Tonnage and comparative carriage in foreign trade before and after reciprocity agreements-Continued. 2Terminated by foreign country giving notice. Superseded by later treaty or convention. 5 Terminated by war. 6 Convention at first protective on both sides; became nonprotective in 1828; terminable after six months' notice. Continuable by its own terms; terminable on one year's notice. As to reciprocity articles only. By act of Congress-repealable. 10 To be revised if desired after five years. 11 Abrogated by treaty, 1853. Italics-Countries we now have agreements with. Ind.-Term is indefinite, but terminable after one year's notice. EXPLOITATION OF OUR FOREIGN TRADE. The foregoing table shows that the adoption of our present nonprotective shipping policy was soon followed by exploitation of our commerce and navigation, eating like a cancer into our thrift and independence, into our substance and solvency, into our character as well as our wealth. It is now gnawing at our bones. All the shipping nations having conventions with us for nonprotection, which alone enables them to appropriate our trade, have resorted to protection of some kind to hold their places in the carriage of commerce or else enjoy advantages equivalent to acts of protection. This justifies our release. Only equality of footing and equitable operation can exemplify a just reciprocity. Any other is a fraud. The following tables give point to the accusation just made. But seven foreign flags are given, being the principal beneficiaries of our policy. TABLE A.-Exports of merchandise by vessels of the principal flags, 1902. TABLE B.-Imports of merchandise by vessels of the principal flags, 1902. She Norway was the first recipient of benefits from full reciprocity, which has become no reciprocity at all. The carrying done by her large fleet in our trade all belongs to our own vessels, there being neither trade nor transportation to reciprocate with her. She carries $64.21 of our exports to countries not under her flag for each dollar's worth she carries home. We carry to her nothing whatever. brings $284.49 of our imports from countries not under her flag for each'dollar's worth she brings from home. She carries one-third as much of our commerce as we do ourselves. She does this by no just right, only by a privilege we have granted her in a convention terminable at our pleasure on notice of a single year. Belgium carries in our commerce, both ways, a quantity of freight greatly in excess of her proper trade with us. Of exports she takes to other ports than her own 71.24 per cent, and brings from such ports 87.83 per cent of all that she lands in our country. None of this transport belongs of right to her marine, but most of it by right belongs to our own. British carriage in our commerce is peculiar. Of our exports they take the larger part, 69.20 per cent, to home and colonial ports, while they bring the larger part of imports from countries not under their flag-56.36 per cent. Of our total exports they take away 63.36 per cent, and of our total imports they bring 53.21 per cent. Of the exports carried to non-British ports by the seven foreign nations (in the table) 69.48 per cent go by British ships; of the imports brought from non-British ports 65.57 per cent come in ships of the British flag. Of our entire sea carriage, in foreign trade, 58.81 per cent is done by British shipping. Thus the contention of one hundred and twenty years for the carriage of American commerce has been richly repaid through the unprotection of our marine and the protection of their own. Holland carries in our trade of exports to countries not under her flag the least of any of the seven nations-17.33 per cent. She brings from such countries 53.87 per cent, or three times as much in value as she carries to them. She was the first nation to accord us fair play on the ocean. Germany has of late greatly advanced in navigation. German pride throughout the world has been enlisted in assisting the Government to foster German shipping. This flag now ranks all but the British in the carriage of American commerce. It is more legitimate, however, as much less is carried to and brought from countries not under German rule. Of our exports she freights 71.98 per cent to her home and colonial ports, and from thence she brings 57.46 per cent of all she carries to ours. Italy, like France, is under a bounty policy. Like France, too, she aims to increase her marine at our expense. Of our exports which she takes 42.05 per cent are carried to countries not her own; of the imports that she brings, 38.07 per cent comes from ports not her own. France feels herself desperately situated. She must have shipping power or lose much in national rank-perhaps ultimately her independence. Much of her commerce is due to her possession of shipping. She has now few colonies, and her volume of exports is moderate, though valuable. Her marine need not be large on the score of her commerce, as in our own case and that of Great Britain. Her plan seems to be cut as deeply as possible into the carrying trade of the United States and all countries not ambitious of shipping power. Hence her highly subsidized marine. Of our exports taken by French ships, 22.71 per cent are carried to countries not her own; and of the imports received