first mentioned his doubts respecting the principle of the bill, it was with diffidence, and those doubts in some measure arose from an idea that the bill contained a direct bounty upon occupation; upon a more minute examination, he thought the term 'bounty' unnecessarily introduced into the bill, and that the object of it could be answered without the use of terms which might hereafter be deemed to contain a decision upon the general principle of the Constitutional right to grant bounties; it was to avoid anything which might wear the appearance of such a decision, that induced him to make the present motion."... He would remark further, that "bounties in all countries, and at all times, have been the effect of favoritism in fact, they are nothing more than Governmental thefts committed upon the rights of one part of the community, and an unmerited Governmental munificence to the other. In this country, and under this Government, they present an aspect peculiarly dreadful and deformed." The bill was accordingly amended. Next day the bill and amendments were passed - yeas 38, nays 21 - Mr. Madison voting aye, as the act had been made acceptable in a Constitutional point of view-no bounty in it. Continuance of the Fishery Act. April 12, 1800, an Act was approved continuing in force the Act of 1792 for ten years. Section 2 provided, "that the said allowances shall not be understood to be continued for a longer time than the correspondent duties, respectively, for which the said additional allowances were granted, shall be payable." By several acts after 1792, the salt duty had been raised, and the "allowance" increased proportionably. In supporting the bill of 1800, Mr. Sewell said, "this law was meant to operate as a bounty," though he "did not think the amount paid was equal to the duty on the salt." Mr. Mason opposed the bill, saying that exported beef, pork, and other salt provisions were entitled to same consideration. Mr. Smith informed the House that, "at the first passage of this bill, it was considered as a drawback on the salt used, and in that view, the same benefit was extended to all other salted articles of export." Mr. Jefferson's lively interest in the success of the fisheries was well known. He caused Congress to appoint a special Committee, soon after becoming President, to investigate the subject. Mr. Huger, of Va., reported November, 1803, citing the different acts that had been passed, and closing with a recommendation on three points: No duty of tonnage to be charged to whalers and fishers; no hospital charges to fishermen ; the owners of fishing vessels wrecked or lost to receive the "allowance" as if voyages had been successful. The main point of the report, however, was the fact that the Government had never done anything for the fishing interest, but to pay, or commute drawbacks of the duties previously paid on the salt used in curing the fish exported. Considering, however, that England and France paid actual and direct bounties to fishermen, it is not to be wondered at that our citizens fell into a habit of miscalling the salt drawback or allowance a bounty." This misuse of terms has led to a common error that our Government may put any interest under bounty. Even Congress made this mistake a few years ago in passing an act to pay a bounty on sugar production - a plain disregard of the Constitution. The several States may pay bounties, and they do in different cases. But this power they may exercise, because they did not give it up to the National Government. 66 CHAPTER XXIV. THE SIZE AND COST OF A MARINE UNDER SUBSIDY. When it occurred to cer A Scheme without an Estimate. tain shipping people to induce the administration to disregard the platform and utterances of the Presidential candidate of 1896, and to substitute subsidy for "discriminating duties," they progressed well until the principle of their bill was challenged, and the pertinent questions propounded is it a specific? How much will it cost? No reliable estimates were produced, but they claimed that we should subsidize, because other nations did. Compelled to consider that appropriation means taxation; that the objects calling for money are many and insistent; that limitations must rule governmental expenditures; that only a moderate sum could be afforded annually, as an "aid" to shipping, the friends of subsidy consented to the limitation of expenditure, neglecting the fact that limiting the money must limit the tonnage. Calculation of Cost. When it was shown that, for the year 1900,"compensation " to the entire fleet in our foreign trade, if, being American, it were qualified for "aid," would be $40,000,000, Senators were astounded. The Commerce Committee drew a line at $9,000,000 for the total of payments in any year. If larger amounts were earned, the $9,000,000 must be "prorated." This, it was thought, would obviate objections on the ground of high cost, prodigal waste, and impracticability of subsidy for an adequate marine. They thought to get the marine and to save their money, too. This was well devised, especially as nothing need be stated as to the size of the marine which they would thus obtain. For, if their premises were true, and the "compensation" demanded rested on fact, was essential, and must be realized, prorating $9,000,000 could not THE HANNA-PAYNE BILL ILLUSTRATED. (15) Approximate Estimate of Annual Cost of "Compensation" to Tonnage in Foreign Trade, under the Terms set forth, with increasing Volume allowed for in Commerce and in Carrying. 1900 $3,222,268 $5,034,794 $8,055,670 $20,139,175 1901 3,423,659 5,349,468 8,559,149 5,664,142 4,229,226 6,608,166 10,573,066 1909 5,034,833 7,866,864 12,586,983 18,880,474 1910 5,236,184 8,081,538 13,090,462 19,635,693 5,437,576 8,496,213 13,593,941 5,638,968 8,810,887 14,097,420 5,840,359 9,125,562 14,600,899 $12,083,505 $16,111,340 1928 8,861,234 13,845,678 22,153,087 33,229,628 44,306,175 55,382,719 66,459,263 77,535,807 88,612,351 105,730,647 1929 9,062,614 14,160,335 22,656,567 33,984,850 45,313,134 56,641,417 67,969,701 79,297,984 90,626,268 101,954,551 113,282,835 13,090,460 20,453,844 32,726,151 49,089,226 65,452,302 23,160,044 36,187,569 57,900,111 86,850,166 115,800,222 but afford utterly inedequate "aid " to the creation of an adequate marine, betraying that this was not the real object of the measure. Not much shipping power could develop out of a subsidy system that failed to subsidize to the extent actually requisite. The foregoing table shows that the subsidy, at full rates, would have amounted to $29,957,022 for 1901, in case 70 per cent. of the marine in our trade were American. The $9,000,000 a year, prorated, would afford but 30 per cent. of this sum. Manifestly, the full rates were excessive, or the prorating meagre and trifling. Basis of the "Hanna-Payne" Bill. It is contended that American ships cost more to build and to sail than foreign vessels; and that foreign nations have thrown around their shipping such protections as make it impossible to build and run American ships in open competition. It is further alleged that these difficulties and disabilities are such, that "compensation in money from the Government would remove or surmount them all with ease. Were this plea good, every industry in our country might claim the same consideration. Proceeding on the theory of its goodness, the "Hanna-Payne" bill provided that the "compensation" should be payable as follows: (1) upon gross tonnage; (2) for mileage sailed both outward and homeward bound; (3) to all vessels "engaged in trade between our own and foreign countries; (4) according to speed, the rate per ton to certain vessels, with ability to speed above 14 knots, was increased proportionably, depending on a trial test at sea to establish a record. There was nothing to be deducted or withheld for voyages in ballast, or with partial cargoes. The total tonnage upon which "compensation” was payable was, in fact, that of entrances and clearances added together. It was claimed that the terms were "as low as feasible, if success might be hoped for." Practically, all American foreign trade shipping would have come under the operation of the law. Rate of Compensation and its Annual Amount. Sailing vessels, and steamers of less trial speed than 14 knots, were to be compensated at the lowest rate, namely, "one and one half |