MAY, 1789.] Duties on Tonnage. [H. of R. would pay more than five cents per cask, if the duty should be reduced. The duty, therefore, cannot be fairly said to be too high for the Southern States; it is not contended to be too high for the middle ones; it is not too high for us. have laid heavy duties upon foreign goods, to encourage domestic manufactures; we are now about to lay a tonnage duty for the encouragement of commerce; but has any one step been taken to encourage the agricultural States? So far from it, that all that has been done operates against their interest: every duty we have laid will be heavily felt by South Carolina, while no-nue, it will form a material object for our attenthing has been done to assist, or even encourage her or her agriculture. If we consider the subject as it relates to reve tion; if the duty be considered as a bounty to the maritime States, it will be admitted that it is our interest to increase our navigation. Mr. JACKSON. The gentleman last up thinks the reduction of ten cents will not materially affect the Southern States, yet he supposes it will injure ship-building: how it can hurt one interest by being reduced, and not wound the other by its increase, I do not clearly understand; for my part, I do not see the weight of such arguments. We have been told, that these measures will benefit the Southern States, because we want The regulation proposed by the gentleman shipping and manufactures, and it would be better from Virginia, to increase the duty to seventyto take them from our friends than from stran-five cents at the end of two years, may never take gers. We know the governing principle in trade effect; before that period arrives, a treaty may be to be interest; but leaving that out of the ques-formed with the nation that is our great commertion, I believe there are causes existing whichcial rival. I am, therefore, in favor of a permawill prevent the introduction of the manufactures nent regulation, rather than one holding out an of the Northern States into the Southern ones; encouragement that will never take place. beside the long commercial connexion subsisting between South Carolina and Great Britain, there is another advantage she possesses over others: it is the custom of British merchants to send out their goods upon credit; they establish agents and houses to deal them out to planters as they are wanted, and take their crops in return. Now, without the manufacturers of Massachusetts, or any of the other States, pursue the same conduct, they would not be able to sell their commodities. It is well known, that we have not ready money there to pay down for the articles we want, credit being the established medium of trade in that country. Gentlemen must see that it would take much time and the strongest efforts to alter it, though I am sensible that we pay severely for the indulgence; yet the habit, being established, is hard to be broken. If we are by custom or necessity obliged to take British goods, that nation will load them with heavy duties to counteract our policy. The manufacturing States will not feel this evil: the only method we have, sir, to extricate ourselves from our distress, is by the sale of our crops; any imposition laid upon tonnage will affect the price of them, and lessen our power to pay our debts, and thereby emancipate ourselves from the commercial fetters by which we are bound; until which time it will be impracticable for us to deal with any other country. Mr. LAWRENCE.-I consider the difference of ten cents to be too small for contention; the arguagainst a duty of forty cents as against fifty. ments of the gentlemen in opposition go as much Mr. PAGE.-I have heard all the arguments now brought against this measure, urged over and over again, when a tonnage duty was contended against It was then in the same manner in Virginia. merely a trial, but now we have the arguments resulting from experience in our favor. We find the British shipping still crowding our ports, although the tonnage duty is twice as great as is now proposed; and although the price of produce has fallen within that time, yet I am persuaded it must be attributed to other causes than this. Let the experiment be made with firmness, and I venture to say, it will turn out the same in other States as in ours. I acknowledge the gentlemen's arguments have weight, but they go against any tax whatsoever being laid on tonnage. But experience has demonstrated to us, that such a duty is attended with advantages; it will encourage Mr. LAWRENCE.-There have been circum-ship-building, and render us independent for the stances mentioned in the course of this debate, which I think may be useful in ascertaining whether the proposed duty of fifty cents on tonnage be too high or not. It appears that there is a duty in Georgia equal to is. 8d. sterling; in South Carolina, 1s. 3d. besides something on goods imported in foreign bottoms; in Virginia and Maryland it is much greater. How, then, can gentlemen from those States contend that the proposed duty is so much too high as to occasion the fatal consequences they foretell? When we consider the valuable produce of the Southern States, we are led to believe that the difference of ten cents per ton can make no material difference in the price. Will it materially affect the price of rice or tobacco? Neither of these articles I transportation of our produce. Let, therefore, no suggestions of the kind that have been offered deter us from pursuing, with firmness and decision, the plan adopted by the committee. Mr. WADSWORTH.-If the gentleman who has brought forward this proposition had proposed thirty cents instead of forty, I should have agreed to the motion, because it would have destroyed the discrimination between the vessels of nations in treaty, and those not in treaty with us; but in every other point of view, I should be against a reduction. Foreign vessels will be better circumstanced under a duty of fifty cents, than American free of duty. The charges on foreign bottoms in our ports are very small; there is not, I believe, a vessel of ours that goes to Europe, that does not pay, in light money and other charges, more than fifty cents per ton. Mr. MADISON.