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

1902.] MARINE REVIEW. 23 North American continental possessions not to be affected by this article. (Our vessels forbidden to trade there.) Article III. American vessels permitted to carry on commerce be- tween the principal settlements of the British East Indies and the United States, where cargoes must be landed. The East India coasting trade and carriage to foreign countries reserved. No equality in tonnage duties-- our vessels to pay the same as other foreign. Our vessels permitted to touch for refreshment, but not for commerce, at the Cape of Good Hope or St. Helena. Article IV. Each of the contracting parties may appoint consuls, subject to approval in the usual way, but exceptions of consular residence may be made as either party sees fit. Article V. Duration of convention--four years. No provision for renewal. (London, July 3, 1815.) This convention gave us nothing new, but equal footing at the custom house, in direct trade between our own and British European ports. The indirect trade remained as before, British vessels could not bring goods to us from foreign territories, and we still retained some ship protection, even as to England. It left our indirect trade with all nations to our own ships, or to those of the country producing the cargo. Out of more than eighty countries and communities in the world, only about one-quarter sail ships in foreign trade. This plan of reciprocity therefore applied to the navigating nations alone. It was devised for us, with reference to British interest, the chief inducement being colonial reciprocity. As that was withheld, the only compensation lay in the shortness of the term. The British meant to get this extended; our people purposed no extension while West India ports were closed. Our act for this convention was rushed through near the close of a short session, almost without debate. In the next congress, on the suggestion of the president, a navigation bill, and one for non-intercourse, were introduced. These bills looked to curing the defects of the convention, particularly to keeping British ships ' out of indirect trade, to reserving our domestic trade, and to opening the British West India ports. The navigation bill was passed in 1817, the non-intércourse .bill in 1818, supplemented by another in 1820. The latter: acts closed our ports to vessels coming from places which were closed to our vessels. Our vessel interest was now suffering from "liberality;"' British vessels were getting away their work. EXTENSIONS OF CONVENTION TIME. While our people were joyful that the convention would soon termin- ate, word came that, in order to get fair terms in treaties then under negotiation relating to the fisheries, boundaries, etc., our commissioners at London had agreed on ten years' extension of the convention. In like manner, in 1827, we were negotiating two conventions in London, one relative to territory on the northwest coast, and another providing for submission to arbitration of the northwest boundary dispute. Again our vessel interest was thrown into the scale for good weight to please the British. A separate convention was made, continuing in force the agree- ment of July 3, 1815. The second article reads thus: "It shall be competent, however, to either of the contracting parties, in case either should think fit, at any time after the expiration of the said ten years. that is, after the 20th of October, 1828, on giving due notice of twelve months to the other contracting party, to annul and abrogate this convention; and it shall, in such case, be accordingly entifely annulled and abrogated after the expiration of the said term of notice." In six years the reciprocity of 1815 was extended on request to the Netherlands, Sweden, Prussia, and the cities of Hamburg, Bremen, Lubec and Oldenburg. Vessel arrivals the first three years show that American navigation gained a trifle, British navigation was suffering from our acts of 1818-20, Dutch navigation fell off a little, but the other flags gained largely. In- 1821 Norway proposed full reciprocity. An account of this was given congress by President 'Monroe. By an ordinance the ports of Nor- way were opened to vessels of the United States, upon the payment of no other or higher duties than were paid by Norwegian vessels, from what- ever place arriving and with whatever articles laden. Our act of March, 1815, not contemplating the scope of this proposal, it was for congress to consider. In its wisdom congress took no action. EFFECTS OF THE NON-INTERCOURSE ACT. This act, passed in 1818, by a vote of 31 to 2 in the senate, and 123 to 16 in the house, was styled '"An Act Concerning Navigation." It closed our ports to British vessels coming from British places which were closed to American vessels. British vessels departing had to give bonds not to land cargo in any port closed to our ships. The effect was to cut down British arrivals at our ports from 174,935 tons in 1817 to 36,333 tons in 1819, and to 47,365 tons in 1820. Arrivals of American tonnage ceased to fall off and soon gained with increased employment. The British ad- vantages from the convention were immediately nullified. On June 24, . 1822, the British parliament passed an act naming conditions on which British closed ports would be opened. Thereupon the president opened our ports until congress should have time to consider the matter. A limited direct trade was offered, but England herself was to enjoy un- limited intercourse. Congress would not accept the proffer, but the president was given power to suspend our acts on condition of a just reciprocity. The British did not take kindly to our responsive act of 1823--they thought it their business to dictate terms. Meanwhile an open trade continued. An attempt at negotiation failed. The British, dissatis- fied with their own terms, made new ones in an act of parliament of July 5, 1825. By this we were to adopt the scheme of Norway and allow British vessels to come to our ports from every quarter of the globe with cargoes of every sort, the products of every nation; then they would allow us to go with certain enumerated articles of our produce direct to the colonies, and thence to any foreign country except British dominions, and thence back to the states. With all this only a few colonial ports were opened, no discriminating duties were to exist, the act to take effect Jan. 1, 1826: if not accepted then the open ports would be re-closed. We did not yield, and Dec. 1, 1826, the re-closing followed. In March, 1827, the president put our acts of 1818 and 1820 into force again. OUR SECOND, THIRD AND LAST ACTS FOR RECIPROCITY. We have given the reciprocity act of 1815. This was repealed by an act of March 3, 1819, to take effect Jan. 1, 1824, after-which date no more conventions would be made. But the West India question