The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

22 | MARINE REVIEW. [July 17 OUR FOREIGN CARRYING TRADE. By WILLIAM W. BATES, Former Commissioner of Navigation.* Of the various subjects coming before the country few have had less tendency to divide opinions than the principle of American shipping for the carriage of American commerce. For many years after the formation of the more perfect union of the states, commerce and navigation were regarded as two of the four pillars of our prosperity. We have so many industries now, these grand old and reliable occupations draw lessened attention, but they remain and must always constitute essential pillars of national prestige and power. The advantages and benefits of maritime pursuits are numerous and important. Only a mere allusion can be made here. They may be grouped under five general heads: One, the indus- trial; two, the commercial; three, the financial; four, the political; and five, the military. These interests harmonize with all others of importance to the nation. Their principle is, that we should carry on our own com- merce and navigation, do our own ship building, underwriting and bank- ing, and pursue as we may See fit every business or calling related to the sea; that we should develop on the ocean as upon the continent, and be- come the equal of any nation on the earth. : Once we were rightly started and well along in accomplishing this purpose. Beginning with 20 per cent. of proportionate carriage in 1789, in a few years our vessels were carrying from 80 to 90 per cent. of our exports and imports and so continued, the culmination occurring in 1826, when the figures stood, for exports, 89.6 per cent.; for imports, 95 per cent. This was under regulations which purposely favored our own shipping for our own trade. A change of policy was introduced; our marine was given less pref- erence at the custom house, when different causes quickly produced differ- ent effects. Later, a complete and radical change was effected and no preference was given. By 1861 export carriage had fallen to 72.1 per cent.; import carriage to 60 per cent. By the close of the civil war the figures were down to 26.1 and 29.9 for export and import carriage, respec- tively. The war was damaging, but peace showed little recuperative power. In 1870, the percentage reached 37.7 for export, and. 39.1. lor import carriage, but has declined since. In 1891 it stood at 6.13 for export carriage, and 11.99 for import. Once, our shipping carried 75 per cent. of our commerce with Europe. Of late, it fluctuates above and below 2 per cent. There are many ports in Europe, as in other parts, where an American ship is never seen, while last year the number of nations par- ticipating in our foreign trade was twenty-five, every one of them accorded the same port privileges as ourselves. The name for the policy under which foreign shipping has displaced our own is a misnomer-----to us. How little reciprocity there is about it may thus be seen. In 1900, in the trade between our country and Europe, not one American merchant vessel went to or came from Germany, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Greece or Turkey. Two small American vessels came from France, one in ballast; one came from Belgium in ballast, and one cleared for Spain. There were cleared for or entered from England eleven sailing vessels, while two small steamers went in ballast. The American mail steamships St. Louis, St. Paul and New York made their accustomed trips, sustained by subsidy. A policy responsible for such results--and this fact is demon- strable--deserves an instant reversal. Its only use appears to be to serve as a standing plea for government aid--subsidy--a beggarly remedy. Certain foreign nations have found it of advantage and deserved to, as they originated it. They may think we deserve something, too, for being drawn into their schemes. OUR FIRST SHIPPING POLICY. Shortly after the peace of 1783 an event occurred which excited our people from north to south. This was an order in council of the British government closing to American vessels the ports of its North American colonies and islands, and suppressing all commerce with them except by British vessels. At that time each state made shipping laws for itself. The congress of the American confederation appointed a committee, with Mr. Jefferson as chairman, to consider and report some measure to fit the case. This resulted in a proposition to ask the states for power to pass and enforce a general navigation law. Consent in proper shape was not obtainable. A proposition that the congress be empowered to pass an impost act had a similar experience. A new general government, with definite powers, was thus shown to be a necessity. A league of maritime states, without a general government, a common revenue system and a merchant marine, could not become respected as an independent power. Daniel Webster well said: "Maritime defence, commercial regulations and national revenue were laid at the foundation of our national compact. They are its leading principles and causes of its existence. They were primary considerations, not only with the convention which framed the constitution, but also with the people when they adopted it. They were the objects, and the only important objects, to which the states were con-~ fessedly incompetent. To effect these by the means of the national gov- ernment was the constant, the exhaustless topic of those who favored the adoption of the constitution." Only two of the enumerated powers granted in the constitution--the power to raise revenue and to borrow money--precedes the power to regulate foreign commerce, so as to develop an American marine. Prop- erly equipped with power, the federal congress applied it to our carrying trade in the very first act for the relief of the country, the tariff bill of 1789. By subsequent acts a simple system of ship encouragement was perfected. The principle employed was preference for national vessels in the carriage of our own commerce. This preference was created by dis- criminating duties of tariff and of tonnage. The effects were immediate and satisfactory--in the United States. In England, however, there was resentment. A republican power must not be admitted to rivalry on the ocean; means of prevention must be found. Our first commercial treaty was with France, in 1778. It contained what are known as "favored nation" clauses, by which we are not to use discriminating duties to favor any foreign nation. It was abrogated by congress on the eve of war in 1798. The peace treaty of 1800 contained a like stipulation. In March, 1783, England attempted to forestall any *Address delivered