-The subject of discrimination is not now within our view; it has been decided by a great majority; I think there were not more than nine members against it. I do not mean, by the arguments that I have urged, to prove that the increase of tonnage has a tendency to raise the price of freight: all my object has been to quiet the apprehensions of gentlemen who hold that opinion. I do not think it will keep away foreign vessels from visiting us, nor increase the burden on our Southern commerce, so much as has been calculated; and even if it did, the extension of our navigation would be an adequate compensation. The price of freight before the late Revolution was higher than it is at present; perhaps it may be lower when ships are furnished in larger quantities. ap Mr. TUCKER.-I fear the gentlemen who look for a sufficient quantity of shipping to answer the demands of our commerce in so short a space as two years, will find themselves deceived. I think, therefore, it would be improper to lay a high tonnage duty, commencing at that period; if it pears expedient, a future Legislature may give such encouragement, but they are not bound to perform our engagement. After they have seen the effect of the present regulation, they will be better able to judge of what is right in this particular than we can do. I am doubtful whether the measure would place the United States in a better or worse situation than a duty of fifty cents; a commutation of this kind, in order to save ten cents for two years, and admit an addition of twenty-five cents forever afterwards, appears a doubtful policy. At any rate, the Congress might feel themselves, in some degree, bound to raise the duty to seventy-five cents, when their judgments might tell them it was inexpedientthey will then have cause to complain of our anticipation. I should, I think, rather be in favor of fixing a certain tonnage duty at present, and leave it to the consideration of a future Legislature, whether to increase it or not, according to the circumstances of the case. I think thirty cents as much as can be given, with propriety, at this time; considering the interest of the State I have the honor to represent, I believe it will bear harder on some States than on others, acting partially and not generally. When I speak of the State I represent, I would not be thought actuated by improper motives; I think every gentleman is bound to support, in a proper manner, the interest he is well acquainted with, and believes to be conducive to the general welfare. A great deal has been said respecting the duties that have been laid on tonnage in the Southern States. I begged the attention of the House, on a former occasion, to a striking difference there is in duties imposed by the State, for its own particular advantage, and what are about to be laid for the benefit of the United States. Every duty imposed, I consider as a tax on the inhabitants of South Carolina. If that tax is to bear harder on them than on other States, I pronounce it unequal and unjust. I con [MAY, 1789. sider the tax on tonnage in this light; but as I am willing to give encouragement to our navigation, so I shall not oppose a moderate duty on foreign vessels; as I also conceive a discrimination proper between those nations in alliance with us and those with whom we have no treaties subsisting, I am disposed to admit a larger sum than thirty cents; I would propose thirty-five, upon the express condition of reducing the duty already agreed to, to twenty or twenty-five, when a bill shall come forward founded upon the principles now agreed to. The question was here put on Mr. MADISON'S motion, and lost. The House then decided upon the original proposition, which being agreed to, it was Resolved, That there ought to be levied on all vessels entered or cleared in the United States, the duties following, to wit: On all vessels built within the United States, and belonging wholly to citizens thereof, at the rate of nine cents per ton. On all vessels not built within the United States, but now belonging wholly to citizens thereof, at the rate of six cents per ton. Powers with whom the United States have formed treaties, or partly to the subjects of such Powers, and partly to the citizens of the said States, at the rate of thirty cents per ton. On all vessels belonging wholly to the subjects of jects of other Powers, at the rate of fifty cents per ton. On all vessels belonging wholly or in part to sub Provided, That no vessel built within the United States, and belonging to a citizen or citizens thereof, whilst employed in the coasting trade, or in the fisheries, shall pay tonnage more than once in any one year; nor shall any ship or vessel built within the United States pay tonnage on her first voyage. Provided also, That no vessel be employed in the transportation of the produce or manufactures of the United States, or any of them, coastwise, except such vessels shall be built within the United States, and the property of a citizen or citizens thereof. agreed to by the House. The same was, on a question put thereupon, Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said resolution, and that Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. HEISTER, and Mr. SENEY, do prepare and bring in the same. FRIDAY, May S. The Speaker, attended by the members of the House, withdrew to the room adjoining the Representatives' Chamber, and there presented to the President of the United States the Address agreed to on Tuesday last, to which he returned the following answer: GENTLEMEN: which I know not how to express, I feel that my past Your very affectionate Address produces emotions endeavors in the service of my country are far overpaid by its goodness; and I fear much that my future ones may not fulfil your kind anticipation. All that I can