SENATE.] School Lands in Alabama.-Drawbacks on Merchandise and Refined Sugar. The question then recurring on engrossing the bill for a third reading, Mr. BARTON said, he should so far depart from his usual practice as, on this occasion, to ask for the yeas and nays; which were ordered by the Senate, and stood— yeas 21, nays 15. So the bill was ordered to a third reading. MARSHAL OF CONNECTICUT. The bill "for allowing a salary to the Marshal of the District of Connecticut" was next taken up. Mr. BERRIEN said, the policy of Congress had heretofore been, to compensate the Marshals by allowing them certain fees. It had been found, however, that the amount received by them proved to be a very inadequate compensation for their services, and then a specific provision had been made for salaries. The salary granted, however, was not sufficient. For instance, the Clerk of the District of Connecticut informs, that the aggregate compensation of the Marshal of that District, in 1827, was $437 90. To enable him to discharge his duties, he had three deputies, who divided the compensation with him. The Committee on the Judiciary thought this to be a very inadequate compensation, and, therefore, had reported the bill with out amendment. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. WEDNESDAY, DEC. 24, 1828. SCHOOL LANDS IN ALABAMA. The bill "authorizing the relinquishment of the 16th section granted for the use of schools in the State of Alabama, and the entering of other lands in lieu thereof," was read the third time; and the question being on its passage Mr. CHANDLER said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the passage of the bill: for he was aware that it was too late. There was one thing, however, which he did not think of when it was under consideration in Committee of the Whole-which was, that the right to ask for a change of lands was not restricted to any number of individuals, and, therefore, if only two persons had settled upon lands which did not suit them, they could ask a change to others. If he had thought of it in season, he should have moved for an amendment to this effect. Mr. BRANCH said, he was pleased that the gentleman from Maine had called the attention of the Senate to the subject. He wished that some amendment of the kind could be adopted, as every new State would be coming forward with the same claim. He thought the better course would be to send this bill back to the Committee, and let them report a general bill on the subject, embracing other States similarly situated. He knew, however, that it was out of order, and too late to make any amend ment. Mr. KING said, that in presenting this bill, he had acted in strict conformity with the instructions of the Legislature of Alabama. If he had been left to himself, he should have asked for much more; he should not have been willing to confine himself to lands which would not fetch the minimum price when offered at private sale. As to the remarks of the Senator from North Carolina about a general bill, he was well assured that the gentleman would not vote for such a bill, any more than he would for the one now before the Senate. He [Mr. K.] could not, consistently with his duty to his constituents, consent, at present, to any alteration in the bill. It was very unusual to obstruct the passage of a bill, after the sense of the Senate had been so thoroughly tested as it was yesterday. The bill was then passed, and sent to the other House. Adjourned to Monday. [DEC. 24 to 30, 1828. TUESDAY, DEC. 30, 1828. DRAWBACK ON MERCHANDISE. A bill to extend the time within which merchandise may be exported with the benefit of drawback," was considered as in Committee of the Whole-the question being on striking out the second section, as recommended by the Committee on Finance. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said, he would give the Senate information of the course pursued in Great Britain on this subject. The practice in that country was, that, on a representation to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury of the necessity therefor, they had the power, and used their discretion, in extending the time in which merchandise might be exported for the benefit of drawback. The section proposed to be stricken out gives this power to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Committee on Finance were of opinion that this was giving a Legislative power to an Executive officer, which was improper, and therefore had recommended that it be stricken out. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. SILSBEE said, that, as the amendment took away some of the advantages proposed by the bill, he would move for an extension of time in which merchandise might be exported for this benefit. Two years were allowed by the bill. Great Britain, France, &c. allowed a longer time; he thought our merchants ought to be put on as good a footing; and he would therefore move to amend the bill by striking out the word two in the seventh line of the first section, and inserting three. This amendment was also agreed to. The bill, as amended, was then reported to the Senate, the amendments concurred in, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. DRAWBACK ON REFINED SUGAR. A bill granting an extension of drawback on refined sugar, &c. was then taken up in Committee, and occasioned considerable debate; which occupied the Senate till the time of adjournment. A brief sketch is all that is attempted to be given. There Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, explained the bill. The Present law allowed four cents drawback on sugar refined within the United