preference which we ought to give our own navigation. Mr. LAWRENCE.-The subject before us requires the most particular consideration, for several important reasons. I shall, therefore, without apology, proceed to state some observations. In a former debate it was remarked, that the duty on tonnage must eventually fall upon the productions of our country. If this is a just observation, we ought to consider whether the prices that those productions bear at foreign markets are such as to bear this extra imposition. If we have not shipping enough of our own, (and that point, I imagine, will be conceded me,) we shall be under the necessity of employing foreign vessels in the transportation of such articles as we have to dispose of; the owners, knowing our necessity, will take advantage of the duty to raise their freight; and thus the duty will inevitably fall upon our selves. [APRIL, 1789. Mr. HARTLEY, thinking sixty cents too high, proposed one-third of a dollar, or thirty-three and one-third cents. Mr. GOODHUE was fully of opinion that the duty ought not to be laid so high as to prevent foreign shipping from coming amongst us, while they were useful or necessary to our navigation nor yet so high as to injure the sale of our own productions in foreign markets. But can it be said, that a duty of less than five per cent. on the tonnage of foreign vessels can be attended with such ill consequences? He apprehended it coul not, and was very well satisfied that sixty cents was as little as could be mentioned, to give encouragement to our own vessels. Mr. FITZSIMONS admitted the importance of the subject as stated by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. LAWRENCE,) and thought it the duty of the committee to consider well its effects before they came to a decision. There could be no doubt entertained of the policy of meeting the commercial regulations of foreign Powers with commercial regulations of our own. In these regulations, the policy is for each to obtain for its own vessels an advantage over those belonging to foreign nations. We certainly ought not to be less attentive to our interest than others are to theirs; every advantage, therefore, which can be justly given to our own shipping is due them. Happy effects may no doubt be derived from the present policy; but, on this head, I am not altogether so sanguine as some gentlemen seem to be with the encouragement proposed. The merchant may be induced to vest more considerable sums in property of this kind than heretofore, and at some future period we may become at least the carriers of our own commerce. In this case, too, we have every reason to believe the freight will be less than it is at the present time in foreign vessels. It is well known to this committee, that in the different ports of the United States we have a variety of articles peculiarly calculated for exportation, and which we are obliged to export; such as rice, lumber, tobacco, potash, flaxseed, and a great many others; besides, it is also well known, that we have not that quantity of American shipping which is required in the transportation of these articles; it is necessary, therefore, that we either employ foreigners, or suffer our commodities to perish on our hands. If this be true, you will have, as I said before, to consider whether the articles we thus export are capable of bearing this additional burden upon the prices they bring in foreign markets: I think they are not. Gentlemen from the Southern States mentioned the other day, that the planters had begun to turn their attention to other productions than those they were accustomed to the cultivation of, because their staple commodities could no longer be exported to advantage. If difficulties of this kind exist now, without the operation of a tonnage act, what will they be when so considerable a burden is laid upon them? But what advantage will accrue from the regulation, when the duty we impose upon foreigners must revert back, in its operation, upon us? Besides, as the duty must be paid out of the price of the articles exported, it will, in effect, be the same as a tax upon such articles, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. If foreigners enhance their freight The tonnage employed in the transportation of in proportion to the duty, and our commodities the productions of America, he estimated at about are unable to bear the additional expense, gentle- 600,000 tons; of this two-thirds are owned by men will have reason to deprecate the conse- citizens, the other one-third by foreigners. From quences; it must unavoidably check domestic in- this view of our navigation, he very much doubtdustry, the sole foundation of national welfare ed if any restrictions which could be laid on and importance. For what stimulus will the foreign vessels would produce immediately, or at farmer have to raise more produce than is neces- a very short period, the additional tonnage necessary for his own support? Will he toil in culti-sary to supply the whole American trade. We vating the earth, in gathering in its increase, to have the fruits of his labor perish in his granaries? Once destroy this spring of industry, and your country totters to ruin. Will the proposed high duty have such effect? I fear it may; and therefore shall be for a much lower sum. Thirty cents will be a sufficient duty. A calculation of what may be the proper duty, made from the freight of a ship, is but an indefinite way of coming at the object. He understood the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GOODHUE) to have calculated the freight of a voyage, at five per cent. on the value of the vessel; but surely the gentleman was mistaken. He believed no ship paid a clear profit of five per cent. to the owner, at this time; such was the embarrassed state of American commerce. are limited, said he, in this particular, by not possessing capital sufficient to do it. If a merchant vests his capital in shipping, he will want it in the operations in which it is now employed; yet, nevertheless, he