promise is, that they will be invariably directed by an honest and ardent zeal; of this resource my heart assures me. For all beyond, I rely on the wisdom and patriotism of those with whom I am to co-operate, and a continuance of the blessings of Heaven on our beloved country. The Speaker and members being returned into the House: Mr. GERRY, from the committee appointed, presented, according to order, a bill for collecting duties on goods, wares, and merchandises imported into the United States; and the same was received and read the first time. Ordered, That the Clerk of this House do procure one hundred copies of the said bill to be printed for the use of the members of this House. On motion, Ordered, That the committee appointed on the 29th ultimo, to report an estimate of the supplies requisite for the present year, and of the net produce of the impost, as agreed to by the House, be authorized and instructed to collect early and authentic statements of the particular articles of foreign produce and manufactures annually imported into, and of all the articles exported from, the several States, and the value of such imports and exports; also, the number of vessels, both foreign and domestic, entered and cleared during that time, specifying their tonnage, and the nations to which they respectively belong; specifying, also, the exact numbers of each particular description of vessels of each nation, and the amount of tonnage of each particular vessel. On motion, Resolved, That this House will, on Tuesday next, proceed by ballot to the appointment of a Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. TUCKER. As I am desirous of beginning with moderate duties, I deem it proper, at this stage of the business, to offer my reasons in support of this opinion, that, if it be the opinion of the committee, we may go uniformly through the list, and make the necessary reduction. I am opposed to high duties, particularly for two reasons: 1st, because they will tend to introduce and establish a system of smuggling; and, 2dly, because they tend to the oppression of certain citizens and States, in order to promote the benefit of other States and other classes of citizens. I cannot say I have a peculiar aversion to a high duty on distilled spirits; I may, therefore, be suspected of inconsistency in moving to reduce it; but I do it on the principle of a general reduction. If I do not succeed on the first article, I shall despair of succeeding on the others. It appears to me that if we lay high duties on the importation of goods, a system of smuggling will be adopted before we can possibly make the necessary provision to prevent it. I take it, sir, that proper regulations respecting the collection [H. of R. From a is all our security against illicit trade. variety of circumstances, it appears to me, we shall not only be a long time in completing such a system, but, for want of experience, many of the regulations will be of a dubious propriety. Gentlemen will recollect we have an extensive sea-coast, accessible at a thousand points, and upon all this coast there are but few customhouses where officers can be stationed to guard the collection of the duties; therefore, we labor under considerably greater disadvantages than a thicker settled country is liable to. I apprehend, if we consider the present state of our population, we shall conclude it impracticable to establish a sufficient number of custom-houses, on those parts of the coast most assailable, to render us perfectly secure in the collection of our duties. If it were practicable, the expense would be a formidable objection; it would require more revenue to support such a system than all we shall derive from the impost. But we know in Great Britain, where the duties are high, no expense is spared in the collection, yet smuggling is carried on to a very considerable amount; the risk run by this class of people is very great, the penalties are very severe, and the vigilance of the officers renders detection not very improbable. As this is the case, under the administration of a very powerful Government, I apprehend ours, which is only in its infancy, will be unable to prevent its taking place, otherwise than by a system of moderate duties. If we begin with laying them high, there will be an immediate temptation to engage in a system of smuggling, a system of which may soon be formed, so as to render our future efforts ineffectual; it is better to avoid the temptation, than to punish the evil. A man that is disposed to trade fairly, will be brought under the necessity of falling into the same practice, or giving up his business; for the higher the duty, the greater the advantage the smuggler has over the fair tra der, being compelled by necessity to engage in a contraband trade, or to forego the means of a livelihood. Smuggling will be no longer dishonorable, no longer difficult, and none will be found opposing the practice; repeated efforts to corrupt will be successful among even the officers of your customs; they at first may resist the temptation, but when they find the practice general, their vigilance will wink at a contraband trade, and smuggling will be considered as a matter of course. They will consider the reward given them for being out of the way as a benefit to which they are entitled. For these reasons I shall be against a system of high duties, and because I fear there is danger of a system of smuggling being introduced before proper arrangements are made to prevent it; or if we had time to make such arrangements, they must inevitably be ineffectual. The other reason for which I am opposed to high duties on enumerated articles is, because it tends to the oppression of a certain description of citizens and particular States, in order to promote the advantage of other States and other citizens. The State I have the honor to rep resent will be injured by such duties, yet that State requires relief rather than additional oppression. We may very well know, that there are several