ions of this bill, and the probable results, I shall confine myself to the general principle. JANUARY, 1810. And after mentioning the principal dispositions of their navigation act, and which contains serIt may properly be viewed in two respects: 1. eral of the principles of the bill now under conAs a commercial regulation, as a pacific com-sideration, which are mostly objectionable in my mercial regulation merely. 2. As a coercive, mind, he proceeds to say: hostile measure, intended to compel our enemy to do us justice for the injuries she has heretofore inflicted, and a preventive against future injuries. This bill has been called a navigation act. With much parade it has been termed the American Navigation Act. animosity, at that particular time, aimed at the very "When the act of navigation was made, though England and Holland were not actually at war, the most violent animosity subsisted between the two na tions. It had begun during the government of the Long Parliament, which first framed this act, and it broke out soon after in the Dutch wars during that of the Sir, I never had a very high opinion of naviga- Protector and of Charles the Second. It is not imtion acts. I very much doubt whether any na- possible, therefore, that some of the regulations of this tion which has adopted them has ever derived famous act may have proceeded from national animosany real commercial advantages from them. The ity. They are as wise, however, as if they had að great error of legislation in this respect has been, al been dictated by the most deliberate wisdom. NationI apprehend, that they have done too much; they have been too much disposed to meddle in a concern they had nothing to do with. If Legislatures would be contented with giving protection to the citizen in the enjoyment of his rights, they would do (generally speaking) as much as they commerce, or to the growth of that opulence which ought to do. Leave it to the ingenuity of the can arise from it. The interest of a nation in its com citizen, and his own sense of interest how to di-mercial relations to foreign nations is, like that of a rect his industry; his advantage would thereby merchant with regard to the different people with be much better promoted, and of course much whom he deals, to buy as cheap and sell as dear as posgreater would be the advantage of the commu-sible. But it will be most likely to buy cheap, when by nity to which he belongs. Our attention is very often called to the famous navigation act of Great Britain. If any commercial benefits have ever been experienced by that nation from that law, they have been accidental. It is certain that that measure did not originate in any cool, wise considerations or calculations of commercial advantages. Every gentleman here present must know the circumstances under which it was adopted. It was enacted during the usurpation of Cromwell-a time of faction-and was dictated by a spirit of animosity towards their neighbors, the Dutch, and with whom the English Commonwealth, so called, soon after engaged in a most cruel and unjust war. It is even at this time, and has ever been problematical in the opinion of the best writers upon political economy, whether that measure has not, in a commercial view, proved injurious to the English. Being a naval power, that it may have contributed to their defence, will not be denied. But such an object or such effects are not contemplated or wished for by the friends of the bill now under consideration. The celebrated Adam Smith, in his "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," speaking of those cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry, says: "The first is, when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defence of the country. The defence of Great Britain, for example, depends very much upon the number of its sailors and shipping. The act of navigation, therefore, very properly endeavors to give the sailors and shipping of Great Britain the monopoly of the trade of their own country, in some cases by absolute prohibitions, and in others, by heavy burdens upon the shipping of foreign countries." have recommended-the diminution of the naval pow "The act of navigation is not favorable to foreign the most perfect freedom of trade it encourages all nations to bring to it the goods which it has occasion to purchase; and for the same reason it will be most likely to sell dear, when its markets are thus filled with the greatest number of buyers. The act of nav igation, it is true, lays no burden upon foreign ships that come to export the produce of British industry. Even the ancient alien's duty, which used to be paid upon all goods exported as well as imported, has, by several subsequent acts, been taken off from the greatet part of the articles of exportation. But if foreigners, coming to sell, they cannot always afford to come to buy; either by prohibitions or high duties, are hindered from because coming without a cargo, they must lose the freight from their own country to Great Britain. By diminishing the number of sellers, therefore, we neces sarily diminish that of buyers, and are thus likely not only