H. OF R.]

Duties on Tonnage.

[MAY, 1789.

of reciprocity? For I imagine those subjects monopolizing our trade; but finding, from fatiguwill be found to be connected. The arguments ing experience, that their separate efforts were inoffered against the measure are founded on a effectual, they united in forming the Governmen maxim of impolicy. It is stated, that as we have under which we deliberate. I will not say only not vessels enough of our own to transport the that if, in the first act of Congress, we abolish this produce of our country, and as this produce sells favorite distinction, we disappoint the expectalow, we ought not to enter into regulations that tions of the warmest friends and advocates of the will increase the price of freight. The plain Constitution, but we shall also disappoint the exmeaning of which I take to be, let us employ pectations of its enemies, and the people of Britain. those vessels that will do our business cheapest, The policy manifested by that nation towards making no kind of discrimination whatever. If us since the Revolution must evince to every this argument has weight, it goes against discrimi-thinking mind the necessity of extending our nating in favor of our own shipping. I admit, commerce to other channels, and no longer suffer that laying fifty cents on foreign vessels, and but her to regulate and limit us in this particular. six on our own, is a regulation by which the The policy of her Parliament has been on the owners of American shipping will put a consi- watch to seize every advantage which our weak derable part of the difference into their pockets. and unguarded situation exposed; she has bound This, sir, I consider as a sacrifice of interest to us in commercial manacles, and very nearly depolicy; the sacrifice is but small, but I should not feated the object of our independence. contend for it, if we did not stand in need of maritime improvements. Were it not for the necessity we are under of having some naval strength, I should be an advocate for throwing wide open the doors of our commerce to all the world, and making no kind of discrimination in favor of our own citizens. But we have maritime dangers to guard against, and we can be secured from them no other way than by having a navy and seamen of our own; these can only be obtained by giving a preference. I admit it is a tax, and a tax upon our produce; but it is a tax we must pay for the national security. I reconcile it to the interest of the United States that this sacrifice should be made; by it we shall be able to provide the means of defence, and by being prepared to repel danger, is the most likely way to avoid it. This tax, therefore, may prevent the horror of a war, and secure to us that respect and attention which we merit.

We all know there was a time when Britain showed a disposition to form the treaty we wish for. This resulted from an apprehension that the United States possessed both the power and inclination to do themselves justice. The moment she discovered we had not the power to perform our contracts, her disposition changed. Now, for my part, I can discover no motive for that nation to alter its conduct; if, now that we have the power, we want the inclination. They will persevere in their selfish interest, and narrow policy, to exclude us from a reciprocal share of trade; they will continue the ability to the Executive Magistrate to regulate the intercourse by circumstances as they arise, but ever studious to their own interest alone. The gentleman from New York seems to apprehend, that if we commence commercial hostilities, we shall suffer by reprisals. For my part, I am not afraid of suffering in the contest; her interests can be wounded almost mortally, while ours are invulnerable. She is sensible of this; and the people of America are not unacquainted with the natural advantages possessed over her: if it were necessary, and means of a pacific nature were not immediately successful, America could defend herself. Suppose Great Britain not pleased with our regulation, but disposed to counteract and oppose us with other restrictions, and we proceed to do each other all the injury which commercial prohibitions can produce; which, let me ask, of the parties, are With relation to the discrimination proposed to most vulnerable? How we could sustain our wounds be made between foreigners, I think nothing new I will not say; those who know our country has been offered now. It has not been denied, well, will have but little uneasiness on that head. and therefore I take it to be tacitly admitted, that But, though I do not say how we could sustain the public sentiments are friendly to such a dis-our wounds, I can point out how we could inflict crimination as is proposed. I do not think it necessary, therefore, to relate particularly some facts, which would have shown that almost all the States in the Union have manifested their opinion on the subject, that a discrimination ought to be made, and ought to operate particularly on Great Britain. A discrimination of this kind first appeared in New Hampshire; the influence of its example expanded the whole extent of the Union, and State after State adopted regulations for the salutary purpose of checking a power that was

I am a friend to the navigation of America, and shall always be as ready to go as great lengths in favor of that interest, as any gentleman on this floor. I have it in contemplation to propose a distant time to be fixed, at which these high duties on tonnage shall begin to operate; by which means the interests of that part of the community employing foreign shipping will be unaffected for the present, and the other part will have time to increase its tonnage, so as to answer for the transportation of the produce of all America.

most deadly ones. If we were to say, that no article should be exported from America to the West Indies, but what went in our own bottoms, we should soon hear a different language from any that has ever been held out to us on the subject of commercial regulations. It may be said, the British West Indies could draw supplies from the mother country; but these would be only precarious; there are always times when they must be dependent upon us, even for the necessary subsistence, to save them from destruction.

MAY, 1789.]

Duties on Tonnage.