States that do not import those articles, consequently they do not contribute their proportion to the support of the Union. On the principle of lessening the inequality, if the motion I now make shall be seconded and approved by the committee, I will go on to make a reduction on most of the articles, beginning with this, so as to have them on a lower scale than that we have at present before us. It was with a view to bring about this measure, that I voted for a high duty on molasses, when that article was first before us. If the duty on West India rum is reduced, I shall be willing to make a proportionable reduction on molasses. When this list of duties came before the House from the Committee of the Whole, I found the scale was adhered to, and was therefore under the necessity of voting as I did, for the highest sum rather than the lowest. In doing this, I was actuated by a desire of having some security of the Eastern members for the general reduction which I wish to bring about. I was convinced by their arguments, that a high duty on molasses is oppressive to the poor. not wish to add to their burdens; on the contrary, I should be glad to exempt them from taxation altogether, if it was in my power; but this, I apprehend, cannot be done: they must be taxed in proportion to the other citizens. An impost duty on articles of importation will affect the poor of every State, provided they consume the goods brought from foreign countries. I could not answer for my conduct, if I did not agree to a heavy tax upon the Eastern States, when I found the Southern ones taxed in that proportion. If the gentlemen of Massachusetts think the duty on molasses bears too heavy on their State, they may remedy the evil by agreeing to a general reduction. If they insist that the burden operates unequally and oppressively, it is not the fault of us, who are compelled to the measure by a similar imposition on the consumption of our State. I do I would observe further, that a high duty not only tends to the encouragement of smuggling, but it likewise raises in my mind, a scruple respecting the allowance of a drawback, as I conceive every drawback becomes an additional encouragement to smuggling. In many instances, I fear it may be found, that the drawback will amount to more than all the duties paid in the States which are entitled to it. Considering the situation of the States of North Carolina and Rhode Island, which are not in the Union, their contiguity to the other States will increase the facility with which smuggling can be carried on; it will be easy to import articles from Europe and the West Indies into their ports, and send them by land, or even water, to the adjacent States. When these are smuggled into the United States, they may be re-exported and entitled to receive a drawback, although the revenue was not collected upon the importation. If we agree to moderate duties, it will be much easier to regulate our system on this head; if our revenue is found not to [MAY, 1789. be quite so productive as gentlemen calculate upon a system of higher duties, which, by the by, ap pears to me to be very unlikely, we shall be better able to judge what we can do after a trial, than we can possibly at present; at any rate, it will be but a small loss; whereas, by a large scale, we may throw the whole Union into confusion, and there will be no remedy by which we can recover what we have now in our power; for a reduction of duties, when they are once laid, is productive of the most serious consequences. Having, therefore, a strong impression upon my mind, that we hazard a great deal in imposing high duties in the first instance, I should not have been satisfied with having done my duty, if I had not stated my doubts and difficulties to the committee; but hav ing done this, I shall content myself with their decision, be it what it may. On motion, the further reading of the bill was postponed. Adjourned. SATURDAY, May 9. JEREMIAH VAN RENSSELAER, from New York, appeared and took his seat. The bill for collecting duties on goods, wares, and merchandises imported into the United States, was read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole. The following communications were received from the Senate by Mr. Otis, their Secretary. Ordered, That, when a message shall come from the House of Represensatives to the Senate, and shall be announced by the doorkeeper, the messenger or messengers, being a member or members of the House, shall be received within the bar, the President rising when the message is by one member, and the Senate also when it is by two or more. If the messenger be not a member of the House, he shall be received at the bar by the Secretary, and the bill or papers that he may bring shall there be received from him by the Secretary, and be by him delivered to the Presi dent." Mr. SPEAKER: The Senate have disagreed to the report of a committee appointed to determine what style or titles it will be proper to annex to the office of President and Vice President of the United States, if any other than those given in the Constitution; and have appointed a committee to consider and report under what title it will be proper for the President of the United States in future to be addressed, and confer thereon with such committee as this House may appoint for that purpose. The Senate have also appointed a committee to view and report how the rooms in the City Hall shall be appropriated, and to confer with any committee this House may appoint for that purpose. DUTIES ON IMPORTS. The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the bill for laying a duty on goods, wares, and mercandises imported into the United States. Mr. PAGE in the Chair. MAY, 1789.] Duties on Imports. [H. OF R. Mr. TUCKER.