to buy foreign goods dearer, but to sell our own cheaper than if there was a more perfect freedom of trade. As defence, however, is of much greater im portance than opulence, the act of navigation is per haps the wisest of all the commercial regulations of England." These are the lessons of wisdom and of com mon sense; and if legislators would study them, reflect and practise upon them more than they have done, the citizen in his commercial enter prises would probably prosper in a higher degree, and the Government itself experience less diffculties. Our commerce has been uncommonly prosperous. Experiments of this kind are highly dangerous. Supposing there is a possibility that the measure proposed if adopted may prove beneficial. Will any gentleman have the confidence to say he is certain it will prove so? And can any one think it wise and discreet upon a mere possibility or conjecture to hazard an experiment of this kind upon so important a subject? Sir, we are young and inexperienced. We are about to compete in a commercial warfare, with JANUARY, 1810. American Navigation Act. H. OF R. errors, which originated in an error four years ago, and it is like all other errors committed by an individual or a community, which, if unretracted, will always progress and increase so as to involve their authors in difficulties greater and greater. We ought to have the magnanimity at least to stop and reflect. The sooner certainly the better. an old and experienced nation-with adepts in possibly be an effectual remedy for our just com-this science. It cannot be considered as deroga-plaints? Sir, it is a continuation of a system of tory to the sagacity of our Councils to doubt whether our skill is equal upon subjects of this kind to that of our enemy. But grant that there is nothing in this circumstance against us. Our enemy has a power to enforce her regulations which we have not, and this certainly must give her an important superiority. Our commerce has heretofore prospered, not owing to the regulations of the Government, but to the free unembarrassed enterprises of the merchant. Every | judicious and candid merchant will tell you that the check our trade has received, has in a great measure been caused by our own unwise interference. A gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BURWELL) the other day informed us, that the operation of the provisions of this law would almost solely be in favor of the Northern shipping interest; and he expressed his surprise to hear objections from that part of the Union. It does so in appearance, and that is all; it is only appearance. It is candidly confessed by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BURWELL.) that the injurious effects predicted of the non-intercourse act have been verified; that it has operated detrimentally to our own country, and beneficially to our enemy; that the grower of his products has greatly suffered in the depression of his price, and that the price of every article imported has been much enhanced. Will not that gentleman be also so candid as to acknowledge that the evils predicted from the partial non-importation law which passed in 1805-6 have been verified? That gentleman was That gentleman will pardon me when I say I not a member of Congress at that time, but we do not, and cannot thank him for the boon he that were then members, know that it was then tenders to us. I seriously believe that the bill, if foretold no good could possibly come from it; it shall pass, will nearly destroy the whole com- that its only tendency would be to increase the merce of the country. Our commerce being de-irritation and widen the breach between the two stroyed, the discriminations it proposes will afford countries. a miserable compensation to any portion of the community. If that gentleman and others are willing to benefit us, we request them to take off and keep off the shackles; let us have a free trade; permit us to be freemen; for such a boon we will sincerely thank them. If it is thought inexpedient to protect our commerce, at least leave it to shift for itself. If Great Britain should accept the gauntlet we propose to throw to her, and she should retaliate by countervailing regulations, can any man in his senses doubt who will be the greatest losers in the contest? It is unnecessary to be precise in stating the amount of our products exported to her and her dominions, or the amouut of her manufactures into this country; suffice it that I am correct in stating that the greatest proportion of our domestic produce goes to her markets, and a very trifling part, comparatively, of her products and manufactures comes to ours. Mr. Speaker, I have hitherto considered the bill as merely a commercial regulation. I will now view it, secondly, in another aspect, viz: as a hostile, coercive measure, intended to compel our enemy to do us justice for the injuries we have received from her. I shall not deny upon this occasion that the injuries we have received from her have been many and great; that strictly, according to the former practices and usages of nations, we have had just causes of war. But still I must be al lowed to say that our Government has not been immaculate-they have not been faultless. But, allowing our injuries to have been ever so enormous, will any one, after our long and sad experience, say that this is the way to avenge them? Will it not be making bad still worse? Can this Will not that gentleman be also so candid as to acknowledge that the evils predicted to arise from the embargo have been verified?