on principles, and we have the principles as well as examples from practice. But let us suppose a correction made in 1800. MR. GALLATIN Spoke of "the tonnage of every description." The proportionate excess in foreign trade would be 127,200, or 68.6 per cent. of the whole, and not 200,000 tons, as the "unreliable " Commissioner would have it appear. Then, our statistics would show a growth of foreign-trade shipping from 123,893 tons to 529,907 in eleven years, an increase of 326 per cent. Further on we shall see that the excess supposed could not have exceeded 50,000 tons instead of 200,000. The figure, whatever it was, does not in the least degree affect the correctness of the general proposition that our policy of ship protection greatly encouraged shipbuilding and rapidly built up our early marine. There was no mistake made by MR. PITKIN and DR. SEYBERT, Representatives SPRAGUE and BUCHANAN, and hosts of other fair and reasonable witnesses that have admitted and asserted that our early navigation was protected and thereby flourished.

Continuing his course of detraction as to our early statistics, the Commissioner quotes the Register of the Treasury, 1822, as saying of the year 1818:

The decrease of tonnage in this year arises principally from the registered tonnage having been corrected in 1818, by striking off all the vessels, the registers of which were granted prior to the year 1815, and which were supposed by the collectors to have been lost at sea, captured, etc."

On this quotation the Commissioner comments as follows: "Yet, the incorrect figures from 1800 down to 1818 have been used by those not informed of this fact as proof of the rapid increase of our merchant marine under discriminating duties, while the decrease of 200,000 tons, effected in 1818 to correct the books, has been charged as a result of the reciprocity treaty negotiated in 1815 by CLAY, GALLATIN and ADAMS."

It has been already shown that the error, if any, in the figures of 1800 could not pass on down to 1818, but that an error in any year is necessarily corrected in a short time as returns come in, or if not made in reasonable time. For instance, it is a fact

that, in 1800 our foreign-trade shipping stood at 667,107 tons. In 1801 it stood at 630,558 tons, a deduction or falling off of 36,549 tons; in 1802, it stood at 557,760 tons, a reduction or falling off. of 72,798 tons, and in the two years of 109,347 tons. In 1803, the figures rose to 585,910, and thereafter steadily, (except in 1808), to 1810, where the culmination of foreign-trade tonnage occurred at 981,019 tons-MR. GALLATIN, Secretary of the Treasury all the time. If he thought the figures were too high in 1800, doubtless he had better attention paid to the rolls and possibly much of the decline in 1801 and 1802 was due to corrections. But if it all were due, the whole amount would be only 109,347 tons, chargeable to foreign trade. Taking the entire marine, the falling off in the two years was less still-only 80,386 tons. If, however, we examine the reasons for the greater foreign-trade decline in the year named, it will be found that a short period of peace in Europe had increased the competition for freights and consequently a considerable number of our vessels had quit the foreign trade and entered the domestic. So there is nothing amounting to a row of pins in the Commissioner's depreciation of our tonnage statistics from 1800 to 1818.

In regard to the correction in 1818, it is misrepresented in the Commissioner's comment. The Register does not state that 200,000 tons were struck off the books. He speaks of the "decrease of tonnage in this year." How much was that? Simply 174,727 tons. What further does he say? "Arises principally from the registered tonnage having been corrected." Considerable of the decrease was undoubtedly due to the working of the reciprocity treaties, as they gave business to foreign vessels. Did they not, then foreign nations would not have wanted them. To conceal this, the Commissioner disregards the correct "decrease of tonnage" of which the Register speaks, and also the qualification "principally "; and because the foreign-trade tonnage had fallen off greatly, he magnifies the decrease in the whole marine from 174,727 to 200,000 tons, and thrusts this figure forward to account for a falling off of 214,879 tons in the foreign trade. It is clear enough to the heedful that 40,170 tons of the

214,897 quit the foreign trade and entered the domestic in 1818, and who can prove that the reciprocity treaties with Great Britain and Sweden were not responsible therefor-presumably they were.