before the Home Market Club, Boston. action of our states or of congress, in passing navigation laws applicable to British shipping. Under the famous navigation act, all. European nations might enter British ports carrying their own productions in their own vessels. It would need a special act to extend this privilege to the United States. Accordingly, Mr. Pitt introduced a bill by which our vessels might carry our productions not only to England, but might also trade to the West Indies, bringing back any goods whatever, subject to the same duties and charges payable by British subjects and British vessels, on condition of reciprocation. To this measure the British shipping interest made "a violent opposition,' and it was laid aside. It was con- tended that our government was too feeble to protect its shipping inter- est; it were best to allow no equality whereby we might acquire the means of rivalry. By an order in council, renewed yearly, we were permitted to trade with home ports. In 1785 John Adams endeavored in vain to get some relaxation in favor of West Indian trade. No commercial treaty could be made. The ministry would not treat with thirteen different states. Studying the subject, our statesmen determined to improve our general government and one day assert their rights upon the ocean, The present government was formed and we became a nation in 1789. Congress encouraged our. commerce and navigation, and these interests prospered. The war declared against the French in 1793 gave the British a chance and an excuse to obstruct and to harass our navigation. Evi- dence of its success was very distasteful in London. The headway of the "starred flag" at sea was "becoming abominable." Something should be done about it. Consequently our seamen were impressed and the voyages: of our vessels broken up wherever convenient. Congress took the matter up and some drastic regulations were likely to be carried, when the British minister invited diplomatic action. Judge Jay went to London and the "Jay treaty" was made. The British embraced this chance to nullify our power to apply discriminating duties in favor of our shipping in our com- merce--with them. We were not to take our duties off, but to allow them to countervail at discretion, while we were not to increase our duties 'in the least. They soon availed of their advantage, but being at war, and we being neutral, our loss was not felt until the peace of Amiens--1801-1802. Meanwhile British shipping got less advantage than was expected, and in 1802 parliament passed an act for partial reciprocity, hoping to get our discriminating duties removed by act of congress. A member from Maryland brought forward a resolution to this effect, got it before his own committee, but remonstrances from our commercial cities defeated the scheme. In 1804 congress passed an act charging foreign vessels "light dues' of 50 cents a ton, adding largely to our protective system. This did not infringe the treaty, but made the British more than ever determined to make us quit regulating our trade. In 1806 a new treaty was drawn up in London, which contained articles for reciprocity, but was so one- sided that the president returned it. OUR FIRST MARITIME RECIPROCITY CONVENTION. Our history of the war of 1812 is well known. It was persistently provoked by our enemy, who expected to make it an occasion when our flag would disappear at sea. In place of disappearing it was glorified. England wearied of the war, but held to her resolution to make no peace that did not provide for clearing away our discriminating duties--the encouragement that had so wonderfully given us naval strength. We had better have denied her then and there, in defiance of consequences; but the treaty of peace was made, with an understanding that a commercial convention should follow its ratification. Three of the five statesmen who acted as our commissioners for the treaty of peace acted also in making the convention. It was expected that this negotiation would settle the questions of the "right of search," of the rights of our ships and seamen and our right to carry our products in our own vessels to British West India-ports. In these matters we were disappointed. The British wanted our ship protection removed, and had their way. Our commissioners got the term as short as possible--four years. For this convention congress passed an act: _ "That so much of the several acts imposing duties on the tonnage of ships and vessels, and on goods, wares and merchandise imported into the United States, as imposes a discriminating duty. on tonnage between foreign vessels and vessels of the United States, and between goods im- ported into the United States in foreign vessels and vessels of the United States, be and the same are hereby repealed; such repeal to take effect in favor of foreign nations whenever the president of the United States shall be satisfied that the discriminating or countervailing duties of such foreign nation, so far as they operate to the disadvantage of the United States, have been abolished." (March 3, 1815.) _ On our part the object of this act was peace; on the part of Great Britain it was the removal of protection from American vessels. These used to bring our imports, and, doing so, could carry exports the cheaper. The law and the convention tended to shift the carriage of imports to foreign vessels and to enable them to carry exports the cheaper. A British writer has boasted that "England has always contrived to obtain the chief advantages" from her reciprocity treaties and conventions. CONVENTION TO REGULATE COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION. (Abstract of Contents.) _Article I, Freedom of commerce and navigation between the terri- tories of the United States of America and all the territories of the King of England in Europe--not elsewhere. Article II. No discriminating duties on imports and exports, the growth, produce or manufacture of the United States or of the British territories--in Europe. No discriminating duties on vessels of contract- ing parties in American ports or in British European ports. The same duties on articles imported, the growth, produce or manufacture of con- tracting parties either in the United States or British territories in Europe, whether carried by American or British vessels. The same duties or bounties on articles exported, the growth, produce or manufacture of contracting parties in the United States or in Europe, whether carried by American or British vessels. Drawbacks to be treated with respect to vessels the same as duties or bounties, except that when re-exportation shall be to foreign nations. Intercourse with the British West Indies and