in return, 34.90 per cent comes from such countries and communities. As for the exploitation of our commerce done by other foreign flags, it is not large. Of the total value carried, the percentage is only 7.46 for exports and 4.53 for imports. Summing up the exploitation feature, we find the seven flags to have carried, of exports to home and colonial ports, an average of 67.34 per cent, and to the ports of other countries 32.66 per cent; and of imports these flags have brought from home and colonial ports 46.02 per cent and from the ports of other countries 53.98 per cent. Taking exports and imports together, the proportion is, to and from ports of other countries than their own, 41.16 per cent. We may therefore conclude that about 42 per cent of our commerce is indirectly carried by foreign shipping instead of directly by our own. Besides this, they carry our part of commerce in the direct trade. We carry 8 per cent ourselves of both direct and indirect, and should reach the mark of 75 to 80 per cent. The time has come to reestablish the principle that the carriage of the commerce between any two nations belongs to their vessels. Third parties have no rights in it except by consent of both, for if one has no ships with which to carry its share of the trade it has no right to prefer a third nation to its correspondent whose vessel fairly comes in for the carriage that is lacking. There is no just ground for the ambition to carry for "the world.' Policies of this nature contravene the just rights of all nations, and all should resist their operation as offensively monopolistic. Coming to the solution of the problem of an American marine, we find but one that is true and practical, namely, the specific mode provided in the Constitution-the regulation of our foreign commerce. Without this regulation we shall fail, whatever other measures we may adopt. And with this regulation, unless we fix our discrimination high enough, we shall not wholly succeed. The case is of such long standing that any successful remedy must approach the powerful and severe. AS TO THE TREATIES. The CHAIRMAN. Captain Bates, as I understand the matter, you are an advocate of differential duties? Mr. BATES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you given careful consideration to the question whether, in view of our commercial treaties with some thirty-odd nations of the world, that is a practicable scheme? Mr. BATES. In the Protectionist for June is an article I prepared to cover the point about the treaties and conventions and relations that we hold to-day. That article has already been received by this honorable Commission in New York, and it will be in your proceedings.. There is no trouble at all in regard to the treaties except that we must give a year's notice. No matter what we do, we ought to get rid of that policy, because under it we have lost our marine. The act of 1828 authorizing these different conventions amounted to very little until the English came in. That act was intended to induce the British to let us enter the West Indies. The CHAIRMAN. The Commission are pretty well acquainted, Captain, with these historical facts; but what I wanted to bring out from you is whether you are fully satisfied in your own mind that the abrogation of those treaties would not create a commercial uproar, as between our nation and the other nations of the world, which would be very troublesome, and whether or not it would result in retaliation on the part of foreign nations. Mr. BATES. It would do no harm at all, because the treaties and conventions, or whatever they may be, are all time agreements. The first one ever made was made with Great Britain in 1815, and it ran for four years; but we were making a treaty with them at that time in London with reference to the fisheries, and they made the point that we must extend, and we did extend, that first convention in this treaty of 1818. At another time, in 1827, we had a convention with them in London, and they got the treaty extended then by certain articles in a separate document, extending it indefinitely; but either party, by giving notice of one year to the other of his intention to terminate it, could terminate it after the lapse of that time. These treaties are all conventions relating to this maritime business. They are mere time agreements with a provision that on a year's notice they can be terminated by either party. That is true of all of them except the one with France, which requires a notice of six months. There are some twenty-two of these treaties, and the other party can give us notice and get rid of them at any time. The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Captain Bates. Your paper will be read with great interest by the American people. STATEMENT OF C. E. KREMER. C. E. Kremer appeared before the Commission. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kremer, will you state to the Commission what is your present business? Mr. KREMER. I make a specialty of practicing admiralty and maritime law. I am also a shipowner on the Lakes, and am intimately connected with shipbuilding and the commerce of the Lakes. The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the provisions of law under which this Commission is acting and the duties that are imposed upon it? |