[H. OF R.

there is none in the possession of this House to avail ourselves of. We must consider Spain as a nation not having formed a treaty of commerce with us. If they are disposed to make such a treaty, they will only be subjected for a short time to the inconvenience which the proposed measure will inflict. Admitting that the duty on tonnage is not very agreeable to every part of the Union, yet their momentary inconvenience must give way to considerations of greater importance. I have no reason to suppose, that the sense of the House will lead us to disagree to the measure. I have made these remarks, not because I thought they would influence the vote of any gentleman, but because I thought it decent to show the principles upon which our determination is founded. I trust there will be a majority, and a large majority too, in favor of the proposed discrimination; indeed, the question stands predetermined; we have made a discrimination on the article of spirits upon the same principle; it would be a violation of propriety, therefore, to suppose a contrary decision in this case.

Now, let me ask, what article is that we are give it that impulse which nature directs. I wish dependent upon Great Britain for, that is neces- that any general principle would permit us to sary for our subsistence? If it be said there are make a distinction between Spain and Britain, but articles of convenience we must have from her, II do not know there is such a general principlebeg gentlemen to look round and observe, that those materials for manufactures which she supplies us with, and fabricates in the highest perfection, are to be found in the United States, and, within these few years, we have made rapid advances in manufacturing ourselves. This must eventually lessen the imports from Britain, and her independent situation arises from the flourishing condition of her manufactures and commerce. I have, therefore, no fears of entering into a commercial warfare with that nation; if fears are to be entertained, they lie on the other side. I could go more largely into this subject, and demonstrate clearly that we have infinite advantages over her. Even at this moment we hear the cry of distress from one part of her dominions, which can only be relieved by the resources they have in this country. But I will not take up the time of the committee longer on this subject, nor dilate upon the nature and extent of the direct trade carried on between foreigners and us, and the circuitous one through Great Britain, from which she derives great advantages; nor show the comparative motives we have for making a discrimination between her and other foreign nations. Whale oil is prohibited in Britain; at least subjected to a duty amounting to a prohibition, but it is admitted into France. I need not remark the value which we ought to set upon this part of our commerce; fisheries are, perhaps, the best nurseries for seamen of any employment whatever. Rice is also an article received by them, and enters considerably into the consumption of the people; these articles are making their way through that country, and will open a considerable vent for the surplus that we have. In this point of view, it is important not to take any steps that would check that spirit which seems disposed to favor the commerce and interests of America. Tobacco is also consumed in considerable quantities in France; undoubtedly it is our interest that a direct trade should be carried on with that kingdom in this article. Eighty or ninety thousand hogsheads of this article have been shipped to Great Britain, of which scarcely 15,000 are consumed there; the remainder is sent off to other countries; 20,000 hogsheads of this very tobacco is consumed in France. It is not the fault of our merchants that this supply does not go direct to that kingdom, as good policy would dictate. I need not repeat the advantages to be derived from a direct intercourse with those nations, whose inhabitants consume the staples of our country. I conceive, where no special reason to the contrary exists, we may consider trade in its natural channel when the articles are carried immediately to the consumer. Considering our trade in this point of view, a great part of ours is extremely diverted from the course it ought to pursue; but a small proportion of it flows in any other than in that between Great Britain and us; our policy, therefore, as I stated on a former occasion, ought to be calculated to

Mr. FITZSIMONS.-I shall not speak as to the policy of the measure; I mean to confine myself to stating a few facts, as I did when the subject was before the Committee of the Whole House. The gentleman from New York (Mr. LAWRENCE) has said, that I stated the foreign tonnage as twothirds of the whole employed by the United States. It is possible that I made this mistake in my language, but the truth is, that one-third only is foreign, and of this a very considerable proportion is British. The state of the tonnage in Massachusetts is nearly all American, in New York, 55,000 tons of the same, and 30,000 foreign; nearly the same proportion is employed at Philadelphia. Maryland employs about three American to two foreign; in Virginia and South Carolina, they are nearly equal; in Georgia, the difference is two-thirds foreign, and one-third American; so that, upon the whole, there is little more than onethird foreign. This statement very considerably lessens our dependence upon foreign nations from what has been imagined by the gentleman who has spoken in opposition; nor does it follow that we shall pay the freight upon all our exports in proportion as we lay the duty. If we take a view of the trade of the United States, we shall discover that it will not necessarily be the consequence.

What are the articles Great Britain takes of America? A great proportion of the lumber used in the West Indies, indeed I may say the whole-a great proportion of the lumber used within that kingdom. The West Indies cannot draw her supplies elsewhere; if you were, therefore, to lay a duty of forty per cent. upon the freight, the consumers in those islands must pay it. The same observation_holds good as it respects our intercourse with Britain; the articles she takes from us cannot be supplied from

H. OF R.J

Duties on Tonnage.

