Mr. SHERMAN. This section 22 proposes to give a drawback on all materials that enter into the construction of all the steam and sailing vessels of the U.S., internal and external. The absurdity of such a proposition when applied to steam vessels I will try to demonstrate. Steam vessels are made at Cleveland, Detroit, and other lake ports. They are steam registered vessels of the U.S. If this section stands as it is, every steamboat engaged in lake commerce, which is far greater than our ocean commerce, will be made of iron imported from Liverpool; every single particle of lumber that enters into a steam vessel made at Detroit or Cleveland will be Canadian lumber; every piece of rig ging that enters into a steam vessel made at these points will be made of Russian hemp, although iron is rolled at Cleveland and detroit, although lumber is got out in Michigan, although the copper that bottoms the vessel may be got in the Lake Superior region, and although every element that enters into the construction of a steamboat is an article of American manufacture. The result of this proposition would be that no steamboat builder would buy any portion of his materials of American manufacture. A proposition so utterly destructive to the reve nue as well as to American industry could not be made. We should lose revenue because all these articles will be of foreign manufacture, for if made of American manufactures there would be no drawback. If American lumber was used for the keel and American iron was used for the engine and American hemp was used for the rope, as a matter of course there would be no drawback paid to the builder of the vessel; but if foreign fabrics are used the drawback would be paid. The result would be that every component part of every steamboat in the U.S. would be made of foreign products. When this section 22 was confined to the sailing vessels of the U.S., what is called the registered tonnage of the U.S., applied simply to protect a local interest that is said to be under a state of dePression, I assented to it. It is said there are no vessels building in Maine. I never make my vote depend upon the place or State or locality where an interest is to be protected. When it was said that this interest was entirely destroyed by the operation of our laws, that these sailing vessels had been brought into competition with sailing vessels made in Canada, and it was impossible under existing laws for our American ship builders in Maine to build ships to sail in competition with those built in Canada, I could see the force of that argument, and I might be willing to make an exception for their benefit in order to enable them to build American ships in Maine instead of in Canada. But when you apply that principle to steamboats made in the interior of the country it is a very different matter, and it would be an exceedingly dangerous thing. The loss of revenue would amount to millions upon millions. Large numbers of ropellers are now being built in. the West. whole carrying trade from Chicago to the eastern market of all the produce of the western country is now carried on in vessels that would be exempt from duty under the operation of this section. That is the reason I oppose it. The words “or steam” were inserted on the motion of the Senfrom Maine, because he did not draw the distinction. The committee, as I understand, had not acted upon that, but had confined their action simply to sailing vessels, and it was intended to give a relief, wrong in H.but justifiable probably by the pecu iar circumstances under which we are surrounded, to sailing vessels all along the coast.