was firmly of opinion, that good policy required a discrimination between our own and foreign vessels, in order to give the former APRIL, 1789.] Duties on Imports. [H. of R. quantity is exported. The duty will be paid equally, in either case, by the shipper, for the freight of American vessels will be raised to an equality with the other; and of all this money so paid, there comes into the Treasury that part only collected from foreigners; the rest, as I said before, goes as bounty to benefit the owners of American ships. I trust it cannot be said by the advocates for high tonnage, that the States most likely to be affected by such a measure do not bear a proportion to the other taxes, because it is flagrant that they bear more than their proportion. Where, then, let me ask, is the justice of extending it? encouragement. America must, from her natural ers, and in American shipping a considerable situation, participate considerably in the commerce of the world, and ought to have the means of protecting it; but while this is gradually growing up into strength, it would be impolitic to deprive ourselves of the convenience which foreign shipping affords. Then we will not adopt such a duty as must deter foreigners from coming amongst us until we are in better circumstances. If we lay a duty at two-thirds of a dollar per ton on the vessels of nations in alliance, we cannot propose to lay less than a dollar on those with whom we have not treaties. A ship of two hundred tons will then have to pay two hundred dollars; a very considerable expense, perhaps much more than our trade can bear. If we are to discriminate between nations in treaty and those not in treaty, I should prefer the lowest sum proposed on the first, and the highest on the other. but I fear that it is more than it is able to afford. But besides drawing this to themselves, you are to consider they are exempt from contributing any part of the duty on foreign tonnage. So far as I can make a calculation in my own mind, I conclude that the duty on tonnage proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GOODHUE) would amount, on what is employed There was an observation made by the gentle- at the port of Charleston alone, to forty or fifty man from New York, (Mr. LAWRENCE,) which thousand dollars annually-one-third of the whole though it does not apply strictly to the subject tonnage is foreign, the other two-thirds American. under consideration, it may not be amiss to remark The first is all that could come into your Treaupon. It is said, that the duty on tonnage must sury; the latter goes, need I repeat it, into the inevitably fall upon the produce of the country, pockets of individuals, as an extra reward for and be a reduction of so much of the planter's serving us. I think a bounty of thirty thousand profits; this assertion is probably founded on a dollars to our Eastern brethren would be no inconpresumption that foreigners can draw their sup-siderable one from the port of Charleston alone; plies conveniently from other parts of the world. But these articles are not conveniently to be had from any other quarter; consequently, if they are necessary to the people of those nations which we supply, the duty will fall upon them. Lumber and flour are necessary to the West Indies; but the truth is, they cannot be obtained any where else than from America. As our shipping are restrained from carrying these articles to the place of consumption, it may certainly be thought good policy to draw a revenue from those vessels that carry them for us. Rice is not raised in any other country sufficient to supply the European market; it is so with tobacco; of consequence, the consumer must pay what we demand. But it would not be prudent to lay our restraints too heavy, lest we deprive ourselves of the use of foreign shipping; thirty cents is probably enough to answer every good purpose. Mr. TUCKER.-I am willing to give every proper encouragement to ship-building in the United States, but I cannot consent that it should bear heavy on certain States, while part of their burden is received by others as a bounty. I mean to move, therefore, for a small duty, although I am sensible that it will be exclusively borne by a few of the Southern members of the Union. Some States, it is well known, have more tonnage than is sufficient to carry all their small productions to a market; of course, a duty on foreign ships will not affect them. Other States, which have considerable quantities of more bulky articles to export, require a greater number of ships, having few or none of their own, must consequently be subjected to the whole of the additional duty; for, whether the vessels be foreign or American, the freight will be the same. Much of the produce of South Carolina is carried off by foreign1st CoN.-7 I wish gentlemen also to consider, that there remains another addition to be made to the duty on tonnage-I mean that of nations with whom the United States have formed no treaty. If we lay sixty cents now, and contemplate a still higher sum on the other, it will certainly be insupportable to those States which have no shipping; I think the lowest sum that has been mentioned is as much as can be required by any State; I am sure it is more than some are able to bear. Being convinced in my own judgment of this, I will move twenty cents, and think it fully sufficient to effect what gentlemen have in contemplation; it will be a liberal encouragement to an interest which I wish success to; and though it is at the expense of a few States, I shall be satisfied with the measure, under a hope that it may eventually promote the general welfare. Mr. BENSON wished a previous question, to ascertain whether there should be a discrimination in the manner proposed or not? For his part, he did not discover, from any thing that had been said, the principle of policy or interest which was to guide us on this occasion. He supposed it was intended that the Dutch and French ships should be preferred to English. Now, if this policy was for