-that sovereign remedy for all our diseases-a measure which was to bring Great Britain to our feet, by depriving her of the necessaries of life, and the raw materials so indispensable to her as a manufacturing nation! But, sir, I forbear to dwell upon this delicate topic. I know it is calculated to excite unpleasant sensations. And will not gentlemen be so candid as at least to ponder and hesitate before they say with too much confidence that the evils predicted from the measure now proposed, if adopted, will not also be verified? I entreat every gentleman to candidly and seriously ask himself this question: If the embargo. could not so distress our enemy as to bring her to terms, is there a possibility that this measure will? I object to the proposed measure, as its effects are calculated to degrade the American character still more than it is. You cannot maintain your honor and dignity by this system of railing and scolding. If it is the wish and intention, by measures of this kind. to provoke and produce war. it would be much more manly and magnanimous to prepare ourselves and declare it. It would have a tendency to command the respect of our citizens, and the respect, and, if possible, the fear of our enemy. But let it be understood that I am not for war. I think it both unnecessary and inexpedient. But we must do something. This is frequently said in private conversation. This is a principle (as it is understood by those who say it) I do not subscribe to. Sir, I had rather do nothing than do something which is worse than nothing. If I find myself sick, if I cannot get a medicine which will be salutary, I will not take poison or any other prescription which will have no other effect but to increase my disorder. It is also said, a further attempt is to be made at negotiation, and the President must have some thing in his hands to aid him in it. This has always been the plea; it was at the time of passing the partial non-importation law; of the embargo; of the non-intercourse. Such kind of weapons will not answer; their inefficacy has been tested by too much experience. But it is asked what will you do? You Federalists, you minority men, are forever objecting. opposing, and for pulling down. I confess this character pretty justly belongs to us. We are opposers and objectors; your system ought to be opposed and objected to. If it is not destroyed, we seriously believe that ruin will ensue. The remedy is to pull down the building you have erected; remove the rubbish; make the way clear once more; its foundation is in the sand; the longer it is continued, the more tottering it will become, the more dangerous its fall; for it will assuredly fall. Our cause is not yet desperate. I humbly trust that Heaven has in store many blessings to be showered down upon this once favored land, whenever we will in earnest, and as honest and skilful workmen, endeavor to help ourselves. Sir, as the amendment now under consideration proposes to make this a permanent law, I shall vote against it. And, if adopted, I shall vote against every section of the bill. Mr. CUTTS said that following the example of other gentlemen, he should, on this question, express his opinion on the principles contained in the bill now before the House; in doing this he felt some diffidence, as his sentiments on the operation of this bill were so different from those expressed yesterday by a gentleman from New Hampshire; however, he would proceed. When the embargo was given up, the non-intercourse was substituted as a measure of coercion-of commercial restriction-and as a kind of protest against the British Orders in Council and French decrees. Experience has proved that the law cannot be executed; it has been evaded in almost every direction; its continuance seems to be given up by all parties. He had another and very serious objection to its continuance: its operation is partial, it bears particularly hard upon that part of the country which he had the honor to represent; the exports of that part of the country being principally confined to lumber, which was a bulky and cheap article, being wanted almost exclusively in British ports; that it would not bear the circuitous transportation; of course the non-intercourse was almost as effectual as an embargo upon that part of the country. In relinquishing the non-intercourse, he viewed the principles contained in the present bill as forming a system more energetic than those contained in the non-intercourse law. They could be carried into execution. Gentlemen object to the third section of this bill; if retained, Great JANUARY, 1810. pre Britain will lay countervailing duties; she has already done it by her act of Parliament of last winter, laying additional and discriminating