being unsettled, the congress of 1823-24 passed a new act, renewing in amended form the a - 1815. This was a false step. Our shipping interest was not con- sulted. In 1825 John Quincy Adams became president. He had headed our commission for the treaty of peace in 1814, and for the convention of 1815, and was ambitious to effect a diplomatic settlement of the pending West India question. What he needed was an "olive branch" for Eng- land. He knew that the British act of 1825 required permission for British vessels to enter our ports from those of every country on the globe, with cargoes, the fruits of the industry of every people. He knew that "reci- procity"' with the states, as Britain wanted it, was a scheme to defeat our competition, and that in 1824 she had passed acts for reciprocity with Prussia and other powers. He would make a virtue of necessity--he would sacrifice something to make his point. We had for years, in com- mon with most shipping nations, reserved the indirect commerce and navigation. This reservation was perfect protection in our intercourse with many countries, particularly in export trade. Huskisson saw the importance of doing away with this protection. Adams did not compre- hend the advantage in retaining it. In his first message he proposed its removal. A bill was introduced, discussed and laid over, but in 1828 was passed, authorizing the president to make agreements for full and complete reciprocity with all foreign nations. But the British would not treat after | all; they desired to receive the boon, but disdained to grant it. The West India question went over to president Jackson; our minister got points for a bill which was passed in 1830, and we had no more port-opening deals until 1849, when, the British having revised their navigation laws, we admitted their vessels as under the act of 1828. But they never treated under it. More than half their intercourse stands today upon no agree- ment whatever. CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACT OF 1828. _ When this act was first proposed our proportionate carrying had culminated. From that day to this the average tendency has been down-~ ward. For years after its passage our tonnage as well as carriage de- creased. In 1828 we had in foreign trade 757,998 tons; but in 1830 and 1831 the figures were 537,563 and 538,136 tons. On the other hand, in 1830 British shipping entering our ports measured 78,947 tons. For ten years previously the average had been 76,518 tons. In the next year after reciprocity--1831--British entrances rose to 143,806 tons; and for the first ten years thereafter the average number was 212,661 tons, or 63 per cent. of all the foreign arrivals. In this decade, while our own tonnage gained 40 per cent. in all the ports of the world, British tonnage increased nearly 400 per cent. in American ports alone. And this in the days of wooden sailing ships. Mr. Bates here presents a table intended to show our shipping experi- ence under opposite policies--the period before adoption of reciprocity (1789-1815), the period from partial reciprocity to full (1815-1828), and the period after full reciprocity (1828-1901). Our foreign trade shipping - is noted for each year since 1879. Dates of different treaties and conven- tions for reciprocity are also noted, with terms and other particulars, and there is Added a column showing for each year proportion of our car riage in foreign trade. This table shows, Mr. Bates says, that the con- stant average decline in carrying originated after our reciprocity conven- tions took effect, and has continued with the extension of competition by ae shipping thus encouraged, ever since. He then continues as ollows: In eighty-seven years we have made agreements with forty-two differ- ent countries. We have such agreements now with twenty-three countries. There have been fourteen agreements terminated by eleven foreign nations. Where reciprocity articles have been put into treaties proper, they generally stand for a term of years, subject thereafter to notice and abrogation. In nearly all other cases the treaty as a whole may be ter- minated by notice. The reciprocity in British colonies, except as to the East Indies, stands upon statute law--repealable. There is no convention for full reciprocity with Great Britain. THE GAINERS BY OUR LOSS OF CARRIAGE. It has been shown that our carriage culminated in 1825-26. Up to this time only three nations--Great Britain, Sweden-Norway and France-- had reciprocity agreements, and the Netherlands had an act which affected the direct trade only. In 1815, 1816 and 1817 British arrivals increased greatly, threatening a larger loss of American carriage; but our acts of 1818-20 cut down British arrivals materially. The other reciprocators gave us little competition before our carriage culminated. Our damaging competition came from the British in the beginning and after 1829; and the advantage of partial reciprocity, for a few years, was more than offset by our acts of 1818-20. It was after the act for full reciprocity and the opening of ports, mutually, with England in 1830, that we may fix the point of permanent decline of our carriage. The figures of proportionate arrivals corroborate this. It is shown by these proportionate carriage records that our percent- age in 1830 was 93.6 for imports, 86.3 for exports. Ten years afterward, with eighteen countries cutting into our carrying trade, the figures were down to 86.6 for imports, to 79.9 for exports; in 1850 we had reciprocity with twenty-five countries, and the figures lowered--77.8 for imports, 65.5 for exports. At the opening of the civil war, 1861, discriminating duties nearly all suspended--the figures stood at 60 for imports and 72.1 for exports--the latter raised from efforts of merchants to get cargoes out of the country. Thus, in thirty-five years, our average loss of carriage had been, for imports 1 per cent., for exports half of 1 per cent. annually. Unaware of these facts, speculative persons have attributed the loss of our carrying trade to our use of wooden sailing ships, to the British use of iron steamers, and to the high tariff since 1861, but our decline was well under way before the day of iron ships or the use of steamers, and many years before the war. ; THE IMPOLICY OF RECIPROCITY. One great failing of reciprocity has been that it presumed to equalize footing in navigation, but did not. It equalized footing-in-law at the custom house, but there is a footing-in-fact that it never touched and can- not lay hands on. It was our footing-in-law that we depended on to equalize footing-in-fact,. Removing it and tying up congress, it was open to foreign nations to improve their footing-in-fact by all sorts of protec- tions that did not spring from the government--even some that did so spring--subsidy, for instance. Not a single shipping nation is now de-