-The observations I made yester-ly because we do not wish to encourage them. day were intended to apply generally against a Facts prove the direct contrary; we have shown a system of high duties. As to the particular article disposition to encourage articles from their States, of spirits, I have no objection to a high duty being which can be made in our State in great abunlaid upon it, provided it can be strictly collected; dance. I will mention a few of them, although for I do not wish to give encouragement to the it may appear disgraceful for South Carolina to consumption of that article, though, I fear, no duty take from any country what she can furnish herwe can lay will tend much to discourage it. I self. We have imported to the city of Charleston thought that if it was the general opinion of the vegetables for table use, which we can raise as House to lessen the duties, it would be a saving well as any part of the world; yet no complaint of time to discuss it on a motion to reduce the was made by the agricultural interest of that State, first article. I repeat the observation, that high that we imported foreign productions to their preduties are improper, because they are impolitic, judice; no duty was imposed to discourage the and likely to defeat the object of revenue: less use of them; all we considered was, whether they will be collected on them than on moderate ones. came cheaper when brought from abroad than If it be considered as an encouragement to manu- when raised at home, concluding the cheapest to factures to lay heavy duties on enumerated arti- be the best. cles, it is a tax on one part for the emolument of On the same principles that are now urged, our another. Five per cent. upon all articles imported citizens might have contended that we should imwould raise a considerable revenue, and be a suffi- pose a duty on all articles which could be produced cient encouragement to manufactures, especially at home. No imposition on the importation was if we add to this five per cent. the expense of laid in order to encourage the productions of our freight and other charges of importation on foreign country; the same principle ought to have induced goods. The five per cent. in the bill is to be col- us to lay a duty on the importation of flour. We lected on the value of the goods at the time and make but little of that; our constituents consume place of importation; the value of goods within rice in place of it. It might have been said, that the United States is twenty-five per cent. more a heavy duty should have been laid in order to than they cost in Europe; adding this, therefore, prevent the interference with our staple commodto the other advantages, and it will be a consider-ity. The planters should have said, we will comable encouragement; but, besides all this, there pel you to eat rice, and after being some time in are many articles made here as cheap, and cheaper, the habit, you will find you like it as well as we; than they can be imported. Gentlemen who indeed, this argument might be extended to a have given us this information, know the fact measure calculated to oblige the other States to to be so in their respective States; in them, there-use rice in their daily food. It might be said, that fore, the operation of the measure would be just and politic, but it does not apply with the same force as it respects South Carolina and some other States. Although in Boston and Philadelphia they can manufacture certain wares cheaper than they can import them, yet they are not brought at the same price to Charleston; hence the operation is unequal and a partial tax upon us. Another thing to be considered is, even if these articles could be furnished us at home as cheap as we get them from abroad, whether we should have equal advantages? If a cargo of nails were to be sent to Carolina, I would be glad to know how we are to purchase it? Would the makers of shoes be content to go there and retail them? If they would, they might be brought there; but I apprehend, if they have not established connexions in that country, they could never be disposed of. Can they expect the planters to come in a body, and take off their goods upon their arrival? It is not even expected that they could; it must be left to them to judge, whether they do not purchase them in a better way by taking them upon credit, and paying for them in their crop. Gentlemen will not pretend to say that we do not know our own interest, and therefore they will teach us. These reasons will not go down with the people; they will take to themselves the right of judging what is most conducive to their interests. Gentlemen cannot argue from the fact, that we do not consume the articles made within their States, as readily and willingly as those imported from abroad, mere it was necessary in order to give encouragement to the productions of the Southern States, but I believe such arguments would have had no weight if they had been used; yet they are similar to what have been brought forward by gentlemen for the encouragement of domestic manufactures. Mr. Speaker, if gentlemen are content with moderate duties, we are willing to agree to them and give every reasonable encouragement in our power, but we cannot consent to very great oppression. I once more wish that gentlemen will consider great duties as imposing a heavier burden upon the Southern States, as they import more, the other less; and the sum we pay towards the revenue must be in proportion to our importation. I therefore move, in order to begin with the first article, that distilled spirits be reduced six cents per gallon. Mr. JACKSON Seconded this motion, and would assign his reasons for it, but they had been so fully stated by the honorable mover. Mr. AMES.-I wish the committee may consider, with the attention the subject demands, whether the duties are too high or not? It is hardly possible. I own, to contemplate this subject as a practical question. We shall find it necessary to consider attentively, before we proceed any further, what the objects of our Government are; having discovered them, we are to consider whether the proposed measure will answer the purposes intended. I believe, in every point of view that we can possibly consider it, the subject of |