CHAPTER VI.

AN EFFORT TO FURTHER ENCOURAGE NAVIGATION.

Increase of Duties on Foreign Shipping. The House of Representatives, responding to Washington's first annual address, January 12, 1790, said:

"We concur with you in the sentiment that agriculture, commerce and manufactures are entitled to legislative protection."

In some parts of the Union the acts of July 4th and 20th, 1789, had encouraged commercial enterprise, the shipyards showed signs of life, but it was not yet certain that we had handicapped sufficiently the foreign vessels entering into our trade. A strong petition from Portsmouth, N. H., praying for an increase of tonnage tax on foreign shipping became the subject of a report to the House, May 10, 1790.

Mr. Smith, of S. C., moved to strike out the first clause of the measure proposed, which was that the duty on foreign vessels be raised from 50 cents to $1 per ton. In his view this increase would be at the cost of the Southern States. "The navigating States had already obtained considerable favors; their vessels paid only 6 cents, while foreigners paid 50 cents; even when sold to foreigners they paid only 30 cents; they had a monopoly of the coasting trade, and the East India trade, and goods imported in American bottoms were entitled to a discount of 10 per cent. on the duties. They had by nature every advantage in shipbuilding; they could build for nearly one half the sum it would cost in Europe; they had all the materials for building and equipping at hand, and yet they were not satisfied, but were pressing for further benefits. At least they should wait to learn the effects of the laws passed last session."

1 These were not the facts except as to England. For large vessels, anchors and chains, bolt fastening, rigging and sails were imported.

Mr. Fitzsimons, of Pa., in reply said: "The agricultural interest was fully represented in Congress. The agriculture of the country, notwithstanding the duty on foreign tonnage, had not suffered; on the other hand, he would appeal to gentlemen from all quarters, whether the produce of the country had ever been in greater demand, or had sold for a better price.

"One object of the report was to encourage the important business of shipbuilding — the materials were of small value in themselves contrasted with the price of a ship. The operation of the tonnage act had been advantageous to trade. The benefits of the Revolution are yet to be realized by the Eastern States; the Southern have the ports of the world open to them; the Eastern are excluded from ports they formerly traded to with their exports. He did not favor a prohibitive duty, at the same time it was a great misfortune to have the carrying trade monopolized by foreigners."

Mr. Williamson, of N. C., favored the increase of duty. Mr. Jackson, of Ga., opposed it" We had already gone far enough."

Mr. Page, of Va., differed with his colleague (Mr. White), the tonnage duty proposed by the Committee (on petition) being "the very same which Virginia actually laid on British bottoms, cannot be too high, as that experiment was attended with happy effects, although made by that State alone. British merchants immediately giving that freight to Virginia ships, which, till then, was refused them, and without increasing the freight in British bottoms. Indeed, I thought the freight was rather lowered by it, until a gentleman from Virginia, who was here when I mentioned these circumstances the last session, told me I was mistaken. . . . One dollar is the sum I wished to have voted the foreign tonnage at last session; I have heard no argument to alter my opinion. . . . The fears of the gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia are groundless.

"I believe it is the interest of the Southern States that shipbuilding should be encouraged to the utmost extent in the United States. The fine timber they have would then be sold to advantage in the form of ships, instead of being destroyed or thrown away under the name of lumber, or in trifling staves.

It is their interest that their sister States should carry for them, instead of foreigners. Under the late Confederation, when each State was proud of its separate sovereignty and independent interest, and viewed each other with a jealous eye, I have heard harsh expressions respecting the growing naval strength of the Eastern States; but under the present Government there is no reason for such reflections; their strength is the strength of the Union; and in this respect they are to the United States what Holland is to the United Provinces. I affirm again, sir, that we are in no danger from the retaliation of Britain; and we may with more propriety raise the tonnage tax than increase the duties on articles."

May 12, the motion for striking out the clause proposing a tax of one dollar per ton on foreign vessels was negatived, as was another motion to insert 75 cents in place of one dollar.

May 13, Mr. Smith, of S. C., moved to postpone collection of the increased duty until January 1, next; this was agreed to. Mr. Madison said he was friendly to the proposition, but he doubted much the policy of laying this duty on the shipping of France, a country that favored our vessels in several respects. He wished a discrimination in favor of the French. The resolution was amended to favor "treaty nations."

