would be a menace to our home shipping, and tend to break down and destroy our shipbuilding business. The next step would be free ships in our coasting, lake, and river trades, and the hauling down of our flag where it has floated for more than a century over a prosperous industry carried on in Americanbuilt vessels."

Our space fails, even for allusion to the many other topics treated in Senator Elkins's speech. Thus it closed:

Senator Elkins's Peroration. "I feel, Mr. President, sooner or later, the patriotic cause of upbuilding American shipping will triumph, and Americans will enjoy and use their common share in the oceans of the world, and have their part in its carrying trade; that the time is not distant when the American flag will be seen on every sea and float from vessels of the United States in all the ports of the earth, and American merchants, underwriters, and bankers will be established and doing remunerative business in all the commercial centres of the world. In laboring to secure for our common country these splendid achievements and great blessings, statesmanship can have no higher aim, patriotism no loftier purpose, and the benedictions of a grateful people will descend on those who may help in this great movement."

66

Our Bitter Disappointment. But the expected did not eventuate. In shame and with sorrow be it said, the Administration was induced to disregard the promise of the campaign, to recede from the constitutional ground of discriminating duties, and to take up position in the swamp of subsidy. Senator Elkins's bill was pigeon-holed in the cabinet of the Committee on Commerce, and the " Hanna-Payne" bill was reported instead. Even section 22 of the Dingley tariff act, providing for the collection of discriminating duties in the cases of foreign vessels and cargoes from countries not in maritime reciprocity agreements with us, and for the repeal of all acts for maritime reciprocity, was nullified and pronounced of no effect by an obliging Attorney-General. Such are not the ways of a wise Administration.

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE POLICY AND MEASURES FOR SHIPPING RESTORATION.

Equitable International Intercourse. The time having arrived when the countries whose carrying trade has been captured by rivals should reform the system under which this has been effected, the question arises, in what mode may international intercourse be equitably carried on? According to Franklin's illustration of "fair and equitable commerce," an individual of one country would meet an individual of another country half way between the two countries, and there exchange their merchandise. That is to say, each nation is entitled to half of the carriage involved in commerce.

We have given an account of England's course in respect to her Colonial trade, and the difficulty our Government had in negotiating anything like a tolerable deal. England needed our merchandise, but insisted on a monopoly of its carriage. In a speech on the measures then pending to secure our rights, Henry Clay, Speaker of the House, remarked:

(1) "The most natural course of the exchange of commodities between nations might be thus defined: that each nation should carry its own products to market; that we should carry of our produce what we do not want, but they do, to British ports; and that they should bring what they do not want, but we do, to our ports.

(2) "The next, and perhaps the most equal and best mode of providing for the free and fair interchange of commodities was to open the trade equally and reciprocally to both parties, to let each carry the commodities of both countries, in a fair competition."

(3) There is another mode of exchange for commodities which was offered to all nations, at the suggestion of Norway

and Great Britain, by our Act of May, 1828, in which we invited universal competition in free carrying the shipping of any nation to carry to every nation the merchandise of all nations; in other words, to ignore entirely national insignia in the ocean-carrying trade, and to let it be monopolized, for that matter, by the active, the cunning, and the strong-by any nation, however unfit for such a function, that could take it captive.

(4) And there is yet another mode, which is quite in vogue by leading nations - to send vessels for articles of commerce, particularly of raw materials and food products, to distant countries, taking thereto such commodities as will find ready sale. In this way considerable of British commerce has been carried on, the shipping of other nations meeting with no success in competing for its carriage.

Present Modes of Intercourse Unsatisfactory. The first mode described would be fair, but costly. Modern commerce includes transportation, and a principle of both is profit both ways, ballast neither way for shipping.

The second mode was that contemplated by our Act of March, 1815, for "reciprocity" with England. It is faulty in this: it provides no way to secure "a fair competition," but leaves all to chance. The superior of any two nations trading in this manner would finally arrive at a monopoly of the business between them. In point of fact, it was this result that the British sought, when they insisted upon its adoption. To the inferior nation this could not prove "an equal and best mode." To make it so, some regulation would be necessary that would secure equal footing in fact as in law. Henry Clay, being a Protectionist, should have known that his proposition was a dangerous one for our young Republic.