[MAY, 1789.

ence they give us in the duties and charges, that renders it unsuccessful on the part of our opponents.. It is said that flaxseed cannot be obtained elsewhere; yet gentlemen must recollect that very small supplies of this article were furnished by America during the war. Britain drew the deficiency from Holland. This proves that ther dependence is not exclusively upon us for flaxseed. Is it good policy to deprive ourselves of the advantage which we possess, without a probability of acquiring greater? There is very little prospect of success in a commercial struggle with Britain, and I do not see any great benefits that arise from the trade of our allies that will warrant the sacrifice. It appears to me, that, by making the discrimination now in contemplation, we pay a compliment that is of very little consequence in the estimation of the nation in whose favor it is intended. They employ a very inconsiderable tonnage in the American trade, and those few vessels are all that can receive a profit from the regulations. Besides, it is admitted that the United States have not vessels enough of their own for the transportation of their produce; can it be good policy, then, to destroy a competition among foreigners for the remainder of our carrying trade?

any other country. Experience has proved, that with us; the price is better, and we are better every one of these articles has been advanced paid. But gentlemen are mistaken when they say in price in the proportion as it has been encum-that Britain cannot draw her supplies from another bered, and the high freight only serves as a pre-quarter. We have several competitors in her text to increase the rate to the consumer. It is market for various articles, and it is the prefernot just, therefore, to say that the articles are of less value in our country, for in instances of this kind the burden must fall upon those who use them. It is not the case with the rice of South Carolina, nor with the tobacco of Virginia, nor ever can be, unless there is a competition with other countries in the sale of these articles. Flax is a very necessary article in one of their most important manufactures; the seed of this plant is sedulously sought for in America because it is superior to their own, or because it is inconvenient to raise it; but if they find it necessary, will they not be obliged to pay the price when increased by a small tonnage duty? Will gentlemen contend against me, that the citizens of the United States do not pay the taxes and duties laid by Britain on the articles we consume? They certainly will not do this. Why, then, do they contend that we are to bear the duty of tonnage paid on exportation? The advantages Great Britain derives from our commerce, besides its absolute necessity to her existence, are considerations too important for her to sacrifice for a paltry regulation of fifteen pence a ton upon her shipping, and this is all that the proposed discrimination subjects her to. You have heard it declared, that the number of British vessels are not lessened, although there is a duty of six shillings and eight pence per ton in some of the States. They still find it their interest to pursue our beneficial commerce. I admit that a tax on tonnage increases the freight, but it is equally certain that the tax, in almost every instance, falls upon the

consumer.

Our commerce with Spain and Portugal is beneficial, and it may be proper to consider what effects our regulations are likely to produce, as they respect those Powers; but with England we risk nothing. As long as they find it their interest to continue the American trade, there is no no fear of their discontinuing it, and this will be the case as long as we consume her manufactures, and give her in return our produce, which enables her to extend her commerce to other parts of the world.

If gentlemen will show me the advantages arising from our commercial connexions where we are bound by treaty, I will join them in a measure which is likely to produce similar effects on other nations; but, when I see no one interest that will be promoted by it, I feel diffident lest we do a substantial injury to the cause we attempt to support.

Mr. CLYMER appealed to the public acts of America for the sentiments of the people respecting a discrimination, from which it would appear that Britain was looked upon in commerce as a hostile nation. But it was the wish of all to increase the intercourse between France and the United States. The little direct trade carried on between that kingdom and America is favorable to us; that to Great Britain the contrary. We receive money for what we carry to France, with Mr. WADSWORTH.-I am opposed to all dis- which our mercantile operations are increased: crimination between foreign nations, unless I can we are not paid with rum, as in our British West discover some solid reason for the measure. We India trade. This is a fact of notoriety; it has enjoy equal advantages, with respect to our trade, become a subject of complaint in that country, from those nations that are not in alliance with, that we take no returns in manufactures from her, as from those to whom we are linked by commer- as we do from a neighboring nation. These adcial treaty. Why, therefore, shall we give a pre- vantages, therefore, backed by the voice of the ference that may be odious, and draw injurious people, warrant a preference of the nature of what restrictions upon our commerce? It is to Great is now intended. Britain that we are indebted for a market for our lumber, our pot and pearl ash, our naval stores, rice, and tobacco; in short they take every thing we have to dispose of except our fish and oil. But our fish finds a better market in countries with whom the United States have no alliance, than in those of Powers in commercial treaty

Mr. PAGE was sorry to trouble the House upon this occasion after so much had been said, and he would not have done it, if it had not been that he conceived it proper to notice some remarks which had escaped the gentleman who argued in opposition to the proposed measure. It had been said, that America obtained greater advantages from

MAY, 1789.]

Duties on Tonnage.

