up, and a registry act became law September 1, 1789. Its provisions were mainly these: Vessels built in the United States, and belonging wholly to a citizen or citizens, or not built in the United States, but on the 16th day of May (1789) belonging to a citizen, or citizens, and thereafter continuing so, of which the master is a citizen, and no other, shall be deemed and taken to be a ship of the United States, and entitled to benefits of law as such. Tonnage admeasurement rules were also provided. These were superseded in 1864. The "old rule" was an improvement of the British in use at the time. It sought to find and express the tonnage of a vessel in terms of burden - what she could carry. (The new rule of 1864, similar to the British of 1854, computes the capacity-a "ton" being one hundred. cubic feet of cargo or passenger space. Sail vessels will carry four to eight tenths more deadweight than they register, net; steamers carry less.) In respect to foreign-owned, but American-built vessels, the act of 1789 provided for their recording: at the custom-house, upon the builder's oath giving certain. particulars.

A subsequent act of 1792 is generally referred to as: the one for the protection of shipbuilding, and it has become a popular error that this trade had no prior patronage from the Government. The act of 1792 reënacted the provisions of the original and added others, mainly to record as American vessels,. "ships or vessels which may hereafter be captured in war" by American citizens, " and lawfully condemned as prize; or which have been or may be adjudged to be forfeited for a breach of the laws of the United States, being wholly owned by a citizen or citizens thereof." Registry was confined to actual residents, unless abroad as consul or as agent of "a house in trade." Vessels built after March next " must produce a certificate under the hand of the principal or master carpenter, testifying to her building, and specifying when and where, and describing her build, etc. Vessels sold foreign must be reported by owners.

Our Navigation System as Originated. Such were the measures comprising the "Navigation Laws" of the United States, worked out and established by the first Congress sitting under the Constitution, and using the powers given in clause 3,

of section 8, of article 1, which reads as follows: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." That the President, the Senate, and House understood the purpose of this clause is indisputable. Washington had been the President of the Constitutional Convention; Senators John Langdon, of New Hampshire; William S. Johnson, of Connecticut; Robert Morris, of Pennsylvania; William Few, of Georgia; William Paterson, of New Jersey; Richard Bassett and George Read, of Delaware; Rufus King, of New York; and Pierce Butler, of South Carolina, 9 out of 22 members had been delegates of the Constitutional Convention; so, likewise, had been Representatives Abraham Baldwin, of Georgia; George Clymer and Thomas Fitzsimons, of Pennsylvania; Daniel Carroll, of Maryland; Nicholas Gilman, of New Hampshire; Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, and James Madison, Jr., of Virginia, the statesman to whom the country was most indebted for the calling of the convention.

It has been common, for want of knowledge, to blame our "navigation laws" for the decline and ruin of our foreign carrying trade; whereas, but for these laws and their favorable operation, a tolerable trade we would have never had. The chief criticism has been, that the shipbuilding trade was protected if owners could buy their vessels abroad and the Government would nationalize them, then they could compete with foreigners. If this assumption were true, the National interest -sound economy and enlightened policy would forbid the course suggested. The navigation laws of our country, like most others that we receive from the hands of Congress, must needs exist, and must be framed and enacted for National purposes. They cannot, in reason, be suited to advance the fortunes of special classes at the risk, and to the detriment of the Nation. To a maritime State, shipbuilders, with their mechanic forces, are just as essential as shipowners, with their nautical power, in the development of carrying capability, or in the attainment of naval strength. Our difficulty is not, that any part of the regulations of the fathers remains, but that any part has been suspended or repealed, and the harmony of operation destroyed. The regulation of commerce should be restored.

CHAPTER VI.

AN EFFORT TO FURTHER ENCOURAGE NAVIGATION.

Increase of Duties on Foreign Shipping. The House of Representatives, responding to Washington's first annual address, January 12, 1790, said:

"We concur with you in the sentiment that agriculture, commerce and manufactures are entitled to legislative protection."

In some parts of the Union the acts of July 4th and 20th, 1789, had encouraged commercial enterprise, the shipyards showed signs of life, but it was not yet certain that we had handicapped sufficiently the foreign vessels entering into our trade. A strong petition from Portsmouth, N. H., praying for an increase of tonnage tax on foreign shipping became the subject of a report to the House, May 10, 1790.

