for one hundred and fifty years, should be as general and as strong as to advance agriculture and establish manufactures, since all these interests naturally joined and supported each other in developing the resources of the young nation, and in maintaining its independence. In fact, a planter of North Carolina declared in Congress, in 1789, that the way to advance agriculture was "to promote our commerce," and this by increasing our shipping. There had been six years of trial, a few of them under State encouragement, but the country was satisfied there must be a national policy and a general system before regulations of trade could become effective. Our navigation had little power to extend itself. In short, to have a shipping policy under which American commerce would prosper and promise the accomplishment of great public good, was a well-defined aspiration of the new Republic before James Madison, in 1789, originated in Congress, the first movement therefor.

Colonial Tonnage and Tariff Acts. In the different discussions of the "shipping question," for the past thirty years, the Colonial, and even the State, legislation in aid of the carrying trade, has been overlooked. A single fact may explain the reason; the records are incomplete, and until of late the field has been but little explored. For many of the facts presented in this chapter, we are indebted to a work of inquiry by Professor William Hill, University of Chicago "The First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States, 1893."

In most Colonial charters discriminating duties were authorized. That of Virginia was a type with a duty of 21 per cent. on all goods imported by British subjects and 5 per cent. on all imported by foreigners-presumably in foreign vessels, though the British "Navigation Act" had not then been passed, its date being 1651-1660, the settlement of Virginia being 1610. In 1663 a rum and sugar duty provided shipping protection-in a small way:

"Whatever vessel, except such as belong wholly to inhabitants of Virginia, brings in any rum or sugar, shall not unload the same except at ports appointed," etc.

While the protective acts of the Colonies were not numerous,

there was no hesitation in granting protection which might establish any industry. Discriminating duties and even prohibitions were resorted to, not only against foreign countries, but the different Colonies. The virtues of "reciprocity," also, were utilized. In 1649 an act of Massachusetts provided for retaliatory duties. Virginia also enacted them, explaining that “Virginia vessels are compelled to enter and pay fees before trading in Maryland ports. This is unneighborly, but Maryland vessels must do the same here until her laws are repealed." Furthermore, the principle of every nation to be its own merchant was exploited. Massachusetts imposed "double duties, both specific and ad valorem, on all goods which were not imported directly from the place of their growth." To protect her commerce, she also imposed "double rates on all commodities brought in by inhabitants of Rhode Island, Connecticut,. and New Hampshire," Colonies by which she was nearly surrounded. Still stronger encouragement was given to Massachusetts' shipping by an impost of "5s. per hogshead on all molasses and 60s. per hogshead on all rum imported by for-eigners" in their vessels, of course.

The discriminating duties were in force from 1730 to 1743.. The double duties on goods brought through other Colonies were collectible from 1715 to 1774. From having the best protection, Massachusetts came to have the most shipping.

The Powder and other Tonnage Duties. The impost on shipping was first called powder duties from their being payable in powder. The first such duty was laid by Virginia in 1631, the act providing that "every ship should pay one hundred pounds of powder and ten iron shot for every one hundred tons burden." These were about the average rates in all the Colonies but Georgia, New Jersey, and Delaware, which did not at first lay a tax on shipping. In Rhode Island afterward, tonnage duties seem to have been the only kind collected. When money had become more plentiful, the powder duties were commuted and paid in the equivalent of cash. The dates of powder duties are as follows: Virginia, 1631; Massachusetts, 1645; Maryland, 1661; Pennsylvania, 1683; South Carolina, 1686; New York, 1709. For the other Colonies the time

is uncertain. It was common in framing the acts to set forth the reasons, which were, generally, the public defense. In Massachusetts and New York this tax was a part of the revenue system. In Virginia and Maryland the tonnage dues were made perpetual, and with the export tax on tobacco, furnished a permanent source of revenue, rendering the Governor independent of the Assembly and the people. In 1692 the Maryland Assembly revoked the tonnage tax. "The King, however, decided that the grant was irrevocable, and that Lord Baltimore should continue to collect his 14d. per ton, which in 1752 amounted to $5000."