the interest of America, he was content; but he saw nothing that pointed out the necessity. Are we bound by treaty or compact to make this discrimination? If we are, it is certainly proper to make it. But he did not know of any treaty which directed our conduct in this affair. He knew our treaties mentioned that they should be entitled to the same advantages as the most fa vored nations, but this does not, even by construction, mean that we should prefer them to every other. If it is for the advantage of our country to give this preference, although we are not bound to do it, he would be content it should be so; but he wished gentlemen would decide this point before a question was taken on filling up the blank. Mr. BURKE thought sixty cents a very extravagant impost upon the tonnage of foreign shipping. Did gentlemen see the extent of the mischief, or were they unacquainted with the present state of the staple productions of Virginia, Carolina, and Georgia, which, if carried to market, are so fallen in price as not to reward the planter's toil; whilst great part of our tobacco and rice, for want of vessels to carry them, are now decaying in our warehouses? Will not restrictions therefore tend to hurt those productions? If they will, he trusted gentlemen would be moderate in laying them; he was satisfied that the citizens of the State he came from considered a high tonnage duty as a great evil; he saw it in the same light also, and was therefore opposed to it. [APRIL 1789. subjects of Great Britain; of consequence, they cannot be sold without a considerable loss. Nay, so cautious are they to prevent the advantages we naturally possess, that they will not suffer a British ship to be repaired in America, beyond a certain proportion of her value; they even will not permit our vessels to be repaired in their ports. Another consideration has some weight with me in deciding the question of discrimination. The policy of our ally, from the views of the minister employed, has frequently been adverse to the interest of this country. The person who has had the charge of our affairs at that Court has long been soliciting a relaxation in our favor, and although it cannot be declared that he has succeeded, yet there is reason to believe he has made some impressions, which our conduct ought to avoid effacing; they are such as merit national attention, and might justify a discrimination at this time, although it may be proper to hold ourselves at liberty to pursue that policy which a change may make necessary. There are also other considerations which ought to be taken into Mr. SHERMAN would trouble the committee no view. From artificial or adventitious causes, the further than just to remark, that the policy of lay- commerce between America and Great Britain ing a high tonnage on foreign vessels, whether in exceeds what may be considered its natural bountreaty or not in treaty, was at best but a doubtful dary. I find from an examination of the accounts point. The regulation is certainly intended as an of tonnage for the three large States of Massaencouragement to our own shipping; but if this chusetts, Virginia, and South Carolina, that the is not to be the consequence of the measure, it tonnage of nations in alliance with us holds no promust be an improper one. If a large duty is laid portion with that of Great Britain, or of the Union foreigners coming into our ports, they will be ted States. This is a proof that a very small induced to counteract us, by increasing the re-direct commerce takes place between those counstraints which our vessels already labor under in theirs. But sixty cents will surely be too high in the present case, if it is proposed to lay more on foreigners not in treaty. Not seeing, therefore, any advantage resulting from high duties on tonnage, he should vote against the sixty cents. tries and this; that there is less of direct intercourse than there would naturally be if those extraneous and adventitious causes did not prevent it; such as the long possession of our trade, their commercial regulations calculated to retain it, their similarity of language and manners, their Mr. MADISON.-Some gentlemen have seemed conformity of laws and other circumstances-all to call in question the policy of discriminating these concurring have made their commerce with between nations in commercial alliance with the us more extensive than their natural situation United States, and those with whom no treaties would require it to be. I would wish, therefore, exist. For my own part, I am well satisfied that to give such political advantages to those nations, there are good and substantial reasons for making as might enable them to gain their proportion of it. In the first place, it may not be unworthy of our direct trade from the nation who has acquired consideration, that the public sentiments of Ame- more than it is naturally her due. From this rica will be favorable to such discrimination. I view of the subject, I am led to believe it would am sure, with respect to that part from which I be good policy to make the proposed discriminacome, it will not be a pleasing ingredient in your tion between them. Is it not also of some importlaws, if they find foreigners of every nation put ance, that we should enable nations in treaty with on a footing with those in alliance with us. There us to draw some advantage from our alliance, and is another reason, which, perhaps, is more appli- thereby impress those Powers that have hitherto cable to some parts of the Union than others; one neglected to treat with us, with the idea that adof the few nations with which America has form-vantages are to be gained by a reciprocity of ed commercial connexions has relaxed considera- friendship? If we give every thing equally to bly in that rigid policy it before pursued-not so those who have or have not formed treaties, surefar, to be sure, as America could wish, with re-ly we do not furnish to them any motive for spect to opening her ports to our trade; but she courting our connexion. has