du ties, which were first proposed as a transit duty, afterwards modified and made permanent by said act. It is true the operation of these discrimina ting duties has not yet been felt in this country. The embargo, non-intercourse, and the disavowal of the arrangement with Mr. Erskine, have vented British ships from coming here and enjoy ing the whole carrying trade of this country. If the third section of this bill. which he considered as among its best features, and the only safeguard against British monopoly, together with all the commercial restrictions, were stricken out as advocated by the opponents of the bill, he would ask gentlemen what would be the practical oper ation as it respected American vessels. In his opinion it would operate in the following manner: For instance, take the article of cotton. The act of Parliament lays a duty of 34 pence per pound on cotton when imported in an Amer can vessel, and two pence one-sixteenth when imported in a British vessel; throw away the fraction, and say that the difference is a penny per pound; even this small sum will amount to a complete exclusion of American vessels from the carrying trade. A penny and a half per pound for cotton may be considered as a peace freight. Suppose a British and an American vessel of equal burden-say three hundred tons-should load in one of our Southern ports with that arti cle at one and a half penny per pound, and go to a British port, such a vessel would probably make about nine thousand dollars freight; the cotton on board the American vessel having to pay the additional duty, which at one penny per pound would amount to six thousand dollars, would leave only three thousand dollars for the charter of the ship and disbursements, while the British ship not having the same duties to pay would make a net freight of nine thousand dollars. It is not to be presumed that any merchant will ship on board an American vessel under such circumstances, while a British vessel was to be had; of course ours must lay by the wharres until all the British are employed. Gentlemen seem to intimate that there is no danger of British vessels coming to this country, and entering into competition with ours. There can be no competition where the balance is so much in their favor, and they infer this from the documents laid on our tables, stating the small amount of foreign tonnage employed in the Amer ican trade. Are there no causes for this small amount of tonnage? The embargo, non-intercourse, and the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's ar rangement, together with the immense employ ment Great Britain has given of late to her surplus tonnage in the transport service, is the true cause of so few coming here. Has not the charter of her merchant ships risen from about sixteen to twenty-seven shillings per ton charter for the transport service? While under such pay they had no cause to seek other employment. He begged gentlemen to turn their attention to what might be the state of things, provided that all the commercial restrictions should be stricken out of this bill, and that the ships of Great Britain should be excluded from Spain, Portugal, and the Baltic; that the transport service should be given up-will not an opening be presented to them in this country? Will they not flock here under the advantages of their discriminating duties, and take the whole carrying trade? What then will follow? Our ships, thrown out of the carrying trade, must lay at the wharves, or return to the lumber business, and by their number overstock the markets. H. OF R. the country. He wanted no advantage; only put us upon an equal footing with other nations, and he believed we could enter into a successful competition. or whether she sends such a quantity of shipping to this country under the advantage of her discriminating duties as to take the whole carrying trade to herself, the result is the same. Mr. C. observed, that if British ships should be admitted freely into our ports with their present advantages, it would drive ours out of the market. They would be obliged to lay at the wharves, or to seek employment in the smuggling trade abroad, by taking British licenses and forged papers. He deprecated this as one of the worst of evils; it was ruinous to our national character; much of our present commercial embarrassSir, are gentlemen under no apprehension that, ment arose from this source. He wished as far if they should do away all commercial restric-as possible to retain the honest carrying trade of tions, and submit to the discriminating duties of Great Britain and her Orders in Council, that the Continental Powers will not consider this as abandoning the commercial rights of this country, for which we have been so long contending, and exclude us from their ports, as having submitted to all the British impositions? What then will be our situation? He believed it was a well-acknowledged fact, that if the American commerce was excluded from the Continent, the trade to England would not be worth a rush. Take for instance the article of tobacco; this country produces about 80,000 hogsheads annu ally, and there is supposed