The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1859-01-11

I
be leFad upon the consumption aud not upon the pro-
duc0n Of the country upon the inports and not up5u
the exports IL said with good deal VI plAusibil
y, that who exports article which he has inn
ported and which he has paid the import duty,
shoaid have that duty refunded beelnse woald be
exchanged for lorcign article which Wolld be
brought into the country, and would Rgaia pay dnty
and Il you did not refund him the duty the exported
article it weuld be equivalent 10 taxing him with douhs
euty In each OF these acts maintain that il the
purpose Of congress to give drawback, and not bout
/ tY
The difference between drawback and bounty Is well
understood by the Senate but NAV be UNDERSTOOD y
the country and shall define what understand 10 se
chat difference "a order that the evnntry may appreciate
properly the wrong done them BY the present bountea
bestowed on the cod fisheries Draw back s a
Rrn Of the duty paid by importer Of article upon
bis exportation Of that article 1t refading him his
own monry. 1t is said by Mr. Madison IN debate
in 1892, merely paying ebta dett due from tle gov
ennlent 10 the exporter Of article for moneys advanced
by h the government upon importing that article
Bounty, the other hand gratuity premium be-
slowed upon the pfodnces the exporters, the Import
OF certain articles upon those who engage ships In
certain trades Drawback is founded upon a valuable
Consideration bounty upon governmental favor.
Haviug explained tins dstiaCti0n repeat that the
purpose Of all these laws to give draw back and not
/ bounty-tiat the fshermsn themselves did not ask
bounty but drawback that they did not for favor
bot demanded justice They said give what yon give
the merchant the expectation OF article imported
/ by him return money that Is all we ask. Draw
back and bounty was all that was advocated by the
/
representatives, Of fishermen in either house of Congress
/ They repudated the charge Of seeking bounty they
denied it, and protested that they only asked drawback
and no bounty. Drawback and not bounty all Con-
I gress intended to give
brief abstract Of the several acts the subject Of
fishing allowances will show that such the intention
Of Congress expressed in the themselves shall
not weary the patience Of the senate hy going Those
acts but Will present brief OF such phrases in
each Of the acts viii establish the position
In the first tariff act passed by the FIRST Congress II the
Z Tvpfta 4 .gF. -.
cents per bushel laid imported salt The fourth
section Of the act granted cents for every qun
tai Of drie and every barrel OF picked tsh Of salted
provisions exported 70 foreign countries and declared
that THIS allowance made TO the language OF the
act IN leT ~ dpbdcs Of The d als aaporlai9a Of tie
sab ed0yeR and eFcaasf asraa Thus it appears that
the daty exceeded the allowance in lieu Of drawback by
cent per blshel Of sa and tie fishermen aftears
complained that they dii really get an
the drawback that the government still their debtor
tor something more than they Lad received The
OF this assertion WIS that they said il required bushe
OF salt for each quinta of dried every barrel Of picked
fish and that they had paid six cents busheI ON
importing the salt duty and received but five cents
per quintl Of dried barrel Of picked fish in RETURN
they did not receive the fun amount OF draw,ac
The act Of August A. 1880, made stringent provisions,
requiring full proof that the sh provisions mad bn
ported and had been cured ar orgH sad zia a be-
fore the drawback paid The Of August To- I79O,
doubled the duy salt raising ak twelve
cents and doubled the allowance the fish provis
ions exported raising it to per qain1al and
cents per BARREL and declared TO quote language Of
the act t.t TINS was done IN Ia ef draasbuk te duty
Up to this period Of there can be no dispute
there u no ground for dsputng the that draw
back and not bounty, all that granted by Con-
gres but then the system changed the petition
of the fishermen themselves BY the act OF February lg
1884, the allowance shifted from the shipper or ex
porter Of the fish, TO the OF the and
from the exported fish to the tonnage of the vessel
This WAS done at the instance Of the fishermen them
selves and viii read brief extract from one Of their
enorias IN order TO show what they expected get
and what they asked They said that the bounty
granted 70 the fishery by Congress they called ii boun
ty, and am amazed to ind that the term bounty is fre
qucnty used in the law, although napprupraieIy
oordng to the strict import OF the tenas a oonlper-
sion Tor The duty on salt viii not operate to that effect
50 eectaly as paid direct into the hands of the
es OF the vessels, instead Of the shippers of the fish
In pursuance OF this and other memorials Congress
shifted the allowance from the shipper of the fish the
owner Of the fishing vessel allowing 80 much per ton for
each ton of the vessel employed in the cod fishery II
did not give ar propose to give however anything
than the drawback
The amount of the allowance the tonnage was reg
niated by the quantity Of salt consumed ia curing the
fish, II said that each auiutal Of fish required
bushel OF SALT and it estimated that tae average
quantity of fish taken TO each would be twelve and
therefore the duty multiplied by twelve gave the allow
aRce per ton TO each vessel employed in the cod fishery
Now, it viii be remarked. and may be urged Ia argu-
msnt the other side Of this question that this tonnage
allowance varied with the size Of the vessel and hence il
/
way OF tonnage allowance than had been given In the
way Of drawback the exported fish, But, in reply 10
that assertion, il win be found that the tonnage allow
alce, although it may have exceeded somewhat te draw
back the larger class OF vessels fell below il the
smaller vessels than exceeded the larger
and thus IN the aggregate alleged by the advocates
Of this law the government probably paid less IN the
way OF tonnage allowance than it did in the way Of draw
back. Besides there maximum aggregate allow
fixed by law which could not be exceeded although
falling short OF the duty paid BY the vessel the salt it
consumed
The advocates Of the act Of 1892 maintained that the
government, well as the fishermen would money
by the change proposed
Mr.. Madison, OF Virginia supported the bin expressly
on the ground that ii Communication of draw
back, but ne bounty Mr. Madison said
tnK however bounty every potnf
improper : applied
and in The opinion " implication,
hu also beeause does expires. b
avowed avpaatad s pAtruns tnsn1sniee Fr In the
advanced only paying debit when pay debt
ouEha not % olain msrit Of granting bounty.g
IN Bourne, Of Massachusetts,, said
obec hr scui0n Intended relief
q ar fishermen Thry ennpan that the
In arre for tr hnen ~ granting d-1Nhnck ho
hsh soriaf; they cxpeIinBe eae they
say importer
te st rcoFe the dravbae ana rather Epposc str = j. The
case"
In compliance With this understanding this act was
passed aud every subsequent which passed upon
the subject expresses in itself the pgrpose Thus
the act OF MAY l7g2 increased the duty by substituting
Cor the measured bushei of eiEhtyfour pounds the
weighed bushe Of hftyx pounds and added twenty per
cent 10 the fishing allowance The act Of July 1877,
increased the salt duty 10 twenty ccuts bushe aad
added thirty three and third per cent 20 the allowance
The uf April 1900 continued this allowance for
A. a. L.. a.. FL.