terial whether it be struck out, or so amended as to rest on the avowed principle of a commutation for the drawback; but as a clause has been drawn up by my colleague, in order to be substituted, I shall concur in a vote for striking out, reserving to myself a freedom to be governed in my final vote by the modification which may prevail."

British Interest in the Failure of our Fisheries. Mr. Bourne, of Mass., recited several arguments for the passage of the bill, and added, "I cannot suppose that any one would, at this day, voluntarily relinquish it (the fishing business) and suffer Great Britain to monopolize this branch, and supply the Mediterranean, French, and other markets. Great Britain, at present, enjoys a sufficient portion of this commerce, while France is confined to the narrow limits of St. Peters and Mique lon. If we relinquish this branch of the cod fishery, what is left us? Our whale fishery is nearly at an end, and unless. Government speedily interpose, by granting relief, we shall. totally lose it. Does not the British Government wish to deprive us of this branch also? Have not letters or agents been sent to the island of Nantucket, as well as New Bedford, where this branch of business is principally prosecuted, inviting the whale fishermen to remove, and offering them permanent settlements at Milford-Haven, at the expense of their Government? This must be viewed as a great encouragement, in addition to their bounties on oil, to a class of poor men. If the cod fishery is relinquished, the fishermen have only to remove to the opposite shore of Nova Scotia, where they will find encouragement. fully adequate to their services of all which they are not unapprised."

Argument against the Drawback System. Mr. Page, of Va., opposed not only bounties, but the drawback system:

"I much doubt whether Congress can give that encouragement to the fisheries to which they are entitled, and which policy would lead the Government to give, were it not restricted by the Constitution. I consider, sir, the Constitution as intended to remedy the defects of the Confederation to a certain degree; so far only as would secure the independence and general welfare of the Confederated States, without endangering the sover

eignty and independence of the individual States. Congress, therefore, was authorized to pay the debts of the Union, and to regulate commerce partly for that purpose, and partly to prevent improper and dangerous commercial combinations, jealousies, and altercations between the States. But Congress was not intrusted with any regulation of exports which could admit of an interposition which might be dictated by partiality; nor was Congress permitted to lay any tax which could by any possibility operate unequally on the States in general. . .

...

"It ought first to be proved that Congress has the power and authority to give them (the fishermen) the encouragement demanded; and even if Congress have that power, it ought to be shown that it can be extended to the benefit of the sailors of some of the States, and not to those of every State." He deprecated giving "a pretext for their successors to abuse the powers which they now wish to exert for the public good. I know they will quote the opinion of as wise and virtuous a citizen as is in the United States. I know his patriotism, and know well his true Republican principles; but, sir, with the freedom of a fellow-citizen, I take the liberty of saying that his honest zeal, like that of the friends of the bill, has led him into a mistake.1 That able statesman and virtuous citizen, like the eloquent advocates of the bill, has considered the acts now quoted as a full sanction for the one before the Committee. But I am of opinion that those acts had better be repealed than give a sanction to the enacting of a law which goes to the establishment of bounties or drawbacks, or by whatever other name they are called, which may be used to the partial encouragement of any branch of trade or employment whatsoever."

The question on striking out the first section was negatived 32 to 26.

Amendment and Passage of the Bill. On a motion to strike out the words "bounty now allowed," and insert allow ance now made Mr. Giles observed, "that he conceived the vote of yesterday was a decision in favor of the policy of granting Governmental aid to the fisheries; the inquiry to-day will be on what terms this aid shall be granted?... When he 1 Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, Report on the Fisheries.

first mentioned his doubts respecting the principle of the bill, it was with diffidence, and those doubts in some measure arose from an idea that the bill contained a direct bounty upon occupation; upon a more minute examination, he thought the term bounty' unnecessarily introduced into the bill, and that the object of it could be answered without the use of terms which might hereafter be deemed to contain a decision upon the gen eral principle of the Constitutional right to grant bounties; it was to avoid anything which might wear the appearance of such a decision, that induced him to make the present motion." . . .

