CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



143 



materials to a single port of entry, although 

 it is proposed now by one of the friends of 

 the bill to amend it by striking out that ob- 

 jectionable clause, for it seems, after all the 

 argument we have heard here this morning, 

 that it is now confessed that this is a clear 

 violation of that clause of the Constitution 

 which forbids any preference being given by 

 any regulation of commerce or revenue to the 

 ports of one State over those of another. 

 Therefore, sir, as by the amendment proposed 

 by one of the friends, perhaps the chief friend 

 of the bill, that discrimination is to be re- 

 moved, we are now left to consider the propo- 

 sition of the power of Congress to allow cer- 

 tain dutiable commodities to be imported 

 practically free of duty; because, as was 

 stated by the honorable Senator from Indiana, 

 the payment of duty which is intended to be 

 refunded is a mere formality, and an expen- 

 sive one at that. \Ve are now to consider the 

 proposition of allowing certain dutiable com- 

 modities to be imported in a manner that is 

 equivalent to being free of duty, in any part 

 of the United States, provided they are used 

 in the improvement of certain private prop- 

 erty in the State of Massachusetts. How it can 

 be said that this is not a destruction of the 

 uniformity of the duties throughout the coun- 

 try, surprises me." 



Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, said: "Mr. 

 President, I was about to present this point: 

 that when the Constitution was adopted, and 

 ever since, duties have had associated with 

 them notoriously a system of drawbacks. 

 When duties were authorized it was with 

 tha idea that there might be drawbacks. The 

 Constitution, without even reading between 

 the lines, might be read in this way : ' But all 

 duties, imposts, and excises, with proper draw- 

 backs, shall be uniform throughout the United 

 States.' The drawback does not in any re- 

 spect interfere with the uniformity of the 

 duties. The drawback is an incident to duties 

 in every civilized country. The drawback 

 has been recognized in our country from the 

 beginning. It studs the pages of our statute- 

 book ; but who has ever insisted that author- 

 izing a drawback in a specific case interferes 

 with the uniformity of the duty ? 



"The term ' drawback ' has a well-known 

 signification in commerce. I read from the 

 best authority on the subject, McCulloch's 

 ' Dictionary of Commerce and Commercial 

 Navigation,' under the head of ' Drawback : ' 

 ' A term used in commerce to signify the re- 

 mitting or paying back of the duties pre- 

 viously paid on a commodity on its being ex- 

 ported.' That is the primitive or first signifi- 

 cation of the term : a remitting or paying 

 back of duties previously paid on a commo- 

 dity on its being exported; the theory be- 

 ing that, as the article is exported, it ought 

 not to contribute to the Treasury of the coun- 

 try. Every one feels how reasonable is that 

 rule. No one, I suppose, would interfere with 



it. Now, by a very slight expansion, the 

 theory of the drawback has been applied to 

 cases where property has been destroyed so 

 that it has not been used in the country. It 

 was applied in the case of the fire in New 

 YoA ; also, as I understand, in the case of 

 fire or destruction of property in San Fran- 

 cisco; the theory in each case being that the 

 owners of the destroyed property ought not 

 to pay a duty where they have not been able 

 to nse the property. 



" The application of this rule to the present 

 case is ample ; a large portion of the commer- 

 cial part of Boston has been destroyed by fire. 

 Here were spacious warehouses, Venetian in 

 architecture, with plate glass, with other ma- 

 terials of building imported and which had 

 already paid large duties to the national 

 Treasuary. All these are destoyed ; they 

 hjave ceased to exist ; and now it is proposed 

 that those who undertake to restore these 

 structures, to put in place again these destroyed 

 materials, shall not pay a duty on what they 

 employ ; in other words, the destroyed prop- 

 erty is to find a substitute in new importa- 

 tions which shall pay no duty because this 

 property has already paid duty once. 



"The whole theory of that provision is 

 that these importations are a substitute for 

 those which have already paid duty, but 

 which have been destroyed by fire. That is 

 why it is called a drawback. It is a draw- 

 back in principle and in fact ; and who will 

 say that the recognition of such a drawback in- 

 terferes with the uniformity of duties through- 

 out the United States? Congress may, if it 

 sees fit, apply the same rule hereafter in a 

 similar case. Should, unhappily, another con- 

 flagration visit another metropolis, I trust Con- 

 gress would not hesitate, nor should I listen 

 to the suggestion which I heard several times 

 that here is favoritism. Sir, I know no such 

 thing sa favoritism in the present case. There 

 is nothing but justice. It is simply recogniz- 

 ing the duties already paid to the United 

 States. It says to the losing proprietors ; 

 1 You shall not pay duties on these articles 

 twice ; you have pnid once. By the act of 

 God these articles have passed out of exist- 

 ence; renew them and we shall not require 

 a second duty ; the duty already paid suf- 

 fices.' 



" Such I take it is the principle of the pres- 

 ent bill. It seems to me entirely reasonable ; 

 it seems to me a principle on which we can 

 stand ; and hereafter, if any case arises of suf- 

 ficient importance to jnstify the intervention 

 of Congress, it is a principle on which I think 

 Congress ought to act." 



Mr. Casserly, of California, said : " I think 

 it very desirable that, in the obvious conflict 

 of views which exists in this body among 

 some of the ablest and most experienced 

 Senators, we should have the aid of the Judi- 

 ciary Committee in arriving at a proper con- 

 clusion upon this bill. For myself, I ought to 



