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

mentioned on a former occafion ; they have been frequently illuitrated in the progrefs of this bu- fmefs, and the detilion of the csramittee have proved them ?o be neceiTary. I be<T leave to remark in anfwer to a train of ideas which the gentleman lali up has brought into view, that although intereft will in general operate effeclually to produce po- jitical good, yet there are caules in which certain failitlous circumitances may divert it from its natm-al channel, or throw or retain in an artificial one. Have we not been ex- ercifed on this topic for a long time palt ? Or why has it been necelTary to give encouragement to particular fpecieti qf induflry, but to turn the itream in favor of an intereil that would not otherwife JucceeJ — But laying afide the illqllration of thefe caules fo well known to all nations, where cities, comjjanies, or opulent individuals engrols the buGnefs fr()in others, by having had an uninterrupted ptjlFeffion of it, or by the extent of their capitals being able to deltroy a competition let iis proceed to examine w hat ; pviglit to be our conduct on this principle, upon the prelenr pccafion, fuppofe twocommercia! cities, one pofleiled of en- ormous capitals and long habits of buiinefs, whillf the other h pofl'tlTcd cf fuperior natural advantages, but without ^hat vPijrfe of buiinefs and chain cf connexions which the Other has, is it poilible in the i^ature of things, that the IfiUe;- fity fnould carry on afuccefsfui competition with the  ; A. 1789. Of C O N G RE S S. 117 former. Thus it is with nations ; and when we confider the vaft quantities of our produce fent to the different parts of Europe, and the great importations from the fame places, that almort all of this commerce is tranfafled thro' the medium of Britifh fliips and Britilh merchants, lean- not help conceiving that, from the force of habit and other confpiring caufes, that nation is in pofl'eiTion of a much greater proportion ofour trade than flie naturally isintitled to. Frade then being reftrained to an artificial channel, is not fo adventageous to America as a direft intercourfe would be; it becomes therefore the duty of thofe to whofe care the public interelt and welfare are committed, to turn the tide to a more favorable direftion. In the trade of South Carolina is employed annually a- bout 56,977 tons of Ihipping. The proportion of French and Dutch is about 2,100 tons, while that of Great Britain is about 19,000. In Mallachufetts the quantity is about H^^j^Cji tons ;It is ilaied, that there is belonging to the ftate 76,857, the remainder is foreign and moftly Britilh. Jn Virginia we have 56,272 tons; 26,903 Britifh, and only 2664 of the French and Dutch. I cannot, from this view of the fubje(5l, be perfuaded to believe that every part of our trade flows in thofe channels which would be moil na- tural and profitable to us, or thofe which reafon would didate to us, if we were unincumbered of old habits, and other accidental circumllances that hurry us along. It has been aiked by the gentleman from Kew-York, (Mr. Lawrance) what evidence we had that the public fentiments of America were in favor of diicrimination? perhaps it woulii be improper on this occafion to adduce any other proof of the hA than from the traufaftions of public bodies, and here I think is abundant proof to be found. The Itate of Virginia, if I am not miltaken, lays a. double duty on tonnage ; French and Dutch veflels pay half a dollar per ton, while the veflels of Great-Britain are fubjecled to one dollar. There are other diftinftions in our revenue laws manifefling the fame principle, ibme of them Cilablifli a preference to French wines and brandy. In Maryland a riujihir policy has prevailed, I believe the difierence there is about one third in favour of our allies, if I err the gentlemen from that flate can fet me right in Pennfylvania there is a diicrimination of about a fourth. I do not certainly recolieft, but I believe the like policy ex- ifts in other ftates, but I have not had an opportunity of iiS DEBATES A. 1789. fearching their laws on this point, but what I have enu- merated are fafts afFording fubftantial proof, that the pub- lic fentiment does favor the difcrimination. Mr. Baldwin Obferved that the queftion immediately before the com- mittee was of lefs importance than the one which had been argued by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Madifon) and the gentleman from New-York (Mr. Lawrance); he was glad to have this queftion diicufled, and thought the gen- tleman had very properly called in the public fentiment as an argument in favour of his motion for difcrimination ; but the gentleman over the way wants evidence of what the public fentiment is ; I think, faid he, we have a ftrong proof of what the public fentiment is in the very exiftance of the houfe, this fentiment he believed to be the caufe of the revolution under which we are about to acl. The commercial reftriftions Great-Britain placed upon our com- nierce in purfuing her feliilh policy, gave rife to^an una- vailing clamour, and excited the feeble attempt which fe- veral of the (late legiflatures made to counteract the deteft- able regulations of a commercial enemy, but thefe proving altogether ineffedual to ward oft' the effeds of the blow, or revenge their caufe, the convention at Annapolis was formed for the exprefs purpofe of counterading them on general principles ; this convention found the completion of the bu- finefs impoliible to be eftefted in their hands; it termina- ted, as is well known, in calling the convention who fra- med the prefent conftitution, which has perfeded a hap- py revolution in politics and commerce. The