He would remark further, that "bounties in all countries, and at all times, have been the effect of favoritism - in fact, they are nothing more than Governmental thefts committed upon the rights of one part of the community, and an unmerited Governmental munificence to the other. In this country, and under this Government, they present an aspect peculiarly dreadful and deformed."

The bill was accordingly amended. Next day the bill and amendments were passed-yeas 38, nays 21- Mr. Madison voting aye, as the act had been made acceptable in a Constitutional point of view - no bounty in it.

Continuance of the Fishery Act. April 12, 1800, an Act was approved continuing in force the Act of 1792 for ten years. Section 2 provided, "that the said allowances shall not be understood to be continued for a longer time than the correspondent duties, respectively, for which the said additional allowances were granted, shall be payable." By several acts after 1792, the salt duty had been raised, and the "allowance" increased proportionably. In supporting the bill of 1800, Mr. Sewell said, "this law was meant to operate as a bounty," though he did not think the amount paid was equal to the duty on the salt." Mr. Mason opposed the bill, saying that exported beef, pork, and other salt provisions were entitled to same consideration. Mr. Smith informed the House that, "at the first passage of this bill, it was considered as a drawback on the salt used, and in that view, the same benefit was extended to all other salted articles of export."

Mr. Jefferson's lively interest in the success of the fisheries

was well known. He caused Congress to appoint a special Committee, soon after becoming President, to investigate the subject. Mr. Huger, of Va., reported November, 1803, citing the different acts that had been passed, and closing with a recommendation on three points: No duty of tonnage to be charged to whalers and fishers; no hospital charges to fishermen ; the owners of fishing vessels wrecked or lost to receive the "allowance" as if voyages had been successful.

The main point of the report, however, was the fact that the Government had never done anything for the fishing interest, but to pay, or commute drawbacks of the duties previously paid on the salt used in curing the fish exported. Considering, however, that England and France paid actual and direct bounties to fishermen, it is not to be wondered at that our citizens fell into a habit of miscalling the salt drawback or allowance a "bounty." This misuse of terms has led to a common error that our Government may put any interest under bounty. Even Congress made this mistake a few years ago in passing an act to pay a bounty on sugar production - a a plain disregard of the Constitution. The several States may pay bounties, and they do in different cases. But this power they may exercise, because they did not give it up to the National Government.

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE SIZE AND COST OF A MARINE UNDER SUBSIDY.

When it occurred to cer

A Scheme without an Estimate. tain shipping people to induce the administration to disregard the platform and utterances of the Presidential candidate of 1896, and to substitute subsidy for "discriminating duties," they progressed well until the principle of their bill was challenged, and the pertinent questions propounded is it a specific? How much will it cost? No reliable estimates were produced, but they claimed that we should subsidize, because other nations did. Compelled to consider that appropriation means taxation; that the objects calling for money are many and insistent; that limitations must rule governmental expenditures; that only a moderate sum could be afforded annually, as an "aid" to shipping, the friends of subsidy consented to the limitation of expenditure, neglecting the fact that limiting the money must limit the tonnage.

Calculation of Cost. When it was shown that, for the year 1900,"compensation" to the entire fleet in our foreign trade, if, being American, it were qualified for "aid," would be $40,000,000, Senators were astounded. The Commerce Committee drew a line at $9,000,000 for the total of payments in any year. If larger amounts were earned, the $9,000,000 must be "prorated." This, it was thought, would obviate objections on the ground of high cost, prodigal waste, and impracticability of subsidy for an adequate marine. They thought to get the marine and to save their money, too. This was well devised, especially as nothing need be stated as to the size of the marine which they would thus obtain. For, if their premises were true, and the "compensation" demanded rested on fact, was essential, and must be realized, prorating $9,000,000 could not