States. The object of the present bill was to allow five cents. It required two pounds of sugar, in its crude state, to make one pound of refined. The duty on brown sugar was three cents per pound; consequently, a drawback of six cents would be required in favor of the refiner. The treacle obtained from the sugar was, however, valued at one cent per pound, in favor of the refiner, and therefore five cents, the drawback fixed upon in the bill, would be a fair allowance, and would indemnify him for the amount of duties actually paid to Government. Should the bill pass, the American refiner of sugar would be enabled to enter into competition with the foreign manufacturer in foreign markets. could be no possible disadvantage arise from passing the bill; it would not enhance the price of sugar to the consumers of the country, and would greatly tend to benefit the merchant in helping him to make up an assorted cargo for the South American, Chinese, and other markets. The only question was, what was the proper drawback to be allowed? The Secretary of the Treasury had fixed it at five cents. During the French Revolution, when all the markets of the world were open to us, he was himself engaged in the business of refining and exporting sugar; then it was done to advantage: for we were the only nation that enjoyed a free trade; now, times had changed, and some inducements must be held out, or competition on our part would cease altogether. Sugar raised in this country had never been, DEC. 30, 1828.] Drawback on Refined Sugar. and could not be, refined; and the reason was, it was not strong enough. Batavia Sugar was used for this purpose, and that of Cuba, which was superior, because much stronger. The Havana Sugar, particularly, was of a proper quality for refining. A portion only of the sugar imported was used by the refiners, and this portion was generally confined to the white and clayed qualities. We carried on a great trade with the Havana; they received from us nearly all the articles consumed by them, with the exception of dry goods, and in return sent us sugar. In its refined state it was an article of commerce. On the whole, the extension of the drawback system would be beneficial to the agriculturist, the manufacturer, and the navigator, and he hoped the bill would pass. Mr. BENTON observed, that, whatever reasons might have existed for the drawback system in 1790, they no longer prevailed. Instead of increasing it, this system should be diminished, or repealed altogether. At the time referred to, no sugar was raised in the United States; frauds on the revenue were not so likely to take place; there were then no exports but of articles which had been brought into the country; and there was then a nominal drawback on domestic spirits, made from molasses. What was the proof on this subject at the last session of Congress? Why, that frauds were produced by this system, on the revenue; and that, instead of a drawback, we were paying four cents premium on foreign articles. In consequence, the nominal drawback was repealed entirely. The same should be done in this case. As to American sugar not being fitted for refining, this was but the reiteration of an old story. The same had been said of wool, hemp, and iron. The true reason was, however, that the refiner can procure the foreign material cheaper than the domestic, and, therefore, he preferred it. The duty on West India sugar was four cents; if this duty be taken off, as, by the bill it will be, we shall discover the true difference between American and foreign sugar. He could see no reason why New Orleans sugar might not be made as dry and as fit for refining as the Havana. He looked upon the proposed measure as in effect a tax upon the American people, for the benefit of foreigners. He had a regard for the South Americans, but he loved his own constituents better. He should be glad to see every branch of industry prosper, but he could not consent to the prostration of his constituents. The effect of the bill was to give a premium of one per cent. on every pound of sugar refined, and exported, which was a greater profit than was obtained by the cultivators of the earth. Considerable quantities of refined sugar were exported, and the export was on the increase. If the refiners could export at present, the additional bounty (for he could look upon it in no other light) of one per cent. would cause immense shipments, and the country would be either unsupplied, or great and exorbitant profits exacted. Mr. B. apprehended that the time was rapidly approaching when the supply of American sugar would be sufficient for the consumption of the country. Three or four years would produce this desirable event: for it was now a great source of profit, and all the lands fit for the cultivation of sugar would be put in requisition. There would then be a correspondent demand for provisions. He was opposed to the bill as at war with the principle that we should cherish domestic manufactures and domestic materials. He should ask for the yeas and nays on the question of engrossing, and would not have said a word on the subject, had any other gentleman risen in opposition. The bill would prove a burthen to the people, and he felt it to be his duty to oppose it. Mr. SMITH called for the reading of the report of the Committee on the subject; and it was read accordingly. Mr. SANFORD spcke in favor of the bill, but in so low a tone of voice that his remarks cannot be given. He was understood to say that the bill offered no bounty, [SENATE. but was simply a drawback on articles made of foreign Mr. WOODBURY, in reply to Mr. BENTON, said, that