Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-03-12

| may be convenient, IL may have been i,npotic;
we have done 50, and we must abide by our "a
greement.
| A case was put, on the one side, suppose
Britain when this law passes, makes certain
article on which she grants no bounty, and we
| receive that article ut q certain duty the same
as is paid by a French article of the same kind
here she is on equal footing with France.
She afterwards grants a bounty, which raises
her duty in our ports. Is that increase to be
charged TO u.s. Is it any thing but her own act,
Can her subsequent act construe our act into
offence? 1t was answered yes, because our
act anticipated such q case, and had prospec-
tive reference TO ii, and is therefore as much
chargcabe on us as if it had been done after and
before the case occurred. 1t was said further,
that, ifthis act placed England, with respect to
any bounticd article, on less favorable terms
than France, her remedy was either TO repeal
her bounty, or TO apply to France to lay one
our law paid impartial respect to both.
| 1t was replied, that these bounties were usu-
ally granted to make up for some disadvantage,
! real or supposed; between the country which
granted them and other countries. The boun-
ty, therefore, only placed the two countries on
level as they came to onr ports-and if we
charged one more than the other, we created
an inequality that we did not Finland we did
that very thing which, by the treaty, we had
engaged not to do so.
ltwas again argued, that, to forbid these coun-
tervailng duties, was against the equity of the
treaty. Every agreement ought to bind both
parties; but granting bounties was an act of one
party only, and an act by which she could, at
pleasure, affect the interest of the other party,
under the treaty.-It was answerered, that the
granting of bounties was an independent right,
thatexsted anterior to the treaty, and was re-
zaI by Tho tod h,,{I,
ties--it was no novelty in England, having been
practised for century, and before our manu.
features had an existence: it was not granted to
the manufacturer but to the exporting merchant
TO encourage the commerce and extend the
navigation of England, and not to destroy our
nlanuiactures.-It was rejoined that the quo
amino with which it might have been done, was
OF no consequcnce-its actual operation was to
destroy them. The object ofthe treaty, it was
urged, was to do no more than put Britain on
an equality with other nations in the admission
of her goods to this country-but the striking
out ofthis section would go farther than this and
put her on better footing than other countries
which gave no bounty.
1t was answered that the advantage was not
derived from us-but from causes mconnected
with our system of duties. That we could not
cqualize nations, except in the duties they paid
us, and this we had expressly bound ourselves
to do towards Britain, and we must keep our
word.
The amendment offered to the section went to
give a prospective operation but this was OPP
posed, on the ground first taken, that, whether
prospective or not, it would be equally our act
and equally violation of the treaty, the words
of which expressly referred to acts which would
be passed in future, as well as those which should
then be in existence. There were only six
bounties now left i'll England, most of the others
having taken the form of drawbac These
were granted OH beer, cordage, salcloth, plate
silk, and sugar, and their object was to repay
the duty which had been paid on the same arti-
Giles when imported under different form.
The section applied but to one of these, viz:
that on sail cloth or canvas, (which includes cot
ton bagging) and even in relation to this it is
useless, as Britain can at once ,evade it by
changing the name of the bounty into drawba OK
To bring the case home, ii was asked, whether
II the United states should grant bounty to
courage the manufacture of pot and pearl ash
cs, we should think that Britain might lay hea-
yier duty on our pot ash than Oh that from Rus
sia /?
1t was said, on the other side, that bounties,
though sometimes given by England to foster
navigation, sometimes to promote commerce,
and sometimes TO equalize natural disadvantages
"oic, III uie iioSt part, lnlenueu TO force mar
ket for her commodities, in instance of which
the bounties on glass and on silk were quoted.
10 this 1t was replied, that, resisting her boun-
ty, would not necessarily protect our manuiac-
turers; and if it would, some of those bounties
were ON manufactures which we did not know
and could not, for half a century, possess; such
as those of silk and linens; in relation to which
this law would only operate as bounty to the
French and German manufacturers. The an
| swcrs of the British Board of Trade 10 the que
RES proposed by the Lords of the Treasury, con-
tanned an expose of the British policy in relation
to bounty and drawback; and Showed they
meant to compensate the duty paid ON the impor-
tatlon OF the raw material, used in the exported
| article.
! The question was taken successfully on
| Mr.. Stewards and Mr.. Tod's amendments, and
| lost.
| II was then put on striking out the Sd section
F., of the bill, and ca,vied-Ayes, ia, Noes sc.
And then the Committee rose.