All the tonnage duties were clearly for revenue, but the acts were so framed that the shipping interest got a good degree of protection. Most Colonies exempted their own shipping. The northern Colonies had reciprocity agreements, by virtue of which the vessels of each had free entry at the ports of the others. The law of Massachusetts provided that English ships, and those of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island should pay no duties. English ships were subject to the tax for a while, but the owners complained, and the colonists were commanded to cease the distinction between British ships and their own. Most of the Colonies unwillingly obeyed, and almost all ships having a legal right to trade with the northern Colonies got free of these duties. When the tax on British shipping and the duties on British goods had to be abandoned by command of the King, the revenue fell off over half. It would seem, therefore, that the revenue collected from tonnage in the southern Colonies may have been greater than in the northern, as the former had few vessels, and the exemptions were not carried so far. It is not, however, the revenue quality of these duties that interests us most, but the power they had to reserve for colonial shipping the inter-colonial carrying trade.

Shipping Acts of the Confederate Period. With the war of the Revolution and its consequent derangement of trade, and with the enemy in control of our chief ports, there came a respite from the collection of duties of all kinds. Intercourse with England was mutually forbidden, while trade with other

countries was fraught with danger. Besides, the tyrannous course which caused the Revolution had prejudiced the public mind against taxes of every sort. Only Virginia, the steadfast and untiring State of WASHINGTON, continued her policy. Not until the advent of peace were duties again imposed by the other States. In tariff duties there were exceptions. In 1783 New Jersey passed an act to free importations at all her ports. Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and Georgia levied few duties except those on shipping, and these were aimed at foreign flags.

Almost

It is often seen that "circumstances alter cases.' all the champions of free government believed in free-trade principles. When they became responsible for the independence of their country-its progress, development, and successful government- they soon flung their theories to the wind. An illustrious type of the statesmen of the time was Patrick Henry. In the Assembly of Virginia, in 1783, Henry's eloquent voice was for an "unfettered commerce," now that peace had made commerce profitable and safe. "Why should we fetter commerce? Fetter not commerce, sir, - let her be free as the air - she will range the whole creation, and return on the wings of the four winds of heaven to bless the land with plenty." But Virginia was learning from the experience which was causing the growth of National sentiment in all the States. Henry, in time, swung entirely around from the position he had held in 1783, and in 1787 favored the prohibition of liquors, cheese, butter, pork, beef, tallow, and candles, and the imposition of a duty on iron, coal, hemp, and cordage. His biographer says: "He thought it wise to stimulate home industry, and was not bound by previous utterances or by any theory of political economy." The fact is, that Virginia passed more tariff acts from 1779 to 1789 than any other State, and Madison asserts that the desire to encourage manufactures, as well as the need of revenue, caused those of 1786 and 1787.

Objects of Tariff and Tonnage Duties. New Hampshire declared in her tariff act of 1788 that one of its principal objects was to "furnish employment for poor persons," and another was "to secure a favorable balance of trade and to

prevent large sums of money from being drawn to foreign countries." In fact, the distress and ruin that were overspreading the land, directly traceable to adverse balances of commerce, from foreign transportation as well as trade, largely influenced all the tariff legislation of the time. Revenue-protection was the idea, especially after the year 1784. Mr. Madison, in Congress, in 1789, well expressed the public feeling in the following words:

"When we consider the vast quantities of our produce sent to the different parts of Europe, and the great importations from the same places, that almost all of this commerce is transacted through the medium of British ships and British merchants, I cannot help conceiving that, from the force of habit and other conspiring causes, that nation is in possession of a much greater proportion of our trade than she is naturally entitled to."

The way to reduce our dependence on Great Britain was to encourage our own manufactures and to increase the share which we had in our own commerce and its carriage, not forgetting to favor our friends, the Dutch and the French. A persistent effort was made in Congress, in 1789 and afterward, to discriminate in tonnage duties as between nations in alliance or treaty, and those who would not become so related to us. New Hampshire has the distinction of originating this idea, which was thus referred to by Mr. Madison in one of his speeches, 1789:

"With relation to the discrimination proposed to be made between foreigners, I think nothing new has been offered now. It has not been denied, and therefore I take it to be tacitly admitted, that the public sentiments are friendly to such a discrimination as is proposed. I do not think it necessary, therefore, to relate particularly some facts, which would have shown that almost all the States in the Union have manifested their opinion on the subject, that a discrimination ought to be made, and ought to operate particularly on Great Britain. A discrimination of this kind first appeared in New Hampshire; the influence of its example expanded to the whole extent of the Union, and State after State adopted regulations for the salutary purpose of checking a power that was monopolizing our trade; but finding from fatiguing experience that their separate efforts were ineffectual,