the original policy of the drawback system was to encourage manufactures and the carrying trade. There was no tax on sugar that did not go into the consumption of the country; and, to encourage the carrying trade, the sugar refined should be as free from tax now as heretofore. It was not the policy of the country to tax what was not consumed in the country; and from every pound of sugar exported, the tax should be drawn back. The duties would be deducted from iron, duck, hemp, and other articles used in the manufacture of ships, if they were not consumed in the country; but they are. Sugar, after it was refined, was not consumed in the country, but sent out of it. There was no fraud on the revenue; for the sugar could be, and was, traced out of it. The refining of this article did not interfere with the manufacturers of sugar, but aided them. The gentleman from Missouri complained that it was an injury to agriculture; but, so far from its coming into competition with the manufacture of sugar, evidence before Congress satisfactorily showed that it did not: for the quality of American sugar would not answer-it was altogether unsuitable. This was a matter of fact, and he the more readily appealed to it. But, suppose it was suitable, every hundred weight used in refining would bring a hundred weight of foreign sugar into consumption. Where then was the difference? Neither the domestic sugar, nor the revenue was injured by a drawback on foreign sugar refined. The Treasury did not suffer the debentures did not exceed $2,000 per ammum, while the duties on sugar imported exceeded $2,000,000. Nothing therefore was lost to the Treasury unless the debentures exceeded the importation. The operation of the bill would certainly be beneficial to agriculture, because, in exchange for the sugar obtained, we sell our lumber, flour, corn, &c. &c. We must have a market abroad—and one of the mysteries and beauties of the trade was, that the purchase and sale of the sugar often gave double voyages. We do not send it to Italy, &c. as formerly, but to Brazil, China, &c. England the whole duty had been withdrawn, because there was no consumption of the sugar in the country; in France it was the same: and, in consequence of these countries withholding all duty from the importation of sugar, we have no trade now in the article, but with our neighbors of this continent, and to them we must resort. He thought the bill ought to pass, and would not trouble the Scnate any farther. In Mr. BENTON inquired what was the valce of retined SENATE.] Drawback on Refined Sugar. [DEC. 30, 1828. was increasing, we should do nothing to help to increase it still more, and denied that it was the part of a statesman to pursue such a line of conduct. sugar, and was answered fourteen cents. He then com- Mr. CHANDLER made a few remarks, to show the inconsistency of opposing the bill because a drawback was proposed to be allowed on an article manufactured in this country from foreign materials. Mr. JOHNSTON, of Lou. did not attribute so much importance to this bill, as some gentlemen who had spokThe principle of allowing a drawback on the exportation of articles, equal to the duty on the importation, was a plain one, and essential to the navigation and commerce of a country; and the principle had been extended to articles which had undergone some modification by manufacture. And, if the effect is to diversify our labor and increase the navigation, there can be no objection, unless it operate injuriously upon some other interest. At present the export of refined sugar does not interfere with any other branch of industry. It is very limited, not exceeding $27,000, and not likely to be very greatly increased, while a duty is necessary to protect refined sugar in the home market. Mr. J. said, he presumed the details of the bill had been attended to by the Committee, and that they had allowed what in their judgment was a fair equivalent in drawback for the duty on the sugar. He could not enter into a minute calculation. If more was given than had been paid, it is a bounty which it is not the intention of Congress to allow. If less, it operates injuriously to the manufacturer. But, Mr. J. said, there was another view of this subject which had been adverted to, and which it became him to notice. It had been said by the advocates of the bill, that, if the country produced the raw material, it would accord with the principles of protection of domestic industry, to make the refined sugar, both for home consumption and for export, from that material. Mr. J. said it was true that, at this moment, we Mr. SMITH alluded to the state of things in the year did not make sugar equal to the consumption, and there1794. At that time an excise existed on whiskey, loaf fore it was not now necessary to guard the domestic article. sugar, &c. and Congress thought proper to draw back But the period was approaching when we should be fully excise on these articles, and allowed three cents on the ex-supplied; and when it was found that the country could portation of every pound of loaf sugar. The duty on furnish the raw material, he presumed the gentlemen, on brown sugar was then one and a half cents. The conse- their own principles, would protect the domestic article, quence was, the exportation of loaf sugar increased to a by withholding the drawback on foreign sugar refined. great extent. In 1818 a new law was passed on the sub- He believed that in five years the production would equal ject, (of which Mr. S. read the second section, guarding the consumption; and, if the export of refined sugar against frauds on the revenue, &c.) and