Amendments to the Constitution, [8 June] 1789 — reading text

to our trade, but flie has permitted our ready built fhips a fale, and entitles them to the fame advantap-e, when owned by lifer own citizens, as if they had been built in France, fuhjefting the fale to a duty of 5 per cent. The Britifii market receives none, the difabilitics of our Ihips to trade with their colonies continue even if they are purchalcd by the fubjedis of Great- Britain, of confequence they cannot be fold without a con- fiderable lols ; nay fo cautious are they to prevent the ad- vantages we naturally polTefs, that they will not fuffer a Britifh ihip to be repaired in America, beyond a certain proportion of her value they even will not permit our ; velVels to be repaired in their ports. Another coniideration has fome weight with me in de- ciding the qucftion of difcrimination. The policy of our ally, from the views of the minifter employed, has frequently been adverfe to the interefl of this country. The perfoi who has had the charge of our affairs at that court, ha long been foliciting a relaxation in our favour, and akhougl it cannot be declared that he has iucceeded, yet there h reafon to beheve he has made fome impreiTions, which our conduct: ought to avoid effacing ihey are fuch as merit ; national attention, and might juitify a difcrimination at this time, although it maybe proper to hold ourfelves at liber- ty to purfue that policy which a change may make neceifary. There are alfo other confiderations which ought to be taken into view. From aitificial or adventitious caufes the commerce between America and Great Britain exceeds what may be conlidered its natural boundary. I find from an examination of the accounts of tonnage for the three large ftates of Maffichufetts, Virginia, and South Carolina, that the tonnage of nations in alliance with us holds no propor- tion with that of Great Britain, or of the United States. This is a proof, that a very fmall direct commerce takes place between thole countries and this ; that there is lefs of dired interccurfe than would naturally be if thofe extrane- A. 178^. Of C O N G R E S S. 1x3 ous and adventitious caufesdid not prevent it; fuch as, the long polTeilioii of our trade, their coinuiercial regulatioiiS calculated to retain it, their fimilarity of language and man- ners, their conformity of laws and other circuiailances, all ihefe concurring has made their commerce with us more ex- tenlive than their natural iituation would require it to be ; I would will] therefore to give Inch political advantages to thofe nations as nriight enable them to gain their proportioa of our direct trade from the nation wiio has acquired more than is naturally her due. From this view of the fubjedt, J am led to believe it would be good policy to make the propofed difcrimination between them. Is it not alfo of iome importance, that we Ihould enable nations in treaty witl) us to draw fome advantage from cur alliance, and thereby imprefs thofe powers that have hitherto negledlcd to treat with us, with the idea that advantages are to be gained by a reciprocity of iriendlhip. It we give every tiling equally to thole who have or have not formed trea- tries, furely we do not furnil'h to them any motive for courtina our connection. It has been objected, that tiie price of our produce at foreign markets would not bear lins. additional burtlien, and that the fieight muit be paid by the planters. It Vv'ill be unnceflary, after what was laid by tlie gentleman from Penufylvania (Mr. Ficzlimon?.} to take up the committee in obferving, that foreigners malt re.ccive our tobacco, rice, &:c. in American lliipping if ihcy cannot be otherwife got. There may be a <]ifcrimination made in otlier rcfpeds be- hde in tonnage, i'o that a very high impoft on this article need not be inliited upon, But will any gentleman fay, Britilii vefTels ought to enjoy in American ports greater ad-* vantages then are enjoined by Americans in Britilh ports 5 yet were the duties laid equal in both cafes, the Eritilh merchant would have a very great fuperiority. In the lirifc place, fome of the molt valuable ports which ilie pcU'eires, and molt conducive to our intereit, are abfolutely doled, whilit every port m the United States is open to her wiih-- out reltricT:ion or limitaiion. Again, even in thoi'e whichr it is permitted America to enter her vefiels, h^e muft bring nothing but the produce of her own foil, whillt the Britilit ihlp makes circuitous voyages, and brings with her the pro-- duce of every quarter of the globe ; thei'e are material ad* vantages, and take the whole of thei'e obfervations togethefy I think they furnilh iubilantial reafons lor inaking the pr©-- poled difcrimiimtioii. P  114 DEBATES Mr. Lawrance A. 1789. The queftion in this cafe, I take it, will be the pohcy of giving a preference to one nation above another. I would alk the gentleman over the way (Mr. Madilbn) if we have experienced advantages from the powers with whom we have treaties fufficicnt to entitle them to this preference ? If we have, and are under obligations to them for fuch ad- ^'anta^^es, I ihall be the laft man to fay any thing to prevent a grateful difcharge of thofe obligations if we are under _; no fuch, we are left to act from what wc may confider our beft inrerelt ; for nations as well as individuals are guided by the principle of interelt. If then it will operate againfi: the intcrelf of the United States, it will be bad policy to give this prefei-ence ; if ic is