who were engaged in foreign commerce. The bill was under the consideration of the Committee of Commerce, when a distinguished senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LLOYD] was its Chairman. He approved of making the places named in the bill ports of entry. Since then, that committee had contemplated a different method, which was considered more safe. For years past, foreign goods had been imported into the Western country, consigned to merchants in the interior, from the Port of Liverpool in particular. New Orleans was the port of delivery, and the consignees had to pay two or three per cent. to commission merchants to attend to the transshipment of their property, and the security of the duties upon it. This was one hardship. Another was, the great advance of money which it cost them to have the business attended to. It was a fact, that some of the interior towns were nearer to the Gulf of Mexico than New Orleans was fifteen years ago. These merchants can attend to their own business quite as well, if not better, than it is now attended to at New Orleans, and the Government be equally secure in the payment of the duties, while it would be a great accommodation to those merchants, if the bill should pass. As far as the change contemplated by the bill was known, it had given general satisfaction; it would be of great advantage to the commerce of the West, if it should become a law, and, certainly, would be of no material injury to the country. He, therefore, hoped it would pass. The question was then taken on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading, and decided in the affirmative. SCHOOL LANDS IN ALABAMA. A bill "authorizing the relinquishment of the sixteenth section granted for the use of schools in Alabama, and entering of other lands in lieu thereof," was then taken up for consideration as in Committee of the Whole. [The bill provides, that, where the 16th section in each township, granted for the use of schools, was unproductive, it should be given up, and four quarter sections of other lands, of good quality, entered in lieu thereof.] Mr. CHANDLER said, he should like to hear a satisfactory explanation given why the State of Alabama should have a preference over other States in relinquish ing unproductive school lands, and selecting four quarter sections of land, of good quality, in lieu of a whole section. Mr. KING called for the reading of the memorial of the Legislature of the State of Alabama instructing their Senators and Representatives to attend to the subject of the school lands. [The memorial wasread, stating the unproductive quality of some of the school lands, and the wish to be authorized to select others in their stead.] Mr. K. then stated, that the object of Government in setting apart the 16th section of land in each township was to provide for the education of indigent children. A great proportion of country in that State, particularly the part from which he came, it was well known, was barren and unproductive. Where the sixteenth section proved to be good land, and answered the purpose for which it was granted, there was, of course, no wish to relinquish it; this was the case where it was in the vicinity of a stream, and laid low; otherwise, it was valueless, and altogether unfit for the purpose for which it was granted. In such cases, a sufficiency could not be raised from the land to contribute to the payment of schooling; the poor could, in consequence, obtain nothing, and, therefore, the desire to give it up, and enter other land in its stead-such lands as had been offered at public sale, and would not bring the minimum price. This was no departure from the original system. The object was, if there was any object, to grant lands which should help to defray the expenses of education, and not those which were altogether unproductive. The lands might as well have been withheld. The people for whose benefit a change of lands was asked [DEC. 23, 1828. were very indigent, and could not pay the expense of schooling; and it was because sufficient means could not be collected from the lands granted, that a change of lands was required, to defray that expense. Mr. CHANDLER said, that, from what he could understand, the good lands in Alabama were divided into quarter sections. His object was, to strike out the provision for granting four quarter sections in lieu of the section to be surrendered, and to give section for section, if the change must be made. He foresaw that this matter would not end here. Grant this request of the State of Alabama, (said he) and other States would ask for a similar privilege, where the same advantage was to be obtained. He had no doubt of it. Mr. BARTON said, he thought the request of the State of Alabama unreasonable. She had made the compact with the United States, and, he thought, to use a common phrase, that she ought to be contented with her bargain. He thought there was a principle involved in this grant, and he did not see where the thing would stop. There was not a single one of the new States, which had been admitted into the Union upon similar terms, but what had many poor sections, and which would make the same request; therefore, if this bill passed at all, he thought an amendment should be introduced, providing for extending the same privilege to all the other States. He preferred, however, not beginning this system at all. Mr. CHANDLER then moved to amend the bill by striking out the provision for selecting other lands from land districts, and inserting from townships. Mr. KING said, he was under the impression, when he introduced the bill to the