the trade to Cuba should then be an object of any value, it would be proper became so extensive, that more sugar was imported than to give the preference to our own material. He therecould be consumed in the country. What was to be done? fore proposed to limit the act to five years. In this time A drawback on foreign sugars was allowed, and soon the the experiment will be fairly tried, and the capacity of country was cleared of its superfluity, and a market open- the country to supply the demand will be fully ascertained. ed for the sugars of Louisiana. Where was there any dif- By that time we shall see what is the operation of the act: ference in the sugar, in its raw and refined state, except whether the drawback is too large; whether under it the the difference that resulted from the industry employed? trade increased; and whether it is of any importance The fact was, steam was now used in refining sugar, and a either to the refiner or grower of sugar. In that time, state of perfection had been arrived at greatly beneficial, too, it would be ascertained how far the domestic article and enabling us to compete successfully with foreigners. could be employed in refining sugar, and to what process it The gentleman from Missouri was afraid for his constituents. might be necessary to subject the article to prepare it for He need not be. He recollected that, last session, he the purpose. We shall then come prepared to act wisely [Mr. B.] had exerted himself to procure, and did procure, on the subject, with a view to all the interests of the counduties to be laid on lead and shot. Where was the sym- try. He said, the State of Louisiana had not the slightest pathy of the gentleman, then, for the citizens of the Uni- interest in the passage of this bill at this time, and he ted States? He heard nothing of it. It was the same, too, doubted if this foreign trade in refined sugar would ever with regard to wool and iron. The gentleman complained be of much value. But in five years the experiment would of the one cent profit, as he calls it; but there was no pro- be made. fit in the case: it was only giving back the one cent which you have taken from the pockets of the refiner, more than he ought to have paid. There was no injury to the con- Mr. McLANE said, he should not have addressed the Sesumer. Mr. S. then again alluded to the South American nate, had it not been for the amendment submitted by the markets, and stated that our merchants had discovered a gentleman from Louisiana. At the first blush, that amendmarket there, unknown to foreigners. If we were not ment carried the principle of protection farther than he careful, however, we should be driven from this market: could go, and was, in his opinion, bad in principle. The for foreigners would find it out. He alluded to the tariff principle on which all the measures of Congress were law of the last session; our merchants felt its effects se-based, gave protection to domestic, instead of foreign inverely, and we were bound to assist them by opening new dustry. The object of the bill was to extend to the rebranches of trade, where the surplus products and manu-fining of sugar, what was conceived to be a proper drawfactures of the country might be disposed of. He com- back; that was, the actual price paid for the foreign ma bated the idea, that, because the trade in refined sugar terial, and no more. If exported, then it was entitled to Mr. J. then moved to amend the bill by adding a proviso that it should expire at the end of five years. DEC. 31, 1828.] Cumberland Road.-Drawback on Refined Sugar. this benefit. Why was this done? To benefit navigation and commerce; to promote the carrying trade, and to give an advantage to our merchants at least equal to that of foreigners. Not so, if the amendment prevailed. If it did prevail, our sugar makers would be compelled to use the domestic material, and thus be burthened with three cents additional duty, or give up their business. This was an objection to the use of domestic sugar-and an objection so great that the refiner never would use it. The refiner would always select the dry sugar, as being the best and the proper material, and the effect of the amendment would be to place him in a situation worse than that in which he was now placed. He did not look upon the bill as protective, but as designed for the benefit of the carrying trade. The amendment was radically wrong. Mr. BENTON said the amendment was perfectly parliamentary-were the effects of any proposed measure dubious, it was usual to fix a duration to its existence, that the Legislature may act again upon the subject in due time. The amendment lessened, but did not remove his objections. As to the fitness of Louisiana sugar, he considered it as likely to answer the purposes of the refiner, as the sugar of the West India Islands, where the atmosphere was as humid as in Louisiana. Perhaps the true reason was, that at present the sugar made in that State was all consumed in so short a period that it had not time to dry; but this will not always be the case. If a bounty was to be given on sugar, give it to the domestic and not the foreign; not that he thought more protection was needed, but he would prefer that course. While cut off from the competition of foreigners, by a duty of twelve cents on the pound, the sugar refiner exorbitantly demands a drawback of five cents the pound additional. This was a bold attempt at monopoly, and would soon operate as a direct bounty. He trusted the amendment would be adopted, and then that the bill would be rejected. Mr. JOHNSTON then modified his amendment to read, "Provided, That this act shall continue and be in force for five years." Mr. SMITH, of Md., opposed the amendment, and stated that not one pound of sugar would be used if it was adopted. They had better prohibit the importation of foreign sugar at once. Clayed and dry white sugar, he reiterated, were the proper materials for the refiner, and gentlemen might rely upon it he would never use the domestic article-it was unsuitable. Mr. S. replied to Mr. BENTON as to the 12 cents duty on imported sugar, and again rallied him on the provisions of the tariff law respecting lead, &c. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1828. CUMBERLAND ROAD. [SENATE. The bill for the continuation of the Cumberland Road was next taken up. Mr. NOBLE said the bill had been referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals, and had been reported by them without amendment. The subject had been long before Congress; and as the bill had passed at the last session, by a large majority, and its provisions were well known to the Senate, he did not conceive it necessary to say another word on the subject. Mr. BENTON said, he wished to make one inquiry; and that was, "Had there been any material alteration in the bill since the last session?" Mr. NOBLE. None whatever. Mr. BENTON. I voted for the bill at the last session, and will do so again. Mr. CHANDLER requested the yeas and nays on its being engrossed. They were ordered accordingly, and were, yeas 24-nays 13. So the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. DRAWBACK ON REFINED SUGAR. The bill extending the drawback on sugar refined within the United States came up as the unfinished business of yesterday-the question being on ordering the bill to a third reading. Mr. DICKERSON rose in opposition to the bill. He said he had had little time to examine its provisions—but he had had enough to convince himself that five cents was too great an amount of drawback to be allowed. Mr. D. then proceeded to canvass the report of a committee, made at the last session of Congress, and entered into a minute calculation respecting the cost of the raw material used in refining of sugar, and the amount of drawback proposed to be allowed, and what he thought ought to be allowed, as sufficient. He was of opinion that Congress had legislated upon the subject without the proper data to go upon, being governed by estimates of the refiners, made twenty years ago. An allowance of five cents drawback on the pound of refined sugar would leave a large balance in favor of the refiner, and the Government would be the loser to that amount-an amount averaging from 15 to 47 per cent. The improvements made in the manufacture were certainly worthy of notice; because a greater amount of refined sugar could be made now, from the same quantity of raw material, than formerly-perhaps one pound of refined sugar from one and a half pounds of the raw material; and he thought a strict inquiry ought to be instituted into the subject, that it might be known what quantity of the raw material was actually used in the manuMr. DICKERSON said, that, for one, he had not can- facture. The officers of the customs were certainly envassed the subject, and was not prepared to vote on the titled to a compensation for their trouble in attending to bill. He did, some years since, look into it, and he stated, the duties required of them by the drawback system, to the best of his recollection, the quantity of brown su- which duties were various and complicated; and, in his gar used in the manufacture. He was then of opinion opinion, four cents drawback was amply sufficient for the that five cents was a fraction beyond the duty on the raw refiner, leaving a sum in the hands of the Government to material. That was the case formerly, but he knew mat- defray the expenses to which he had referred. ters had changed since the duty on sugar was somewhat among those who were disposed to favor domestic manuhigher. After the sugar was refined, however, there was a factures; but when they were encouraged to a proper residue left, called treacle, or sugar-house molasses, which extent, he was not willing to go farther. He never could was of the very best kind, and paid no duty. It therefore consent to the payment of a bounty to enable them to send required a nice calculation to know how much the refiner the proceeds of their industry abroad. As the allowance did pay for his raw material. Five cents, under his pre- of a drawback on sugar refined was a system long estasent impressions, was too much to return to him as draw-blished, he was willing to make a fair allowance to the reback-it served as a bounty to use foreign materials. As finer; but, if the system were now to be originated, he we had gone into the system, he was willing to give back doubted if Congress would establish the policy: for himall that the refiner paid; but as at present informed, he self, he was free to say, he should be diametrically oppos should feel it his duty to vote against the bill, unless far- ed to it. There was certainly danger of fraud in the ther time was granted to obtain the necessary informa- system, and he instanced the article of snuff to show that the Government had heretofore been imposed upon. He believed he might say the same of spirits, though not to The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. JOHNSTON, and rejected, ayes 16, noes 22; and the yeas and nays were ordered on the third reading of the bill. tion. [Here the debate closed for this day.] He was 80 great an extent. He believed there was less danger of fraud on the exportaion of refined sugar than any other article