to be a crop and a half on hand; Great Britain consumes annually about 12,000 hogsheads. Prohibit the exportation of this article to the Continent, it would pour into Great Britain in such quantities as to glut the market, and thereby reduce the price below the freight and charges. So of cotton and many other articles. He was utterly astonished to hear gentlemen from the Northern States oppose the bill, who profess themselves friendly to commerce, especially some gentlemen, who have declared that they did not believe that Great Britain would retaliate by shutting her ports. If she does not shut her ports, what more could the Northern shipholders ask? The Southern members are disposed to give by this bill to the Northern shipholders the exclusive privilege of carrying their produce to market-a complete monopoly. In this he presumed they would find their account in so doing. At present the freight from the ports of the United States to Amelia was about half a penny per pound; from Amelia to a British port four pence, so that the whole freight amounts to four pence half penny sterling per Sir, Great Britain has laid discriminating du- pound. If this bill should pass it will have a ties, and issued her Orders in Council interdicting tendency to reduce the price of freight very our going to friendly ports. What does the pro-much-say one-half-in which event the Northvision in the third section of this bill say? For these acts your vessels shall not be permitted to enter our ports, thereby completely putting to rest the discriminating duties so far as they respect this country. He considered the exclusion of British merchant vessels as the most effectual and energetic measure that could be adopted. It was a measure that could be executed; if we cannot prevent the smuggling of goods, we can prevent the smuggling of ships into our ports. Mr. Speaker. gentlemen seem to be very much alarmed, lest Great Britain should countervail by shutting her ports to our vessels. This may or may not take place. If she can employ her shipping in any other trade she will not shut her ports to us, but consider the relaxation as beneficial to her, as it will give her the raw materials, the expenditure of much money in her ports, and take away her manufactures. If she cannot otherwise employ her shipping, and the third section remains in the bill, then it will have its effectual operation upon her-the strongest measure that we can adopt against her shipping interest. If the restrictions in the bill are stricken out, it is immaterial to the ship-holders of this country whether she shuts her ports to us, and thereby compels our vessels to lay at the wharves, ern tonnage will find good employment, and the Southern produce carried to market for one-half the present cost. At all events there will be a competition between the British vessels at Amelia and the American in our own ports. As to the limitation of the bill, he was decidedly of the opinion that it ought to be limited to the next session of Congress. Yet he was almost afraid to vote against the present motion lest the motion made by the gentleman who introduced this bill should obtain. The limitation of the bill to the end of this session of Congress would, in his opinion, destroy the bill; it would render it completely nugatory. He hoped the bill would pass in its present form, and be limited to the next session of Congress. Mr. RooT said he was in favor of the limitation proposed to the bill by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. MACON,) because the fifth section of the bill would not go into operation till the 15th of April, and if it were to expire with the end of the present session of Congress, it would probably never be in force. He wished any course to be taken which would defeat the operation of that odious feature in the bill. There were other sections which he deemed valuable; but the fifth section was one of the most disgusting ever pre H. OF R. American Navigation Act. JANUARY, 1810. of Peace, because the United States, it was said, had violated one article, and therefore they would not carry into effect that relative to the delivery of the Western posts. The third article of Jay's Treaty, now in existence, provides that there shall be forever an interchange of trade by inland sented to his view. The reason assigned, said manent articles of the Treaty of London, com Mr. R., for this provision of interdicting the im-monly called Jay's Treaty, we had rather avoid portation of any produce other than from the port the infringement of those articles. I believe it is or place where it is grown or manufactured, is, better that we should stand on high ground; that, that it is designed to break up this British carry-if ever the happy time shall arrive, either before ing trade to and from Amelia island and, perhaps, or after war, (for now a war is waged on one Halifax. But will gentlemen reflect for a mo- side only,) when we shall come to an amicable ment upon the cause of this sudden growth of adjustment of differences, there will be no preAmelia island into notice? But a year ago, and tence which Great Britain can allege for the