No. 8.

1845.

Report of Select Committee on the subject of Inspec tion of Fish.

The select committee, to whom has been referred sundry petitions on the subject of the inspection of fish, have had the same under consideration, and have directed their chairman to make the following report:

That by the revised statutes, part first, title seventh, chapter first, provision is made for the suitable inspection of beef, pork, butter, lard, fish, flour, meal, leather and some other minor articles, the whole placed upon one general footing, with moderate penalties attached to the violation of the various provisions contained in said chapter. By an act approved March 6, 1843, (see laws of 1843, page 54,) sections 43 and 46 of said chapter, were repealed. Those sections were in the following words:

"SEC. 43. If any master of a vessel, or other person, shall put or "receive on board of any boat or vessel, or in any carriage of con

veyance, for the purpose of sale within, or transportation from this "State, any pickled fish, not inspected and branded as provided in "this chapter, he shall forfeit a sum not exceeding ten dollars for cask of such fish."

66 every

"SEC. 46. If any person shall sell or offer for sale any pickled "fish imported into this State, and not inspected and branded accord"ing to the laws of the State or County from which it shall have been "brought, without first having the same duly inspected and branded "agreeably to the provisions of this chapter, he shall forfeit ten dol"lars for each cask so sold or offered for sale."

Similar penal sections still exist touching the violation of the inspection laws as to other articles herein enumerated, and your committee are unable to perceive any distinction in principle between the laws in relation to the importation or exportation of one article and those of another. In the memorial against these particular penal

clauses, the fact is set forth and admitted, that other States have not only similar, but far more rigid laws in regard to the article of fishnot admitting it into their ports even when it has been duly inspected here, until it has again passed a similar ordeal by an officer of their

own.

While the committee do not, at this time, feel called upon to express an opinion in regard to the abstract question of regulating trade in these respects by legislative enactments, they yet have no hesitation in saying that policy, consistency, propriety and justice all require the re-enactment of the provisions above recited, and for the repeal of which the committee can perceive the existence of no pos sible motive.

If a farmer of Michigan markets a barrel of beef in New York, he is compelled to have it inspected at an expense of fifteen cents out of his own pocket; and if this law is necessary for the safety of trade, the credit of the State, or the prevention of imposition, the committee cannot perceive why the same arguments would not apply to the exportation or importation of fish. All of these provisions of law are designed for the regulation of the foreign trade, and it is believed that the re-enactment of the sections above alluded to would effect none other.

The committee, therefore, recommend the passage of the accom panying bill.

A. C. SMITH, Chairman.

No. 9. S

1845.

Report of the Committee on State Affairs, of the Senate of Michigan.

Dr. DENTON, from the committee on State Affairs, to whom was referred the joint resolution relating to the protection of American industry, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report:

The various expedients to which governments have resorted for the protection and encouragement of favorite branches of industry, have been too numerous for a recapitulation in the limits assigned for the present report; but the most efficient and economical of these means, are found to be a duty on imports, or a bounty on exports, according to the circumstances of the case.

For instance, regular importations of a given article never take place into any country, unless there be a deficiency in the domestic. supply, as bread-stuffs and provisions in England, and woolens and iron in the United States. And it is only under such circumstances that impost duties can be protective; but in such cases the protection is to the full amount of the duty. To illustrate this, we will suppose, for an example, what is nearly the fact. Wheat, (one article of bread-stuffs extensively consumed in England,) is raised by English farmers to the amount of about one hundred millions of bushels per annum ; but the demand in England exceeds this supply by about ten millions of bushels per annum. The cost of wheat on the continent or in America, is such that it cannot be put down in London or Liverpool free of duty, (including all costs and charges, insurance and profits,) for less than $1,50 per bushel. At this rate the English farmer could ask $1,50 per bushel for his wheat, with the assurance of getting that price; for the demand could not be supplied for less from abroad, and whoever wishes to buy, will as soon pay $1,50 for domestic English wheat, as to pay the same price for a foreign article of no better quality; and it would be out of the power of the English farmer to put it up and hold it any higher, else foreign wheat would be purchased exclusively.