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

12 the United States in foreign bottoms bore a duty of 12% per cent ad valorem, which was about double the ‘rates imposed on the corresponding _ goods imported in American vessels. Duties were greatly increased by the tariff act of 1790, but a notable change in the latter was the sub- stitution of a 10 per cent addition to the general rates on goods imported in foreign vessels, instead of the 10 per cent discount on American ves- sels as in the act of 1789. Foreign Vessels Pay Extra Tax In 1804 a _ so-called “light-money act” was passed, imposing an extra tonnage duty of 50 cents per ton on all vessels other than American. This was increased to $1.50 per ton in 1812. While this levy was ostensibly for the purpose of keeping up the lighthouses, its effect was to levy a duty of 90 cents per ton more on a foreign than an American ship. The dissatisfaction with the wording of the Jay treaty of 1794, which was designed to permit England to im- pose discriminations on American ships equal to those imposed in the United States on British ships, brought about a proposal for the repeal of discrim- inating duties, for the British counter-. vailing duties operated particularly against this country’s foreign exports to England, tobacco and fish oil. These sections of the Jay treaty remained in force till 1807. In 1815 came the great change from discrimination to reciprocity, congress in that year repealing the discrimin- ating duties against foreign nations on imports, and discriminating ton- nage taxes on any cargo of their own production brought by their ves- sels, on condition that such reciprocal measures were adopted by the foreign government; that is, reciprocity was established for the direct but not for the indirect trade. The benefit of this reciprocity was extended to Great Britain by the treaty of July, 1815, exempting the West Indies from its provisions. In March, 1817, congress passed an act designed to compel the nations carrying on indirect trade to enter into reciprocity agreements with the United States by forbidding the importation of goods from any foreign port except in American ves- sels or vessels of the country from which the goods came, unless such foreign country imposed no such pro- hibition against American shipping. The French also attempted to gain a monopoly of French ecammerce with the United States by imposing prohib- itive duties on American produces un- less carried in French vessels. Accord- ingly, congress, by an act approved MARINE REVIEW May, 15, 1820, levied an additional tonnage duty of $18 per ton upon all French vessels, entering American ports until they should accept the American offer of reciprocity. On May 24, 1828, congress passed the important reciprocity bill, offering re- ciprocity both in the direct and in- direct trades. Advantage was taken of this offer by some 40 countries, and there are about 382 treaties still in effect at this time. The policy of exempting from addi- tional tariff duties the cargoes of vessels belonging to such foreign countries as granted corresponding favors to the goods carried in Amer- ican ships continued until the mer- chant marine act. of 1920. The in- tervening tariff laws generally con- tained a section imposing additional 10 per cent duties on goods imported in foreign vessels, exempting treaty nations from the provision. By this restriction, of course, the surtax of 10 per cent became practically unimpor- tant, for all the principal navigating powers had concluded treaties. A further discriminating duty of 10 per cent was sometimes imposed on imported merchandise coming from any port or place east of the Cape of Good Hope in foreign ships, sub- ject, however, to the usual treaty ex- emptions. In addition to the discriminating provisions already mentionad there has been also in all recent tariffs, a provision that “no goods, wares or merchandise, unless in cases provided for by the treaty, shall be imported into the United States from any port or place, except in vessels that truly and wholly belong to the citizens or subjects of the country of which the goods are the growth, production, or manufacture, and from which such goods, wares, or merchandise, can only be, or most usually are, first shipped for transportation.” The penalty for violation of this provision is forfeiture of vessel, cargo, tackle, etc. In the tariff act of 1913, also, there was an additional duty clause, granting a discount of 5 per cent on goods im- ported in American vessels, subject to the treaty exemptions. After differ- ent constructions by the court of cus- toms appeals and the attorney gen- eral, the United States Supreme Court finally held this provision to have been without significance by reason of the existence of the treaties. This decision doubtless led to the enact- ment of section 34 of the Jones act of 1920, which provided for the de- nunciation of treaties preventing dis- criminations. The subject of the renewal of dis- criminations as a policy was discussed September, 1926 by numerous congressional committees, notably in 1905 by the Gallinger com- mittee, which reported adversely to the reintroduction of discriminating duties as a_ policy. The principal reason why the ma- jority of the Gallinger committee of 1905 opposed the return to discrimin- ating duties was not the fear of re- taliation of American vessels, for at that time there were very few Amer- ican ships to which this retaliation could be applied. There was first, the fear that foreign governments would shape their retaliation against United States export trade in gen- eral by discriminating duties against the exports of agriculture and manu- factures and, second, and more par- ticularly, the large free list in the United States tariff, covering almost one half the foreign commodities con- sumed in the United States. Rise and Fall of Shipping The growth of the American mer- chant marine in foreign trade from 1789 to 1861 and its decline there- after down to 1901 are illustrated in the following brief statement found in Bates’s American Navigation. “Beginning with 20 per cent or less of proportionate carriage in 1789, in a few years our vessels were carrying from 80 to 90 per cent of our export and imports, the culmination occuring in 1826, when the figures stood—for exports, 89.6 per cent; for imports, 95 per cent. By 1861—a period of 385 years— export carriage had fallen to 72.1 per cent, import carriage to 60 per cent. By the close of the war the figures were down to 26.1 per cent and 29.9 per cent for exports and import carriage, respectively. For 1901 the proportion stood at 6.13 per cent for export carriage and 11.99 per cent for import. Once American shipping did three-fourths of our transportation with Europe. In 1900 a treasury officer thus reports: “In the trade between the United States and Europe this year not one American vessel went to or came from Germany, Russia, Sweden and Nor- way, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Greece, or Turkey. “Two small American vessels came to the United States from France, one in ballast. One American sailing ves- sel came from Belgium in ballast and one American vessel cleared for Spain. There cleared for or entered from the United Kingdom 11 American gail- ing vessels, and 2 small steam vessels went to the United Kingdom in bal- last. The American flag was never before such a rarity on the North Atlantic between the United States (Continued on Page 40)