The third mode is the one under which, mainly, our foreign carrying trade has been lost. On our part, it was preposterous to have trusted that our young nation would "beat all creation in competing for the world's general carrying trade. Great Britain possessed in highest degree all the elements necessary for the victory which she has achieved. When the nations of the world one after another cast off their ship protection, and

undertook to better themselves by unprotected competition with Great Britain, they put it into the power of an unscrupulous rival to build herself up at their expense. How could any statesman expect "a fair competition" would follow such a grand opportunity for foul play and imposition? The competition has been just such as suited the self-interest of England. The result has been the failure of this mode of international intercourse. Several nations have had their rights filched away; almost every nation has returned, or is about returning, to the protection of its navigation.

The fourth mode of intercourse is highly protective. It excludes general competition in freighting, and disregards altogether the suggestion, if not the implied promise, of maritime reciprocity conventions, that all trades be open to reciprocal participation, and that selfish national carrying should cease. Under this mode of commerce, Great Britain shuts out, wherever possible, every nation from meeting her half way in a “fair and equitable commerce." In defiance of her reciprocity conventions, she monopolizes the carrying both ways.

Correction of our Mistaken Course. Having been the first to suffer, and having suffered most, the world, no doubt, expected long ago the correction of our mistaken course. The doctrine of an "open trade," the illusion of "a fair competition," have had their day. The policy of free carrying of ignoring the existence and the rights of our flag at sea has been most unwise. Other shipping nations, as well as ourselves, will yet have to adopt the old principle of a regulated trade, or submit always to the domination of their traffic, which has been acquired, by Great Britain. Subsidies and bounties cannot, in their nature, fill the place of regulations. As our Constitution will prevent adoption of a subsidy policy, if we do anything for shipping restoration, it must be in the line of trade regulation.

Our early shipping measures were reasonable, simple, and wise. While the principle of the British navigation law was that of exclusion and monopoly, the essence of American policy was freedom, with preference for the employment of our own vessels. What preference could not secure we let go. Expe

rience shows that for prosperous trade ships must carry both ways. Where they can carry cargo but one way, and must take ballast the other way, freights must rule higher, or ships must lay up idle. Experience shows also that the merchants and underwriters of every country, as a rule, prefer to employ and insure the shipping and property of their own flag. This is not only natural but proper. If American merchants and underwriters now feel indifferent towards their country's flag, it is the result of the do-nothing plan so long pursued. It was not so when we had a patriotic policy. Besides, our shipping must now look for employment, as for a favor, to the subjects, or agents of subjects, of foreign Powers, right in our own ports, and, of course, their preference is for foreign tonnage, the property to be carried and the insurance being foreign.

Influence of Preference. In early times our export carrying depended mainly on the natural preference of our merchants and underwriters for our own ships to carry our own property. A foreign ship had generally to buy its export cargo. Our import carrying could not be left to shippers in foreign ports, without inducements that would create a preference for American vessels. Discriminating tonnage and tariff duties created this, and while these continued it resulted in our ships abroad getting cargoes and dispatch nearly as well as at home. Few had to return without at least cargo enough for ballast. Our proportionate carriage of imports averaged six or seven per cent. higher than that of exports. Our ships sailed with assurance, carrying the cheaper for being employed both ways. The benefit of discriminating duties was demonstrated, for our policy had no sooner changed than our rivals, by every possible means, secured the freights in foreign ports and turned the tables on our marine. Equal footing in law at the Custom House quickly produced unequal footing in fact in the freight market. It is said to have "carpeted our wharves and warehouses" for alien merchants and underwriters. As they obtained our business, preference for import carrying passed year after year to foreign flags, mainly to the British. Congress had made it easy for nations importing our staples to get cargoes for their vessels both ways; and by the same measure it soon became