general expectation of the country is, that there fhall be a difcrimination; that thofe nations who have not yet ex- plained the terms on which on intercourie fliall be carried on, or who have by eftablilhing regulations bearing hard upon fuch intercourie, may know our ability and difpofi- tion to with-hold or beftow advantages according as we find a principle of reciprocity prevail. Thinking a difcrimina- tion necefl'ary, and knowing that the voice of the people call for it, we fliall not, adds he, anfwer the end for which we came here, by negledlingor refulingto make it. Mr. FiTZsiMONs Was well aware from the beginning, that the debate would turn in the manner it had done the queftion which ; was now br;-ught forward, was well worthy of confidera- tion and dilcuiiion, but he would add no more to the latter than barely to Itute to the committee fuch fadts as would A. 1789. Of C O N G R E S S. 119 tend to point out the difference of the policy of the two principle nations in their regulations as they affefted the commerce of America, leaving it to the judgment of the committee to draw fuch conclulions from them as are pro- per. He believed it true, as dated by the gentleman from Viro-inia, that of all the foreign Ihipping employed in our trade, three-fourths at leaft belonged to the Britifla ; nor did he think it difficult to account for this being the cafe. The citizens of America, previous to the revolution, were poflefled of ihipping nearly enough to carry on their whole commerce ; but during the war, they were not only de- prived of the Ihipping they before poflefled, but the means of acquiring others alfo. When the aera of peace com- menced, they availed themfelves of the opportunity of eltablifliing among us merchants, agents, and factors of that nation. It is by thefe men, and the capitals of Britain, that we are furnilhed with vefTels for the tranfportation of our produdlions, it is by this mean that almoft the whole of our trade is carrriedon in fome States. Thefe obiervations, added to what had been offered before, would fhevv clear- ly the circumdances by which that nation had got fuch a large proportion of our trade. Let us proceed now to afcertain what is the difference between the regulations of France and England relative to the commerce of this country. Into the ports of Great Britain an American velTel can bring the produce of the United States, but nothing elfe. lie believed our fhips paid no more duties on fuch articles thaii if imported in Britilh bottoms, except what was for the fupport of lights, but this in fome cafes falls pretty heavy, but it is no more than all other nations have to pay. In the ports of France, an American vefTel is admitted nearly on an equal footing with the veflels of their own fubjedts. There was a dil- tinction made by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Madi- fon) which he conceived had not been fully attended to. The fliips of this country fold in France are entitled to all the privileges of French built (hips, in her colonial trade as well as any other. Our fhips may be fold in England alfo, but they cannot^be employed in her colonial trade, confi?- quently the price muff he leflened by the reftridtion of their ufe. In the Welt-India ifland the American vellelsare not permitted to enter ; but fhips belonging to the fubjccis of Great Britain may carry any of our produce to ihofe pla- ces, there is no prohibition in this relpecl. In the French V/cft-India iflands; Auieric:m ihipping are admitted indil- 129 DEBATES A. 1789. criminately with their own, but then the articles which are allowed to be carried there are few and of little value ; they are, lumber, live (tock and fAh, the latter iubject to a heavy duty. To fome ifates it is highly beneficial that their produdicns ihould be carried off to the Weft- Indies although in Britiih bottoms ; but then it ought to be re- membered, that the articles calculated for the conl'utnptioii of the ifiands are of Inch a nature that they can not be obtained elfewhere ; fo that it tnay be fairly inferred, the admifTioii of them is not intended as a favour to A-' nierica. The gentleman troni Conneclicut (Mr. Sherman) appre* bended, if we laid reliriftions on the foreign trade, we might be met with equal reftriiflions on thepart of foreigners, but there is no danrrer of that. Every ihino- which Great Britain takes from us, is taken becauie Hie cannot get it any where elfe, or if it is to be had at any other market, it is not at a price fo cheap as ours. Rice for that market can-* not be got in fufficient quantities, tobacco the fame. Lum- ber for her ifiands flie has attempted uniuccefsfully to pro- cure from another quarter. Being thus circumftanced, we do not run an.y rilk of loiing that commerce by any regu- lation we may enter into. But, for our own fakes, we ought not to carry them fo far as to deprive ourfelves of the convenience they alFord whilft we are unfupplied with fhipping of our own. But certainly we can draw a reve- nue from their conlumption by a tonnage duty, as it mult unavoidably be paid by the conlumer and not the planter. The queftion of policy has been well explained, and therefore nothing more need be added, but fubmitting the decilion to the fenfe of the committee, he would rell the fads and conclulions here. Mr. Goodhue withdrew his motion for 60 cents. Mr. Hartley's motion for 33 r-3 cents was put andlolt, but the queftion on 30 cents was put and carried. The next queftion, ** on all veflels belonging wholly or in part to the fubjetis of other powers, at the rate of cents per ton." Mr. Law ranee moved to fill up the blank with the fame fumasthcy had-juft agreed to. Mr. Madison Suppofed the gentleman by this motion, intended