permitted our ready built ships a sale, and entitles them to the same advantage, when owned by her own citizens, as if they had been built in France, subjecting the sale to a duty of five per cent. The British market receives none; the disabilities of our ships to trade with their colonies continue, even if they are purchased by the It has been objected, that the price of our produce at foreign markets would not bear this additional burden, and that the freight must be paid by the planters. It will be unnecessary, after what was said by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. FITZSIMONS,) to take up the time of the committee in observing that foreigners must receive our tobacco, rice, &c., in American shipping, if they cannot be otherwise got. There may be a discrimination made in other respects besides in tonnage, so that a very high impost on this article need not be insisted upon. But will any gentleman say, British vessels ought to enjoy in American ports greater advantages than_are enjoyed by Americans in British ports? Yet, were the duties laid equal in both cases, the British merchant would have a very great superiority. In the first place, some of the most valuable ports which she possesses, and most conducive to our interest, are absolutely closed, while every port in the United States is open to her without restriction or limitation. Again, even in those which it is permitted America to enter her vessels, she must bring nothing but the produce of her own soil, whilst the British ship makes circuitous voyages, and brings with her the produce of every quarter of the globe. These are material advantages; and take the whole of these observations together, I think they furnish substantial reasons for making the proposed discrimination. Mr. LAWRENCE.-The question in this case, I take it, will be the policy of giving a preference to one nation above another. I would ask the gentleman over the way, (Mr. MADISON,) if we have experienced advantages from the Powers with whom we have treaties, sufficient to entitle them to this preference? If we have, and are under obligations to them for such advantages, I shall be the last man to say any thing to prevent a grateful discharge of those obligations; if we are under no such, we are left to act from what we may consider our best interest; for nations, as well as individuals, are guided by the principle of interest. If, then, it will operate against the interest of the United States, it will be bad policy to give this preference; if it is congenial to and consistent with that interest, then it becomes our duty to give it. The gentleman last up has stated several considerations why a preference should be given to the vessels of foreigners in treaty. He tells you, the public sentiment is in favor of the measure. I would ask him how is the public sentiment, in this case, to be collected? Is it to be collected from the conversation of individuals, or from the acts of public bodies? If from the conversation of individuals, I am not so well informed as he is, because I never heard it mentioned; if from the acts of public bodies, we may be on a footing, because they are to be come at with a little inquiry and application. Now, if my memory serves me right, I believe no discrimination has been made but by one State. I know the State I have the honor to represent on this floor has made none; we consider all foreigners upon an equal footing, and that it is not our interest to give a preference to any, and therefore we do not do it. The gentleman says, there has been a relaxation in the policy of one Power in alliance with us, and in France we may now sell ships built in America under certain regulations; but, probably, this privilege may be no benefit to us. I believe we have not sold more than two vessels in that country since the alteration has been made, [H. OF R. and these, perhaps, without advantage; if I am mistaken, let me be set right, and let the gentleman make it appear that we can draw a benefit from this relaxation sufficient to justify the present measure. He mentioned also an expectation of some further alterations in our favor. I admit we may have such expectation, but probably it may not be realized. Some time ago, we had some privilege respecting the importation of oil into France; but an alteration has taken place on this subject, and our privilege, together with the benefit, is gone. The gentleman mentioned, that the commerce of Britain with this country was too great in proportion to that of other nations; but this is a point not for the Government to settle. I maintain, that the merchants of America are well able to understand and pursue their own interests, and the advantages which they obtain tend to the wealth and prosperity of the Union. If they find it their interest or convenience to form connexions with the subjects of one nation in preference to another, why should the Government interfere to dissolve it? They should be left to themselves, like the industrious bee, to gather from the choicest flower the greatest abundance of commercial sweets. I believe there is a propriety in discriminating between our own citizens and foreigners; but as to the latter, there is no good reason for establishing a preference among them. It is not contended that we are bound by treaty to do any such thing; if we are not bound by treaty, then we are left at liberty to pursue our particular interest. And here I would ask gentlemen, if it can be our interest, not having vessels enough of our own, to discourage the competition among foreigners for our carrying trade? If we give a preference, we destroy the competition. The Dutch, I am informed, navigate the cheapest of any nation; they have a treaty with the United States: of course, they will carry our produce in the first instance; but as they will not furnish enough, we must look further, to France. This nation does not accommodate us with enough either. We then go to nations not in treaty, and subject ourselves to this additional burden, and