Conclusion VI. "Our growth as a maritime nation was between 1820 and and 1860, under the policy of reciprocity. We increased our tonnage for foreign trade at more than double the rate at which Great Britain's tonnage increased; we increased our share of Great Britain's general carrying-trade, while her own share was reduced; we controlled more than three-fifths of the direct carryingtrade between the United States and Great Britain; we equalled Great Britain in tonnage built." This is a mixture of romance and craft. The reader has only to examine the dates of our treaties to see that, in 1820, we had only introduced the reciprocity policy; and that it then affected only two of thirty-eight nations, Great Britain in direct trade, and Sweden with her single West India island. The act of April, 1818, quoted page 22, antagonized and frustrated the British treaty of 1815, while Swedish competition was feeble. Referring to the table, page 33, and to the figures under "Tonnage Entered," and to "Tonnage Entered and Cleared," it will be seen that in 1820 the movement was less than in 1815; that our percentage of carrying had increased; that not till 1827 is there any evidence that foreign tonnage was increasing in our trade, though four countries were on a reciprocity basis in 1826. Sweden and Norway, the Hauseatic Cities of Lubec, Bremen and Hamburg were conceded reciprocity in 1828; from that date the increase of foreign movement, and the falling off in American, is so manifest and indisputable that this year, and not 1820, marks the actual starting point of declension. In point of fact, we have been sixty years getting under the policy of "reciprocity," and out from under protection. Then, if " our growth as a maritime nation was from 1828 to '60, or to the present, what of our unexampled development from 1789 to 1810?—our shipping per capita, in the foreign trade, rising from 3.64, to 13.43 cubic feet; but falling to 7.58, at 1860, to 1.15 cubic feet now? Three ways appear to determine comparative growth and decline, each a check upon the others. First, by ascertaining and comparing increase in tonnage employed; second, by determining and comparing shipping per capita in use; third, by computing and comparing the proportion of American carriage by value or quantity. In connection with these methods it is useful to find and compare the commerce per capita carried. The following tables, pages 50 and 51, will enable the reader to see the fallacy of the Commissioner's contention. From these tables we derive the following comparative statement, as the best that can be made for the Commissioner's contention. Twenty-one year's growth of tonnage in foreign trade: In Protection period, from 1789 to 1810, gain 691 per cent. In Protection period, from 1789 to 1807, gain, 244 per cent. 1-One hundred cubic feet of internal space make one "ton." IMPORT EXPORT Eighteen years' growth in proportionate carriage : In Protection period, 1789 to 1807, gain, 76.5 per cent. In Reciprocity period, 1828 to 1846, loss, 4.3 per cent. In Protection period, 1789 to 1807, gain, 60.0 per cent. In Reciprocity period, 1828 to 1846, loss, 8.3 per cent. The culmination of tonnage per capita, under Protection, was in 1810, with 13.43 cubic feet; under Reciprocity, it was in 1855, with 8.63 cubic feet. Under Protection for thirty-nine years, (1789-1828), the average shipping per capita was 9.48 cubic feet; under Reciprocity for thirty-three years, (1828-1861), it was 5.72 cubic feet, or 60 per cent. Under Protection for thirty-four years-omitting the first four, and two of the war of 1812-the average of proportionate carriage was, for imports, 89.57; for exports, 84.9; whereas, under Reciprocity, (1829-'61), thirty-three years, the average was, for imports, 81.6; for exports, 73.89; aver age loss, 9.49 per cent. We may also compare the average com merce per capita; omitting two years of the war, the average under Protection, (1789 to 1828), thirty-seven years, was $21.02, and under Reciprocity, (1828 to '61), thirty-three years, it was only $16.3, or 77.54 per cent.-rather a poor showing all around. Again, if reciprocity is the good policy that the Commissioner pretends it is, why was it that our proportionate carriage fell off from 1846 to '61, while tonnage was making its best advancement under this policy, though its gains were only one-third as large as from 1789 to 1810, under protection? From 1846 to '61 we lost 27.1 per cent. on import carriage; and 4.1 per cent, on export, or an average of 15.6; notwithstanding that from 1848 to '58. we had some protection to steam lines. In fact, but for the wonderful increase of commerce from 1850 to '60, averaging 73.6 per cent. over the previous decade,' together with the superiority of American shipping, and the wars in which several of our rivals were for years engaged, there would have been little to claim for reciprocity in the decade cited, as there has been nothing to "point to with pride" since, although we have had more and more of "a free trade" for our vessels with the passing of time. 1-This increase was due mainly to the large annnal additions of gold to the coin of the world, from the mines of California and Australia. Under the showing thus made, it is submitted that the contention in regard to growth is unwarranted and fallacious. It is notorious that reciprocity has prevailed from little to much all the time of our shipping decline-from 1820 to '60, not only, but from 1828 to '98. The Commissioner, it is true, has charged up declension to "iron shipbuilding " since it began, but to do this is to acknowledge that his principle of reciprocity has no power to overcome a little thing like that. Protection, on the other hand, is an overcoming principle. This is so well known that when a protective tariff bill has been pending, the fashion of the free-traders used to be to deny its efficacy, and to lay all the blame of shipping decay to such legislation, forgetting all about "iron shipbuilding." If the reader will examine the table last given he will find that lowering the tariff never checked decline in proportionate carriage, and that before the " war tariff came on, from 1829 to '61, our carriage had fallen 23.5 per cent., though the tariff was reduced from " high" to medium, and down to "low"-too low for revenue enough. The reader will also see that before iron vessels cut any figure in our carrying-trade, which was not before 1854, that, by that time, from 1829, a loss of carriage had occurred to the extent of 19.15 per cent. Why, after 1828, tonnage made no progress at all for twelve years. We had more foreigntrade tonnage in 1810 than in '46; and more shipping per capita in 1817 than at any time since. ود But, says the Commissioner, we increased our tonnage for foreign trade at more than double the rate at which Great Britain's tonnage increased." If true, what of it? Our population began at four millions and now it is seventy-four. While Great Britain has been multiplying her numbers by four, we have multiplied by eighteen. We have never increased foreign-trade tonnage fast enough since we have been fairly under reciprocity. Great Britain has; but if good for her, it is bad for us. The question at issue, however, is not the comparative increase of tonnage, between our own and any foreign country, but, what effect "reciprocity" has had, and is likely to have if continued, upon our own tonnage and carriage? |