~HAT an intelligent man should make such a poor use of his reason as to employ it in perverting the truth, and especially the truth of history, seems a thing strange and hard to understand. It has been ascribed to the love of contention, to insincerity, the bias of theory, mental obliquity, and even imbecility. Whatever the cause, the failing is to be regretted in proportion to the mischief which it does. For instance, it is most desirable to know and spread the truth concerning our early shipping policy and the cause of its success, as there is not now before the country a civil question of higher importance than the best way of rehabititating our marine in the foreign trade. The problem cannot be even superficially considered without understanding the reasons which moved the fathers to create a merchant marine, and to select the adequate measures which proved successful. To obscure the motives, pervert the facts, and cover up our early shipping legislation with dust and doubt, is at once to strike a blow at the National interest and to do a good turn to foreign countries.

Foreign nations have no interest that it should be the concern of our citizens, much less of our Government officials, to serve. Nevertheless, it would seem that some of our public characters take no care to make distinctions when they should see that their theories and contentions run counter to their country's good. But for the persistence in the visionary, antiAmerican, and absurd notion that "free ships" would prove remedial for our shipping decline and decay, we might have had Congressional action on the right line twenty-five years ago. The delay has served the interest of foreign countries and been a great misfortune for our own. The end of this fatuity is not in sight. We have now a Commissioner of Navigation, retained as a relic in office, who conceives it his duty to antagonize the revival of the shipping policy of the fathers, and to do his utmost to misrepresent and cast reproach upon it, to deny its principle, and to insist that other causes than its application induced success. In other words, a part of our Government is engaged to-day, without scruple and without repugnance, in delaying and scouting the passage of measures vitally necessary to the rebuilding and maintenance of an American marine for the foreign trade.

Answering a request to look carefully over the specious monograph of the Commissioner of Navigation on our early shipping policy and its wise discriminating duties, which was issued from the Government printing office after the appearance of his Annual Report for 1896, and to set out a criticism of its eight "conclusions," I will omit much that might fitly be said, and be as brief as possible.

The Commissioner's "conclusions" drawn up at the end of eleven pages of print will be considered in their order. Taken singly or together, the postulation is unique and illustrates the genius of those gifted mortals who come into the world so wise as to have nothing to learn from its history or philosphy, or the skill and experience of practical men,

11-47

Conclusion I.

'Reciprocity has always been the policy of the United States. Discrimination was resorted to only in retaliation for discrimination by other nations against our shipping."

The fact is that Congress took up the policy and adopted the measures in vogue in several of the States before the adoption of the Constitution. Foreign nations had, indeed, systems of ship protection, some ante-dating the acts of the Colonies, but it is absurd to contend that any of these retaliated against protection abroad. Protection was the plain, and sometimes the expressed purpose in view. The Commissioner's formulation is artful and sophistical. Why was discrimination "resorted to?" For protection, was it not? What did discrimination accomplish? Protection did it not? Then why was not protection, instead of reciprocity, our early policy? It certainly was, for our coasting and inland navigation, and our shipbuilding-two of the three parts of our early policy-still survive and are protective, so much so as to be denounced by the votaries of free trade. Shipprotection in the foreign trade was alone suspended by the act of 1828. The proceedings of Congress leave no doubt at all that our early statemen intended to create, what the States separately failed in attempting, an American marine to supercede the foreign that engrossed our commerce in 1789. Our position was fairly stated by Mr. MADISON, the leader of the House, May 4, 1879, in the debate upon the tonnage duty, the original measure for shipping protection. Mr. MADISON said:

"I conceive, Mr. Speaker, that we must consider this as a general question involving these points: How far is it expedient, at this time, to make a discrimination between foreign nations and the United States for the purpose of promoting and accelerating the improvement of the American navigation? And how far is it expedient to make such a discrimination between foreigners, as may induce them to permit us to extend our own navigation on principles of reciprocity? For I imagine those subjects will be found to be connected. The arguments offered against the measure are founded on a maxim of impolicy, It is

stated that we have not vessels enough of our own to transport the produce of our country, and as this produce sells low, we ought not to enter into regulations that will increase the price of freight. The plain meaning of which I take to be, let us employ those vessels that will do our business cheapest, making no kind of discrimination whatever. If this argument has weight, it goes against discriminating in favor of our own shipping. I admit that laying fifty cents on foreign vessels, and but six cents on our own, is a regulation by which the owners of American shipping will put a considerable part of the difference into their pockets. This, sir, I consider as a sacrifice of interest to policy; the sacrifice is but small, but I would not 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 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 (marine) 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."

There was no hint in this of "retaliation " on foreign nations, but the object distinctly stated was the promotion and acceleration of the marine, then in a languishing state. It was thus that our early shipping policy had to be protective and could not have been one of reciprocity. In the same speech MR. MADISON referred to the public sentiment upon the protection of shipping, and considered the scarecrow of foreign retaliation in case we legislated like freemen. He said:

1-Evidently to Madison's mind an impolitic idea.

"With relation to the discrimination proposed to be made between foreigners, I think nothing new has been offered now. It has not been denied, and therefore I take it to be tacitly admitted, that the public sentiments are friendly to such a discrimination 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 monopolizing our trade; but finding from fatiguing experience, that their separate efforts were ineffectual, they united in forming the Government under which we deliberate. I will not say only, that if, in the first act of Congress, we abolish this favorable distinction, we disappoint the expectations of the warmest friends and advocates of the Constitution, but that we shall also disappoint the expectations of its enemies, * * * * * The gentleman from New York seems to apprehend, that if we commence commercial hostilities, we shall suffer by reprisals [on the part of Great Britain]. 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." * * * *

*

These quotations show clearly that theories are of little use in statesmanship. To prevent a nation from "monopolizing our trade" was an object intrinsically protective, without a feature of reciprocity or retaliation about it. MR. MADISON had a theory of reciprocity, apparently for a few nations that had favored our Independence, but he could not apply it without transgressing the universal rule of National conduct-self-preservation and self-interest. The discriminations advocated and adopted would have been useless, if not protective. The British policy was pro