Senate, that it would pass without any opposition. He had supposed that the Senate of the United States was the last body in the world that would throw out any obstacles to the instruction of youth. The Government, when it laid out the lands, had provided that every township of six miles square should have a certain portion allotted to it, and set off, for the benefit of schools. Now it appeared that a great portion of this land turned out to be good for nothing; and were they to be told that it was a compact made with the Government? He said, if they were to be confined to the very township in which the present lands were located, in nine cases out of ten the passage of the law would be worth nothing at all. The location of this sixteenth section was accidental: some of the lands were good, some of them very valuable, and the towns in which such were situated were lucky; but in other townships the sixteenth section was a mere pine barren, and worth nothing at all; and they merely asked for the liberty to change their lands for some which belong to the United States, but for which the Government had been unable to obtain the minimum price of one dollar and twen ty-five cents per acre. He had submitted to the first amendment without saying a word, although he knew that it would, in many cases, cut off the applicants altogether from the benefit intended. The gentleman from Missouri had opposed this request of the State of Alabama, because he was afraid the thing would become general, and that other States would make similar applications; he had no such fear. Much of the land of Alabama was entirely unproductive and worthless; some of it, through which the streams run, was valuable and settled, but the other, which was mostly pine barrens, was not worth the cultivation, and the settlers upon this country who were not able to educate their children, asked of the Government that privilege. Suppose other States did come forward, being similarly situated, would the Senate of the United States say that they had made a compact, and that, if they could not afford to educate their children under it, that it could not be helped-that they had made a bargain? -If other States came forward, in such a situation he should have no hesitation in giving them the privilege they requested. Mr. CHANDLER still supported his amendment. He thought the State of Alabama had made a bargain with the Government, and he believed that the State of Alabama had been bought with the proceeds of other States. Mr. BELL said, that the original contract with Alabama was to give certain lands for the purposes of education. It was now desired that the 16th sections might be given up, and other lands selected in their stead- Why extend this privilege to Alabama more than to any other State? Had this been the contract with Alabama, it would be right to do so. But did Government make any such contract? No. Wether good or bad, it was the 16th section in each township that was given, and no provision made for an exchange of lands. If there was no such provision made, then the grant of other land would be by way of donation. Then where was the right of Alabama to require other lands? She had no more right to do so than Vermont, or any other State. And if the privilege was extended to her, of selecting lands, then should it be extended to other States. All had the same claim. What answer would be made to other States who might put in the same claim? If I vote for this bill, (said Mr. B.) I shall be bound to assist all others. The old States certainly had as good a claim to the public lands. They were purchased with the common funds of all, and all had an equal right to receive donations. He again asked, Why be more generous to Alabama than to other States? For his part, he could see no difference existing between them. Mr. KANE said, he did not consider this an application of the State of Alabama for any benefit, but a request that the United States would carry into effect the original intention and spirit of the compact between the two Governments. The sixteenth section was not selected as the section to be set apart for school lands, because there was any peculiar virtue in the number sixteen, but because the number sixteen happened to come in the centre of the townships. The new States had all of them agreed not to levy taxes upon the public lands for a certain period of years, on condition that Congress should give such portion as was thought expedient for the benefit of the public schools; but gladly would every new State rescind the contract with the Federal Government, and give up to Congress every "sixteenth section," for the privilege of taxing the United States' lands within their limits, and appropriating the money to the support of her schools and her government. Congress had been induced to make this compact with the several new States, upon three grounds: In the first place, it was for the interest of the Government to have the benefits of education dispensed, and provision made for it, because it procured the more rapid settlement of the public lands. In the second place, it was a matter of contract; the Government had agreed to give certain privileges to the new States for the privilege of holding its lands within the bounds of those States, free of taxes. The third ground was, that the privilege to the States was an act of parental duty, which Congress had the power to exercise, and which they must suppose it was disposed to exercise, for the benefit of the new States. All Alabama asked Congress to do, was, what Congress intended to do. It was not the intention of Congress to give one township a "sixteenth section" worth something, and another a section worth nothing: for, if that is the case, it is plain that they intended to educate the children of one township, and leave those of another unprovided for. Congress had no intention of acting thus partially, and it appeared to be their duty now to put the matter right. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, considered that, when the bargain was made, a portion of land was granted for a certain purpose-the education of children; and if it so happened in Alabama, that the sixteenth section turned out to be good for nothing, the Government were bound to carry into effect their intention. The ground he went on was, that they intended to give a something; and if that [SENATE. something turned out to be nothing, that the intention was the same, and that they were bound by it. Mr. CHANDLER observed that, if the lands in Alabama were so miserably poor as represented by the gentleman from that State, that settlers could not live upon them, there would be the fewer children to educate, and the less occasion for grants. Mr. BENTON rose to protest against the doctrine inculcated by the gentleman from New Hampshire, that the lands thus apportioned by Congress to the States were donations. The same thing had been brought up years ago, and dissolved and vanished when it came to be looked into. Instead of the States receiving a donation from Congress, there was not an instance in which the new States would not return them their school lands, toss their right to them upon the tables, for the privilege of taxing the Federal lands within their sovereignties. The State of Alabama presented a request for the privilege of doing that which ought to be settled by the local Legislature upon the spot; but, so far from Alabama having the power to settle her own matters as she pleased, and thought proper, they were brought here to be decided by Representatives from twenty-four States, who knew nothing, and could know nothing, about the matter. The gentlemen from Maine and New Hampshire had observed, that other States had as good a claim as the State of Alabama: but the old States were not obliged to come here for the settlement of their own private affairs. The State of Maine was not obliged to come here: for, some forty or more years ago, when the States of Virginia and Georgia were throwing their vast domains upon the altar of the public good, Massachusetts retained her lands; and when the separation took place, Massachusetts and Maine settled their own affairs among themselves. Instead of such a state of things, the whole machinery of the Government was obliged to be moved to change a single letter or figure in one of their papers. He thought every thing of the kind belonged to the States, and ought to be settled by the local Legislatures. He had risen only to protest against the idea that these school lands were donations to the States. They were sales, sales on severe terms, made between one arrived at maturity and one a mere minor. Mr. BELL said, that he did not intend to convey the idea that the sixteenth section was a donation to the State of Alabama; and if what he had said bore that construction, it was unintended on his part. What was the contract? The contract was, that the sixteenth section, and no other, whether valuable or not valuable, should be the property of those who purchased the townships. If it had been the contrary, Alabama could come here and claim, as a matter of right, the fulfilment of her contract. What he had said before, was, that, if the Government took back the sections which were worthless, and gave the State of Alabama good lands, worth four or five thousand dollars, that the whole difference in the value would be a donation; and, if this donation was made to Alabama, why should not the other States have a donation? Why should the new States have donations of land, or money, for the instruction of their children, more than the old States? If there was any reason, he should be obliged to the gentleman who would point it out. The new States knew the terms of the contract, and of the sale; they knew the advantages and the disadvantages upon which they were to come into the Union; the lands were purchased by the old States according to their advantages, and he could see no reason why the new States should complain. The amendment offered by Mr. CHANDLER was then rejected, 14 to 18, and the bill reported to the Senate as amended. The amendment made in Committee of the Whole was confirmed. 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 stoodyeas 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. [DEC. 24 to 30, 1828. MONDAY, DEC. 29, 1828. There was no business transacted this day giving rise to debate. 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 Mr. KING said, that in presenting this bill, he had act- of sugar would be enabled to enter into competition with ed in strict conformity with the instructions of the Legis- the foreign manufacturer in foreign markets. lature of Alabama. If he had been left to himself, he could be no possible disadvantage arise from passing the should have asked for much more; he should not have been bill; it would not enhance the price of sugar to the conwilling to confine himself to lands which would not fetch sumers of the country, and would greatly tend to benefit the minimum price when offered at private sale. As to the merchant in helping him to make up an assorted cargo the remarks of the Senator from North Carolina about a for the South American, Chinese, and other markets. The general bill, he was well assured that the gentleman would only question was, what was the proper drawback to be not vote for such a bill, any more than he would for the allowed? The Secretary of the Treasury had fixed it at five one now before the Senate. He [Mr. K.] could not, con- cents. During the French Revolution, when all the markets sistently with his duty to his constituents, consent, at pre-of the world were open to us, he was himself engaged in the sent, 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. 