congenial to and confident with that inrerelt, then it becomes our duty to give it. The gentleinan lalt up, has flated feveral confiderations why a preference ihould be given to the veifels of foreigners in treaty. Ke tells you the public fentiment are in favour of the meafure. I v.ould aflc him how is the public fenti. ment in this cafe to be collecled ? Is it to be collected from the converfation of individuals, or from the acts of public bodies ? if froui the converfation of individuals, i am not fo well informed as he is, becaufe 1 never heard it mention- ed if frcjm the acts of public bodies, we may be on a foot- ; ing, btcaufe they are to be come at with a little enquiry und application. Now, if my memory ferves me right, I believe no difcrimination has been made but by one Itate ; I know the ftate I have the honor ro reprelent on this floor has made none ; we confider all foreigners upon an equal footing, and that it is nor our interelt to give a preference to any, and tlierefore we do not do it. The gentlenian fays, there has been a relaxiion in the policy of one power in alli.Ynce with us, and in France we may now fell ihips built in America under certain regulations ; but probably this privilege njay be no benefit to us. I believe v\e have not fold mor« than two veifels in that country lince the al- teration has been made, and thefe pei'haps without advan- • tage J if I aiji miftakcn, let me be let right, and let the gentleman make it appear that we can draw a benefit from* this relaxation fulTicient to jultify the prefent meafure. He mentioned alfo an expecT^ation ot fo, lie farther alterations in Dnr favour. I admit we nsay have fuch expectation, but probable it may not be realized. Some time ago we had fome privile<re refpefting the importation of oil into France; but an alteration has taken place on this fubject; and our A. 1789. Of CONGRESS. 115 privilege together with the benefit is gone. The gentle- man mentioned, that the commerce of Britain with thi? country was too great in proportion to that of other na- tions ; but this is a point not for the government to fettle. I maintain that the merchants of America are well able to underftand and pnrfue their own interefts, and the ad- vantages which they obtain tend to the wealth and profpe- rity of the union If they find it their intereft or conve- nience to form conneclions with the fubjedls of one nation in preference to another, why fliould the government inter- fere to difTolve it ; they Ihould be left to theinfelves, like the indiiftrious bee, to gather from the choiceft flower the greateft abundance of commercial fweets. I belive there is a propriety in diicriminating between our own citizens and foreigners, but as to the latter there is no good reafon for eftablilhinga preference among them. It is not contended that we are bound by treaty to do any fuch thing ; if we are not bound by treaty, then we are left at liberty to purfue our particular interell and here ; I would alk gentlemen, ifitcanbe our intereit, not liaving veflels enough of our own to difcourage the competition among foreigners for our carrying trade ? if we give a preference we deftroy the competition. The Dutch, I am informed, navigate the cheapell of any nation, they have a treaty with the United States, of courfe they will carry our produce in the firft inftance ; but as they will not fur- nilh enough we mud look further, to France; this nation does not accommodate us with enough either ; w-e then go to nations not in treaty, and fubjev^ ourfelvesto this additional burthen, and mull give them what they exad. We are told that American vefTels have not the fame advantage in Britifli ports that Britiih fhips have in America. This may be true, but it muft be conlidered, that our vefTels are on an equal footing with their own in carrying the produce of our country, while articles of the fame nature, imported from other parts of the world, pay an additional duty. It may be well on this occafion to obferve, that the nation againfl: whom this regulation is diredcd^ may be difpofed to meet you with afimilar regulation, and deitroy that part of our carrying trade which remains to us. At prefent we can export pot-aih, lumber, iron, and other articles to England, and v.-e pay no higher duty than Britidi vcffels, but a fmall alien-duty to which all nations are fubjected.' Upon the whole, it is good policy, I believe, to let com- merce take its own courfe, and noi; to attempt difc-imina Ii6 DEBATES tion which may eventually prove more injurious to us than A. 1789, we at preient conceive. We ought to contemplate our own interell as a nation, and puri'ue what appears lobe the beft calculated to promote that end, as we are under no obligations to the contrary, from either the principles or prai^tice of thofe powers with whom lubiilts commercial treaties. Mr. Madison. I am a friend to free commerce, and at the lame time a fi'iend to fuch regulations as are calculated to promote our own interell, and this on national principles. Tlie great principle of interell is a leading one with me, and yet my combination of ideas on this head, leads me to 3 very diffe- rent conckilion from that made by the gentleman from JLN!ew-York (Mr. Lawrance.) 1 wifh we were under lefs jieceiTity than I find we are to Ihackle our commerce with duties, reflriftions and preferences ; but there pre cafes in which It is impoHible to avoid following the example of other nations in the great diveriity of our trade. Some j'eafcns for this were