Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-03-30

TIC t'"iS dShSd LOT would not be SO Injurious
to the manufacturers as was predicted !;
because they would be able to get on very
well under the double duties that would
still be in force but the uerch r.ts he al
luded to had no relief at all
After some remarks by Mr. Pickering
on the impropriety of producing prohi-
bition OF particular trade by high duties
which 1T was wrong to do by direct ia
terdiction;
Mr.. Ward, for the present. withdrew his
motion.
Mr.. Minor moved to strike out the
proposed duty of S cents per bushcl on
coal which motion, however, lie suisse
quently withdrew.
Mr.. Smith of Md. then, with the view of
encouraging and protecting the great
quantity of machinery erected in different
parts of the country for rolling ani sitting
iron and encouraging that ma nufacture,
and shelving by several statements HAT
the proposed duty was an insufficient
protectior-moved TO Increase the dutv
ca the imported iron sheets. rods and bolts
from $50 cents to $50 cents per hundred
weight.
he motion was supported by Messrs
Irving of \. Y. Root and Condict, and
carried without division.
MIR. Smith then moved to increase the
duty on lamp * loaf sugar to 10 cents per
pounl-bclievng chat the manufactor,s OF
the article now established in tie United
States were fully able to suqpy the who'll.
country, and the duty prop sed by the bill
being III his opinion insufficient t. protect
those establishments from . succc ssful 60
reign competition.
Mr.. Smith afterwards gave way to Mr..
iuger, who wished to reduce the duty OF
4 cents per 10. on brown sugar believing
that no protection was necessary to encou-
rage the manufacture of that art;clr, by
which large fortunes were now making.
and which it was unnecessary to encourage
by taxing the community for that pur-
pose. Mar. II. then moved 20 strike out the
prop ) d duty of four cents, with the view.
II successful, OF filing the bank with 1-2
cents.
Mr. Robertson said the gentleman in
his rem marks had confounded the ananufac-.
ttre OF loaf sugar, embraced by MIR.
smiths motion, with the cnlfUaiion of
the article; and then proceeded to advo-
cate the expediency of encouraging the
cultivation of sugar by protecting it 9 Sainss
competition. The state OF Louisiana a
lone, he said, il the culture was properly
tossered BY the government, would in few
years be able to supply the whole country
with that article, to which the peoplc of
that safe were by climate AID soil almost
entirely confined. He adverted also to
the employment such policy you'd afford
to cur coasting trade, and tie consequent
benefits to the maritime pursuits OF the
country. The duty laid on the article foy
the mere purpose of revenue, he said, was
cents per pound, and the mot on row
made would leave it entirely destitute of
protection and why, said he, should this
article form solitary exception to the
policy adopted towards other branches of
industry, and alone he excluded from that
general protection extending to every 9TH
er species of manufacture 1t was true.
he said, that for year or two past, events
had favored the sugar planters, and their
pursuit had been profitab c but he denied
the general assertion that great fortunes
were made by it. Twenty millions of ca
pisal had been employed in the cultivation
OF sugar in Louisiana, and, with the ex-
ception stated above, it d been as unpro
II able as any other occupation whatever.
the assertion, he repeated, was unfound-
ed IN fict. AS to the newspaper st .tcmeats
about the profits made in Georgia, they
were only calculated. he ia, t. m slead
the community there might be in a few
instances some ground for those state
ments but, taken generally, they were
false and eXtravagant he knew some
men who had been ruined by the pursuit,
&c.
Mr.. Hugsr acknowledged that the state
ments he had just he rd. had done away
much of his objection to the duty proposed
in the bill, and If the gentleman from Lou
isianl could convince HIM that the cultva-
tors oi sugar could not q on safely without
the duty, he would not press his motion
further--but he apprehended the gentle
man had been in some me assure influenced
by his feelings, and, rot being grower
himself, might be misled by An imperfect
acquaintance with this subject.
Mr.. Robertson replied at some length to
Mr.. Hugcr III support Of his previous state~
ments--lftcr whom
Mr.. Lowndes made few remarks on
TIE same side. He argued that the manu-
f4cture Of sugar demanded encouragement
as strongly as any other and that he tho't
the duty proposed by the bill was even too
low, being a small increase on the sDecif-
cd duty, and 1t WAS as nccess ary for tie
purpose of revenue as for the protection Of
| the article.
Mr. Shelley said he was in favcr Of tie
motion. He objected 70 a high duty being
laid for the purpose Of revenue, because il
would press too heavily on tive poorer elias
ses. Sugar had become an article Of me-
/ ccssity and was used almost a. much bv
| the poor IS BY the rich il was taxing
| the poor, therefore, to impose A heavy dt,-.
| " on it. AS to the necessity of protecting