May 14, Mr. Madison moved an addition to the resolution of May 13, viz.: "that from and after the day of next the tonnage on all such vessels be raised to -; and from and after the next no such vessel be permitted to export from the United States any unmanufactured article being the growth of produce thereof."

day of

British Policy criticised. A spirited debate ensued. Mr. Hartley, of Pa., favored the discrimination. "In private life," said he, "the man who shows himself my friend, I should affectionately regard. To the man who treats me with esteem, I wish to make a proper return; but the man who is vindictive, and strives to ruin my interest and my property, I would endeavor to counteract or oppose by measures which might defeat his purpose. The same principles of conduct may, perhaps, be fairly applied to nations. I feel no enmity towards Great Britain, so long as she treats this country with the justice and

respect due to us; but she seems indirectly, nay, I might almost say directly, by her policy and regulations, to attack our ship. building, navigation, and commerce, and wishes to injure our interests and our property. We have a right to oppose her by counter regulations, or by a system which may induce her to examine the subject, to correct her errors, and to do us justice. Past injuries may be forgiven. I will agree that those of the war shall be in the dust. But when I agree that the injuries of one nation shall be in the dust, I must also observe that our friendship for another nation, who served and relieved us in distress, should be in marble.

"At the last session, it was said that Britain was disposed to do us justice, and relax from some of the policy she had practiced. We were desired to wait, and all should be well. We waited, but at this session we cannot learn from any authentic documents that she has stirred in the smallest degree. Since the adoption of the new Constitution and the formation of this Government, Great Britain has experienced many advantages; she has gained much by the sweets of commerce. This Government has shown the fullest disposition to comply with the spirit of the treaty (of peace). We have established tribunals of justice, in which British subjects may recover satisfaction for any demands they may have against the individuals of these States, without the smallest danger or partiality or injustice. What has she done in return? She has been civil in some instances, for which we give her credit; for her friendship or justice we cannot say so much. The attack upon our commerce has been spoken of before. Why has she not given up the posts? She still retains them, though by solemn treaty she was bound to deliver them up; and to the want of these posts we may, in a great measure, impute the depredations and murders of the savages upon our Western frontiers. I do not say that the British countenance or support those invaders; but were the posts in our hands a great check might be given to such enormities. It has been observed that we risk much by adopting the resolution; a commercial warfare might turn out ruinous to America. If our risk is great, that of Britain will be greater; she has immense capitals in this trade; we import

many of her luxuries; we are chiefly clothed in her manufactures, and I think it will be difficult, if not almost impossible, for her merchants to change those capitals into other channels, so as to be equally productive. I shall vote for the resolution."

The Danger of Retaliation. Mr. Sedgwick, of Mass., thought this measure was one of great impropriety. Said he, "we are declaring against one country in favor of another; for what purpose? Do gentlemen expect that France will aid our carrying trade; I believe not. The consequence would probably be advantageous to Massachusetts, but very injurious to Georgia." Mr. Smith, of S. C., thought it very impolitic to enter into commercial warfare with Great Britain. "We ought not to condemn her for following her usual policy in her navigation laws; they are not particularly aimed at us; her Navigation Act was originally aimed at the Dutch. . . . We should not resent the policy of Great Britain in supporting her own navigation laws."

The Answering Speech of Madison. Mr. Madison replied to the several arguments against his motion. "It had neither been dictated by passion, nor supported with passion; he considered it a cool and proper measure. As to the distinction between nations, this was not in his present proposition — but we were the less restrained from making the distinction, because the Nation against which the measures were designed to operate, had not hesitated to set the example. He had before shown, that the principle on which the trade with the West Indies was regulated by Great Britain, was a departure from the principle of her Navigation Act: according to that act, all other nations were allowed to carry directly their own produce in their own vessels, wherever the same trade was allowed by the act to British vessels. A gentleman from Pa. was afraid the measure was too bold a one. But why was it too bold, if, as the weighty information and arguments of the gentleman himself had shown, there was no danger?-if the existence of the West Indies, and the prosperity of Great Britain depended so materially on the trade with the United States, that it would be madness in her to hazard an interruption of it?"