[H. OF R.

nations not in commercial alliance with us, than the British subjects as to induce them to give from those that were. He would leave this point what we ask; therefore, the gentlemen's arguto be settled by the gentlemen who had heard the ments go too far, when they intend to prove that facts stated on both sides, and turn to consider it nation altogether dependent upon us. The prices in another point of view. The committee, when for the Southern staples are generally lower than they had this report under consideration, endea- what they were before the war; and I am very vored to adopt a successful mode of raising a reve-apprehensive that a high tonnage will reduce Due. If a duty on tonnage will have this effect, them still lower. The tonnage of the State of we ought to agree to it; for, to what other subject Georgia is about 20,000 tons, of this, two-thirds of revenue can we go that will prove equally pro- are British. If the duty is laid so high as to preductive? It is therefore requisite that we lay this vent them from coming amongst us to transport kind of tax; in so doing, if it is necessary to dis- our produce, what is to become of our planters ? criminate between our own citizens and foreign- It is said that this measure will raise us into coners, why is it not likewise proper to discriminate siderable maritime importance, by making a between our commercial friends and commercial favorable discrimination. I admit that this may enemies? If the policy is good in one case, it is eventually take place, with prudent encourageso in the other. We must not only encourage our ment; but if, before we have got shipping enough friends to continue in alliance, but hold out an of our own, we discard foreigners, we must injure advantage to those of whom we want a reciprocity. the husbandman; the profits of his labor must It has always been the practice of that very perish upon his hands, for want of the means nation to discriminate who it is suspected will requisite to convey them to market. take umbrage at our doing it. Has not Britain laid heavy duties upon the wines of France, and lower on those of Portugal, in order to encourage the trade and commerce of their ally. They have, by this means, made France agree to receive their manufactures. It is the practice of wise nations to adopt regulations of this nature; and most undoubtedly, if any nation on earth has a right to expect a favorable regulation on our side, it is the one that, I may say, has given us the power to deliberate. I conceive such a regulation wise, just, and politic; the contrary policy I view as pusillanimous, founded in folly, injustice, and impolicy. For my part, I wish for greater discrimination than is now proposed. Instead of resting it here, I should have consented to have gone much further. I believe the price of freight has not risen in Virginia, though the British vessels are subjected to a tonnage duty of double the amount of what is now proposed. Something of this nature might give the merchants of America such maritime advantages, that our commerce would shortly be placed on a respectable footing. We might then expect a beneficial treaty to be formed with Britain; and it is my opinion, that if a decisive discrimination was made, we should scarcely pass the act before offers of that kind would be made.

Mr. JACKSON.-I am in favor of a discrimination, but I like the idea thrown out by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. MADISON,) that the high duty commence its operation at a distant day; but I am not for a very great discrimination. Some gentlemen, who advocate this side of the question, have contended that Great Britain is obliged to receive certain articles from America; and, therefore, if we lay heavy duties upon transportation, they will fall upon the consumer. Now I must beg leave to mention a fact or two in point. In the State of Georgia we have a pretty high tonnage duty, but our produce falls in price. The rice, about two or three years ago, sold for thirteen or fourteen shillings; now it is difficult to procure nine shillings per hundred weight. This proves that these articles are not so necessary to 1st CoN.-9

If the tonnage duty is commenced at a distant day I shall favor the sum proposed; but if it is immediately to take place, I should think twenty or twenty-five cents a ton sufficient, and even this ought not to take place before December, 1790. Though I am a friend to discrimination, yet I am opposed to a high duty, until we have vessels. enough of our own to answer the purposes of domestic navigation and foreign transportation.

Mr. LAWRENCE.-I do not think the regulation in contemplation will embrace the object gentlemen have in view. The discrimination between our own vessels and foreigners is intended to increase the quantity of American tonnage. The discrimination between foreigners is also intended to increase the tonnage of our allies. But will this proposed measure have such effect? I think, for my part, that a preference of twenty cents per ton will not draw vessels belonging to those nations into this branch of commerce, so as to answer the purpose of supplying the deficiency in our means of transportation. If the preference is so small as not to induce their vessels to navigate for us, the means are not proportioned to the end; but if the regulation is to induce Great Britain to grant us reciprocity in commerce, and our trade is of such high importance to that nation, let us adopt measures more effectual than this small discrimination; let us say, that they shall receive no supplies from us but what are conveyed to them in our own bottoms. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. FITZSIMONS,) says, it is not true that the freight will reduce the price to the farmer. He supposes the articles of tobacco and rice necessaries, and whatever price they are held at must be given for them, and then the whole expense will fall upon the consumer. This proves too much, and consequently proves nothing. Suppose we lay twenty shillings per ton on vessels, it must enter into the price of tobacco and rice, and the articles must still be purchased; yet, if the price is increased, the demand becomes limited. A man does not consume so much when the price of an article is high, as he does when it is moderate; consequently, if the