on which a drawback was allowed-but yet there was fraud. He believed, too, that, so long as the system was continued, the consumption of the domestic material in the manufacture would never take place; it was, in his opinion, quite as good as the foreign: for he knew of no law of nature that operated against it. Domestic hemp would never be used in the manufacture of cordage, if there was a drawback on the foreign article when exported; he might say the same of nails. If there was no sugar produced in the country, then it would be proper to encourage the importation of the foreign article, and give a drawback on its exportation, to the amount of the duty on importation. [DEC. 31, 1828. only were produced per annum, whereas 76,000,000 dred persons? Is it true that the Senator from Maryland The object of the bill was really to give one cent more on refined sugar than formerly. Estimate the consumption of sugar in the United States, and add 1 per cent. and you get at the effects of the bill upon the consumers of the country. The refiners will not sell to the consumers Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, gave great credit to the general thousand dollars, to give a thousand dollars to a huntleman from New Jersey for the attention he had paid to the subject; he had certainly been at great pains to inform himself, though the case was a very plain one. He had hoped more from the intelligence of his friend, however, than the assertion that a pound of refined sugar could be made from a pound and a half of the raw material. What was the object of refining? Why, to take away all the impurities from the article to be refined; and it was beyond his comprehension how the thing could be done, unless a good portion of the impurities were suffered to remain. The fact was, however, that the allowance of the gentleman to the pound of refined sugar was not enough-it could not be made of so small a quantity. With regard to the expenses of the drawback system, the officer was entitled to such fees for his trouble as sufficiently compensated him, without taking from the Government. He well recollected the fraud on snuff; but when it was discovered, the drawback was withheld. There might be some fraud so far as related to spirits; but the laws were very strict; and he who committed fraud, must commit perjury also. The gentleman from New Jersey admitted there was less fraud, and less chance of fraud, on the article of refined sugar; and in this admission, he overthrew the whole of his argument. Mr. S. then rebutted the arguments advanced by Mr. DICKERSON relative to hemp, cordage, iron, &c. and observed that the tax on hemp was most abominable; that it tended greatly to the injury of navigation, destroying a very considerable trade formerly carried on with Cuba, &c. and then proceeded, with great vehemence, to defend the bill. He stated what had formerly been the practice of Congress; that it was to encourage navigation and commerce, and to prepare a hardy race of men to fight the battles of the country. The present policy of the country tended to enfeeble it; and the great object of the statesmen of the present day, seemed to be to compete with England in the manufacture of shovels, nails, &c. The gentleman had been a day and a night making his calculations; he showed that the refiner had a profit of 15 cents on the Muscovado sugar, and 47 on the clayed; and this was the amount of his calculations. He would not have taken the trouble to make them for the whole of the profit. He considered it trifling with the Senate. And how had the gentleman been able to arrive at his conclusions? Why, by denying the statements of the refiners, though he knew no more of the subject than he [Mr. SMITH] did. Mr. S. then proceeded to answer some of the statements made yesterday; stated that he had also examined the statistics of the country; and said he was fully of opinion, that, if the bill passed, where 34,000 pounds of sugar were now exported, 100,000 pounds would be, in the same space of time. With regard to the constituents of the gentleman from Missouri, their share of the additional expense, should the bill pass, would be about four dollars, to be divided among the whole State; for the whole average amount of the exportation would only be 1,007 dollars. As to domestic sugar, 70,000 pounds of this country unless they can get the one per cent.; they will sooner take it out of the country, and receive their bounty for so doing. Mr. CHANDLER said, that he was unaware of any injury or fraud that could possibly result to the country from the passage of the bill, unless the amount of drawback exceeded the importation of the article. He would therefore, offer an amendment to the bill, to be added as a proviso at the end, as follows: Provided, That this act shall cease to be in force so soon as the exports of sugar shall be equal to the imports of the same article." Mr. TAZEWELL did not rise to discuss the bill, but to make the inquiry, whether a drawback was allowed by the laws of the United States, on any other article but sugar, where it had changed its form? Another question he would put, was, whether any drawback was ever allowed on refined sugar, until there was an excise duty laid upon it? The general principle of the Government, from its foundation, had been, he believed, to allow a drawback on articles exported in the same form and clothing in which they were imported, but, if they had undergone any change in these respects, then no drawback was allowed. [Mr. SMITH noticed the article of cloths, which was allowed to be exported, and Mr. SILSBEE that of handkerchiefs.] |