his suggestion of five cents was, that, from all the intelligence he could collect on the question submitted to him, he found that the refuse molasses, &c was worth nearly if not quite one cent. It is, therefore, upon Mr. Crawford's report, supported by the inquiries of the Committee on Commerce, that the present bill is now before the House for its sanction. Mr. S. being, as he said, fully satisfied that it could not injure American cultivators of sugar, he would proceed to show, that, upon principles of fair dealing, the drawback ought to be allowed to the refiners. Suppose [said he] a merchant having imported foreign sugar into this country, and wishing afterwards to re-export it: if he should call upon the custom house department, within the limited time, he can, by our present laws, draw back the duties paid upon it. And this, too, when we had derived no advantage from its importation, except its mere carriage here, and expenses incident to storing, &c. If this privilege is to be granted upon the raw sugar, why not upon the refined? The refiner re-exports the same article purified. Does the sugar, upon which the labor and skill of the country has been bestowed, and has employed our extensive and valuable refineries, and furnished the working classes connected with them the means of supporting and sustaining their families, challenge the justice of the nation with less propriety, than the crude sugar going out as it was imported, without having enlisted our industry to the smallest extent? Besides the men employed in the sugar establishments, the refinery is largely beneficial to other interests of the country. $34,000 worth of refined sugar was exported last year. Every gentleman knows that large quantities of blue and white paper are used for wrapping the loaf |