vioAmelia island was scarcely heard of. You have lation of the ten permanent articles of the treaty. brought it into notice by your laws, and are now If we were to violate one article of it, our future about to pass a law to take away its consequence. negotiators would probably have to recede a litRepeal the non-intercourse, remove the cause, tle. We know the pretences which were formand Amelia island will be no longer of any im-erly alleged for not carrying into effect the Treaty portance. Take away the non-intercourse, and would our merchants pursue this circuitous course? Certainly not, sir. The operation of the fifth section, if really carried into effect, would break up the trade to Amelia island, but whither would it transfer it? The importance of Amelia island would be immediately transferred across the At-navigation, and otherwise, between the Provinces lantic; Great Britain will become the depot for of His Britannic Majesty and the United States, all our produce, and the British the carriers of it. and that it shall not be prohibited, except in arti Your merchants will make their shipments di- cles altogether prohibited in the Atlantic ports. rectly to Great Britain, and she will have the ex- Now, by this section, sir, we admit British goods clusive carriage of our commerce; for, as long as by the Atlantic ports, and prohibit their importa the British Orders in Council and Napoleon's tion through Canada. This provision is a direct folly continue, we shall certainly not be able to infringement of this treaty. Conceiving, then, carry our produce to the Continent. We shall that this bill, if passed into a law, will be a direct ship it to Great Britain, and her licensed smug-infringement of Jay's Treaty, I am therefore un glers will carry it to Holland, and to ports in other parts of the Continent. It appears to me that this will be more injurious to the American character, than the letting this little island grow into importance. To be sure, my colleague (Mr. GARDENIER) has told us that the operation of this bill will be a complete non-intercourse with France and a free intercourse with Great Britain, and therefore he likes it. Having the same views with him of its operation, I dislike it. The same cause induces him to approve it. It appears to me that Great Britain, with all her crimes upon her head, is one of the most favored nations on earth. She has issued orders, which she enforces by an immense navy, and the Emperor of France, by sequestering our vessels and cargoes when they go there, aids in enforcing these orders; and, as if that was not sufficient, it appears to me that you are about to lend your assistance also. It appears to me that, under the fifth section of this bill, the produce of France cannot be got here. You may get your produce there. There may be some spot, perhaps, in the North of Europe, or some little spot between the Elbe and Dardanelles through which we can get our produce to France; but still we cannot receive hers in return. This will, in a great measure, prevent shipments thither, inasmuch as our merchants cannot there procure return cargoes. They must go to Great Britain for them. You are about, with what feeble might you have, to enforce the British or der in aid of her immense navy and the power of Napoleon. I have another objection to the passage of the fifth section. It appears to me that, however often Great Britain may violate the per willing that the bill should be passed into a law. The non-intercourse law, it is said, is worse than nothing, because it is not carried into effect, or is evaded. If that law be evaded, how are we to carry this into effect? Will your custom-house officers be able to ascertain, with precision, whe ther a piece of cloth be manufactured in Germany or Holland, whether, in the Empire of France or the Kingdom of Denmark? Or, if Spain should not be considered as a dependency of France, are its fruits, wines, &c., always distinguishable from those of France? Nothing more is necessary. than for vessels to take an invoice from the port whence they ship their goods, and they will be naturalized in less time than citizens. The mer chant makes an oath that he has no doubt the bill of lading is correct. Custom-house oaths are already sufficiently cheap. I am told they can be purchased for two-and-sixpence each. They will soon be worthless, as the bill is inviting our citizens to make false oaths, or cover their traffic in some way falsely at the custom houses. It will be as easily evaded as the non intercourse. It is not forgotten, when clearances were given for St. Bartholomews, that that became the most pro ductive island in the world. How much Jamai ca rum, sugar, coffee, &c., was imported as the produce of St. Bartholomews? Pass this bill, and would not St. Sebastian's, on the Bay of Biscay, very soon produce the best French wines? presume it would. The provisions of the bill will soon be evaded, and it will only be an inducement to our citizens to become more corrupt than at present. What good is to be derived from the provision of the fifth section? Is it for the advantage of your merchants that they should have I |