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. [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 Mr. B. apprehended that the time was rapidly approach-not exceed $2,000 per annum, while the duties on sugar ing 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 spoke 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, 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. In 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 Senate any farther. Mr. BENTON inquired what was the value of refined 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. SMITH alluded to the state of things in the year 1794. At that time an excise existed on whiskey, loaf sugar, &c. and Congress thought proper to draw back excise on these articles, and allowed three cents on the exportation of every pound of loaf sugar. The duty on brown sugar was then one and a half cents. The consequence was, the exportation of loaf sugar increased to a great extent. In 1818 a new law was passed on the subject, (of which Mr. S. read the second section, guarding against frauds on the revenue, &c.) and the trade to Cuba became so extensive, that more sugar was imported than could be consumed in the country. What was to be done? A drawback on foreign sugars was allowed, and soon the country was cleared of its superfluity, and a market opened for the sugars of Louisiana. Where was there any difference in the sugar, in its raw and refined state, except the difference that resulted from the industry employed? The fact was, steam was now used in refining sugar, and a state of perfection had been arrived at greatly beneficial, and enabling us to compete successfully with foreigners. The gentleman from Missouri was afraid for his constituents. He need not be. He recollected that, last session, he [Mr. B.] had exerted himself to procure, and did procure, duties to be laid on lead and shot. Where was the sympathy of the gentleman, then, for the citizens of the United States? He heard nothing of it. It was the same, too, with regard to wool and iron. The gentleman complained of the one cent profit, as he calls it; but there was no profit 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 consumer. Mr. S. then again alluded to the South American markets, and stated that our merchants had discovered a market there, unknown to foreigners. If we were not careful, however, we should be driven from this market: for foreigners would find it out. He alluded to the tariff law of the last session; our merchants felt its effects severely, and we were bound to assist them by opening new branches of trade, where the surplus products and manufactures of the country might be disposed of. He combated the idea, that, because the trade in refined sugar He 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. 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 did not make sugar equal to the consumption, and therefore it was not now necessary to guard the domestic article. But the period was approaching when we should be fully supplied; and when it was found that the country could furnish the raw material, he presumed the gentlemen, on their own principles, would protect the domestic article, by withholding the drawback on foreign sugar refined. He believed that in five years the production would equal the consumption; and, if the export of refined sugar should then be an object of any value, it would be proper to give the preference to our own material. He therefore proposed to limit the act to five years. In this time the experiment will be fairly tried, and the capacity of the country to supply the demand will be fully ascertained. By that time we shall see what is the operation of the act: whether the drawback is too large; whether under it the trade increased; and whether it is of any importance either to the refiner or grower of sugar. In that time, too, it would be ascertained how far the domestic article could be employed in refining sugar, and to what process it might be necessary to subject the article to prepare it for the purpose. We shall then come prepared to act wisely on the subject, with a view to all the interests of the country. He said, the State of Louisiana had not the slightest interest in the passage of this bill at this time, and he doubted if this foreign trade in refined sugar would ever be of much value. But in five years the experiment would be made. Mr. J. then moved to amend the bill by adding a proviso that it should expire at the end of five years. Mr. McLANE said, he should not have addressed the Senate, had it not been for the amendment submitted by the gentleman from Louisiana. At the first blush, that amendment carried the principle of protection farther than he could go, and was, in his opinion, bad in principle. The principle on which all the measures of Congress were based, gave protection to domestic, instead of foreign industry. The object of the bill was to extend to the refining of sugar, what was conceived to be a proper drawback; that was, the actual price paid for the foreign ma terial, and no more. If exported, then it was entitled to |