Mr. Smith, of S. C., moved to strike out the first clause of the measure proposed, which was that the duty on foreign vessels be raised from 50 cents to $1 per ton. In his view this increase would be at the cost of the Southern States. "The navigating States had already obtained considerable favors; their vessels paid only 6 cents, while foreigners paid 50 cents; even when sold to foreigners they paid only 30 cents; they had a monopoly of the coasting trade, and the East India trade, and goods imported in American bottoms were entitled to a discount of 10 per cent. on the duties. They had by nature every advantage in shipbuilding; they could build for nearly one half the sum it would cost in Europe; they had all the materials for building and equipping at hand, and yet they were not satisfied, but were pressing for further benefits.1 At least they should wait to learn the effects of the laws passed last session."

1 These were not the facts except as to England. For large vessels, anchors and chains, bolt fastening, rigging and sails were imported.

Mr. Fitzsimons, of Pa., in reply said: "The agricultural interest was fully represented in Congress. The agriculture of the country, notwithstanding the duty on foreign tonnage, had not suffered; on the other hand, he would appeal to gentlemen from all quarters, whether the produce of the country had ever been in greater demand, or had sold for a better price.

-

"One object of the report was to encourage the important business of shipbuilding — the materials were of small value in themselves contrasted with the price of a ship. The operation of the tonnage act had been advantageous to trade. The benefits of the Revolution are yet to be realized by the Eastern States; the Southern have the ports of the world open to them; the Eastern are excluded from ports they formerly traded to with their exports. He did not favor a prohibitive duty, at the same time it was a great misfortune to have the carrying trade monopolized by foreigners.'

Mr. Williamson, of N. C., favored the increase of duty. Mr. Jackson, of Ga., opposed it "We had already gone far enough."

Mr. Page, of Va., differed with his colleague (Mr. White), the tonnage duty proposed by the Committee (on petition) being "the very same which Virginia actually laid on British bottoms, cannot be too high, as that experiment was attended with happy effects, although made by that State alone. British merchants immediately giving that freight to Virginia ships, which, till then, was refused them, and without increasing the freight in British bottoms. Indeed, I thought the freight was rather lowered by it, until a gentleman from Virginia, who was here when I mentioned these circumstances the last session, told me I was mistaken. . . . One dollar is the sum I wished to have voted the foreign tonnage at last session; I have heard no argument to alter my opinion. . . . The fears of the gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia are groundless.

"I believe it is the interest of the Southern States that shipbuilding should be encouraged to the utmost extent in the United States. The fine timber they have would then be sold to advantage in the form of ships, instead of being destroyed or thrown away under the name of lumber, or in trifling staves.

It is their interest that their sister States should carry for them, instead of foreigners. Under the late Confederation, when each State was proud of its separate sovereignty and independent interest, and viewed each other with a jealous eye, I have heard harsh expressions respecting the growing naval strength of the Eastern States; but under the present Government there is no reason for such reflections; their strength is the strength of the Union; and in this respect they are to the United States what Holland is to the United Provinces. I affirm again, sir, that we are in no danger from the retaliation of Britain; and we may with more propriety raise the tonnage tax than increase the duties on articles."

May 12, the motion for striking out the clause proposing a tax of one dollar per ton on foreign vessels was negatived, as was another motion to insert 75 cents in place of one dollar.

to.

May 13, Mr. Smith, of S. C., moved to postpone collection of the increased duty until January 1, next; this was agreed Mr. Madison said he was friendly to the proposition, but he doubted much the policy of laying this duty on the shipping of France, a country that favored our vessels in several respects. He wished a discrimination in favor of the French. The resolution was amended to favor "treaty nations."

May 14, Mr. Madison moved an addition to the resolution of May 13, viz.: "that from and after the day of next the tonnage on all such vessels be raised to ; and from and after the day of next no such vessel be permitted to export from the United States any unmanufactured article being the growth of produce thereof."

British Policy criticised. A spirited debate ensued. Mr. Hartley, of Pa., favored the discrimination. "In private life," said he, "the man who shows himself my friend, I should affectionately regard. To the man who treats me with esteem, I wish to make a proper return; but the man who is vindictive, and strives to ruin my interest and my property, I would endeavor to counteract or oppose by measures which might defeat his purpose. The same principles of conduct may, perhaps, be fairly applied to nations. I feel no enmity towards Great Britain, so long as she treats this country with the justice and