must give them what they exact. We are told that American vessels have not the same advantage in British ports that British ships have in America. This may be true; but it must be considered, that our vessels are on an equal footing with their own in carrying the produce of our country, while articles of the same nature, imported from other parts of the world, pay an additional duty. It may be well on this occasion to observe, that the nation against which this regulation is directed, may be disposed to meet you with a similar regulation, and destroy that part of our carrying trade which remains to us. At present we can export potash, lumber, iron, and other articles to England, and we pay no higher duty than British vessels, but a small alien duty to which all nations are subjected. Upon the whole, it is good policy, I believe, to let commerce take its own course, and not to attempt discrimination, which may eventually prove more injurious to us than we at present conceive. We H. or R.] OF Duties on Imports. [APRIL, 1789. In the trade of South Carolina is employed an ought to contemplate our own interest as a na- portion of French and Dutch is about 2,100 tons, of them establish a preference to French wines and brandy. In Maryland, a similar policy has prevailed. I believe the difference there is about one-third in favor of our allies, (if I err, the gen tlemen from that State can set me right;) in Pennsylvania, there is a discrimination of about a fourth. I do not certainly recollect, but I believe the like policy exists in other States; but I have not had an opportunity of searching their laws on this point, but what I have enumerated are facts affording substantial proof that the public sentiment does favor the discrimination. Mr. MADISON. I am a friend to free commerce, and, at the same time, a friend to such regulations as are calculated to promote our own interest, and this on national principles. The great principle of interest is a leading one with me, and yet my combination of ideas on this head leads me to a very different conclusion from that made by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. LAWRENCE.) I wish we were under less necessity than I find we are to shackle our commerce with duties, restrictions, and preferences; but there are cases in It has been asked by the gentleman from New which it is impossible to avoid following the ex-York, (Mr. LAWRENCE,) what evidence we had ample of other nations in the great diversity of that the public sentiments of America were in our trade. Some reasons for this were mentioned favor of discrimination? Perhaps it would be on a former occasion; they have been frequently improper on this occasion to adduce any other illustrated in the progress of this business, and the proof of the fact than from the transactions of decision of the committee has proved them to public bodies; and here, I think, is abundant proof be necessary. to be found. The State of Virginia, if I am not I beg leave to remark, in answer to a train of mistaken, lays a double duty on tonnage; French ideas which the gentleman last up has brought and Dutch vessels pay half a dollar per ton, while into view, that although interest will, in general, the vessels of Great Britain are subjected to one operate effectually to produce political good, yet dollar. There are other distinctions in our revethere are causes in which certain factitious cir-nue laws manifesting the same principle; some cumstances may divert it from its natural channel, or throw or retain it in an artificial one. Have we not been exercised on this topic for a long time past? Or why has it been necessary to give encouragement to particular species of industry, but to turn the stream in favor of an interest that would not otherwise succeed? But laying aside the illustration of these causes, so well known to all nations, where cities, companies, or opulent individuals engross the business from others, by having had an uninterrupted possession of it, or by the extent of their capitals being able to destroy a competition, let us proceed to examine what ought to be our conduct on this principle, upon the present occasion. Suppose two commercial cities, one possessed of enormous capitals and long habits of business, whilst the other is possessed of superior natural advantages, but without that course of business and chain of connexions which the other has: is it possible, in the nature of things, that the latter city should carry on a successful competition with the former? Thus it is with nations; and 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. Trade, then, being restrained to an artificial channel, is not so advantageous to America as a direct intercourse would be; it becomes therefore the duty of those to whose care the public interest and welfare are committed, to turn the tide to a more favorable direction. Mr. BALDWIN observed, that the question immediately before the committee was of less importance than the one which had been argued by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LAWRENCE.) He was glad to have this question discussed, and thought the gentleman had very properly called in the public sentiment as an argument in favor of his motion for discrimination; but the gentleman over the way wants evidence of what the public sentiment is. I think, said he, we have a strong proof of what the public sentiment is in the very existence of the House. This sentiment he believed to be the cause of the revolution under which we are about to act. The commercial restrictions Great Britain placed upon our commerce in pursuing her selfish policy, gave rise to an unavailing clamor, and excited the feeble attempt which several of the State Legislatures made to counteract the detestable regulations of a commercial enemy; but these proving altogether ineffectual to ward off the effects of the blow, or revenge their cause, the convention at Annapolis was formed for the express purpose of counteracting them on general principles. This convention 2 |