If the Register had had a fancy for accuracy of statement he would not have given us the word "principally" to guess about. Taking this word to mean chiefly and mainly, we may approximate the truth by distributing the decrease of 174,727 tons over the two kinds of trade, foreign and domestic, on the basis of 55 per cent. for the former and 45 for the latter—in other words, the deductions would be 96,100 and 78,629 tons respectively. Making this distribution, we find as follows: Foreign-trade tonnage by table No. 17, for 1817, tons 804,851 Less for decrease by correction.

Correct amount for 1817...

96, 100

Foreign trade tonnage by table of 1818......

66

589,954

118,797

Loss presumably chargable to treaties..........tons

Carrying the correction back to 1815, and giving the tonnage in foreign trade from table 17, up to 1822, inclusive, we have the following statement presumptively correct:

It is submitted that these figures show a loss, first, of 53,535 tons in one year; second, of 168,141 tons in three years; third, of 175,494 tons in seven years, as a result of some adverse influence, whilst it has been shown already that we had a protective act in 1818, and another in 1820 to mitigate the situation. If reciprocity was good, it must have been for punishing.

There are three tables that tell the same tale of the good

for-nothingness to us of the British treaty. These are of tonnage; of shipbuilding; and of navigation. Combining them in one for the period of 1815-'22, we have the statement following:

It will be noted that in shipbuilding, decline received no check until 1821; that navigation fell off after 1816, and was least in 1818, while tonnage was least in 1819, and shipbuilding slackest in 1820. Although these are facts-no "corrections" being needful or possible either for shipbuilding or navigation-the Commissioner would fain destroy the reputation of anyone bold enough to make deductions from them. Only oliquity can see in any honest table of statistics any proof that MESSRS. CLAY, GALLATIN and ADAMS gained a victory by their diplomacy. On the contrary, they went for wool, but came home shorn. The war of 1812 was fought for "free trade and sailor's rights." We made a peace treaty and a commercial one, which secured neither. On the contrary, like the fox who lost his tail in a trap, we lost our right to protect our shipping by discriminating duties -the most effective way-until we have statesmen with courage enough to give a year's notice of abrogation and to pass the requisite bill; and since we lost our tail we have tried hard to make the world believe that it fell off by a process of evolution— perfectly novel! In 1822, our tonnage in foreign trade was not

so great as in 1803-under full protection nineteen years before; our shipping capita had fallen from 9.84 cubic feet to 5.63; and our commerce per capita from $20.33 to $14.05.

To gloss over and eclipse these facts, so plainly apparent in our early statistics; to cast doubt upon the protective argument which they suggest and fairly support, and especially to defeat resumptive measures proposed in the Elkins bill (S, 1), the Commissioner of Navigation has not scrupled to undertake deception and imposition. The statistics referred to in his "Conclusion" third are none others than tables numbered 10 and 17 in the annual reports of the Bureau of Navigation. He had issued them three times after taking office, before impugning their accuracy, and it may be his own fault if some "persons not informed" consulting them have been misinformed; as he had given no notice in connection with them that any fault, serious or otherwise, existed in any line Did he for three years carry

around in his head the corrections or the cautions which belonged with his tables? Is he doing that now for other tables?

The pending of the Elkins bill before the Senate Committee on Commerce seems to have suggested last year to the Commissioners that he affix to table No. 17 a foot note adverse to that measure. It is the statement of the Register of the Treasury in 1822, in reference to the decrease of tonnage in 1818, by correction of the records, and is quoted in full on a preceding page, 26. The total merchant marine to which MR. NOURSE referred, was, in 1817, 1,399,912 tons; and in 1818, after the correction, 1,225,185. The decrease shown is 174,727 tons. This, as we have seen, was not all, but "principally" in the "registered" tonnage. The registered tonnage is shown, not in table No. 17, but in No. 10 of the Bureau rep rts, where the decrease appears as 203,636, simply because the difference, 28,909 tons, had surrendered registers and taken out enrollments. But see how boldly a frand is put up! Instead of putting his foot note on page 289, table 10, where the decrease is first shown and on page 321, table 17,where it is next shown, the Commissioner has placed it where it does not belong on page 320 only, with his reference letter "a" to