before mentioned, perhaps not a commercial nation on the earth, is without them. In our case, one distinction alone will suffice: that is to say, between nations who favor our productions and navigation, and those who do not favor them. One set of moderate duties, for the first, and a fixed advance on these as to some articles, and prohibitions as to others, for the last.

"Still it must be repeated, that friendly arrangements are preferable with all who will come into them, and that we should carry into such arrangements all the liberality and spirit of accommodation which the nature of the case will admit.

"France has of her own accord, proposed negotiations for improving, by a new treaty, on fair and equal principles, the commercial relations of the two countries. But her internal disturbances have hitherto prevented the prosecution of them to effect, though we have had repeated assurances of a continuance of the disposition.

Proposals of friendly arrangement have been made on our part, by the present Government, to that of Great Britain, as the Message states; but, being already on as good a footing in law, and a better in fact, than the most favored nation, they have not, as yet, discovered any disposition to have it meddled with.

"We have no reason to conclude that friendly arrangements would be declined by the other nations, with whom we have such commercial intercourse as may render them important. In the mean while, it would rest with the wisdom of Congress, to determine whether, as to those nations, they will not surcease ex parte regulations, on the reasonable presumption, that they will concur in doing whatever justice and moderation dictate should be done."

Th. Jefferson.

Application of Reciprocity to the Foreign Carrying Trade. The fitness and pertinency of the principles laid down in Mr. Jefferson's Report depend entirely upon the assumption that, as to the carrying trade, American vessels could compete comfortably and with success alongside of foreign ships, in our own trade, on the same footing in law. But there is a footing in

fact, we have learned to our sorrow, that may outpoint and outdo enactments. Mr. Jefferson was aware of both kinds of footing, but, at the time he wrote, equality at ports and in custom-houses was so desirable that it was thought sufficient. With respect to some nations this was undoubtedly the case. At any rate, we would be so glad to get equality that we would be pleased to grant it in every case, and try for contentment with it.

Mr. Jefferson did not indicate a course for Congress where the footing in fact was decidedly against our success, and would be bound to work out failure, and the final extinction of our marine. This problem was not properly before him. But we cannot doubt if it had been, he would have solved it in favor of his native land, if in so doing he was obliged to regulate trade under the power given in the Constitution, to the end that an American marine should survive and flourish. Against a footing in fact that would cause ruin and decay in our navigation, Mr. Jefferson's spirit would have openly rebelled. He believed firmly in the need of an American marine, and concientiously favored the application of protection where indispensable for the national good.

CHAPTER VIII.

DEBATE UPON MADISON'S RESOLUTIONS, 1794.

Sequel of Jefferson's Report. Perhaps no report of a cabinet officer to Congress ever stirred that body more thoroughly than that of the Secretary of State in 1793. It was, indeed, well calculated to induce a determination to have justice for our citizens, and fair play for their commerce and navigation. These were increasing in moment, but not at the pace possible, nor with the certainty desirable. In four years our tonnage entrances, in the foreign trade, had grown from 123,893 tons to 367,734; and our share of carriage had increased from 30, or less, to 77 per cent. in export trade; and from about 18 to 82 per cent. in import business. But our utmost legislative encouragement had not been given. It was difficult to convince many members of Congress that greater good was not attainable, were justice to be done. Old oppressions seemed cast off for new. On the other hand, we had conservatives with abundant patience, who contented themselves with moving slowly.

Views of Thomas H. Benton. In his work on the "Debates of Congress," in regard to regulating our commerce with foreign nations, Mr. Benton thus states his views:

"In the House of Representatives, 1794, occurred one of the most interesting and elaborate debates which our Congress has furnished. It grew out of the clause in the Constitution conferring power to regulate commerce with foreign nations,' and gives the interpretation of its authors, which is wholly different in its nature, and also distinct, from the power to lay and collect import duties. The latter was to raise revenue, the former to make such discriminations in trade and transportation as to Protect our merchants and shipowners from the adverse regulations and devices of our rivals.

"While the lack of power to regulate foreign commerce was a primary defect of the Confederate Government, and the necessity for its exercise so great as to form a chief cause for creating the Federal Government, it is singular that Congress has always overlooked it, or confounded it with the impost or revenue power. Though not now exercised, it is a power which has found a need for its exercise, and will find it again.'

In

Sentiment of the Resolutions. These notable resolves were necessarily aimed at Great Britain, and their discussion for two months did much to endanger our relations with that nation, which, at the time, from other causes, were rather insecure. fact, it was after the great debate started, that Washington thought it prudent to send Judge Jay to negotiate his famous treaty. Its first effect was to modify the shipping situation, and to allay somewhat the resentment of the country. It became desirable, also, to give the British a chance to perform their new covenant to give up the Western forts, and to cease their encouragement to the savages, for some time past molesting and murdering on the frontiers. The first of the resolutions was adopted, the others were not afterward taken up. With the discrimination which they contained in favor of France, their passage was heavily handicapped. Their sentiment was: "Free commerce is not to be given for burthens and impositions." In other words, if foreign nations, one or more, protect their commerce and navigation, we must then protect our own - equal footing in fact being an indispensable condition for success. This sentiment of the time was well expressed by able debaters. What they contended for is well worth understanding, as we have for many years past given free commerce and unrestricted navigation for burdens, impositions, and even insults, to such an extent that little remains of a wasted marine; and we are compelled to rebuild and reinstate it, either by constitutional regulations, or by questionable taxation.

Mr. Madison's Speech. The House having under consideration the report of the Secretary of State, on the privileges and restrictions of the commerce and navigation of the United

1 The acts of 1818 and 1820 were purely regulations of commerce. 2 The British Ministry disliked the resolutions and favored this treaty.

States in foreign countries, Mr. Madison made some general observations, and then remarked, that "the commerce of the United States is not at this day on that respectable footing to which, from its nature and importance, it is entitled." He referred to its situation before the adoption of the Constitution, when conflicting systems of encouragement prevailed in the different States. "The then existing state of things gave rise to that convention of Delegates from the different States,1 who met to deliberate on some general principles for the regulation of commerce, which might be conducive, in their operation, to the general welfare, and that such measures should be adopted as would conciliate the friendship and good faith of those countries who were disposed to enter into the nearest commercial connections with us.' ... “But what has been the result of the system which has been pursued ever since? What is the present situation of our commerce? From the situation in which we find ourselves after four years' experiment it appeared incumbent on the United States to see whether they could not now take measures promotive of those objects for which the Government was in a great degree instituted."..

Continuing, Mr. Madison read the following resolutions :Text of the Madison Resolutions. "Resolved, As the opinion of this Committee, that the interest of the United States would be promoted by further restrictions and higher duties, in certain cases, on the manufactures and navigation of foreign nations employed in the commerce of the United States than those now imposed.

"1. That an additional duty ought to be laid on the following articles, manufactured by European nations having no commercial treaty with the United States:

"2. That an additional duty of

per ton ought to be laid on the vessels belonging to nations having no commercial treaty with the United States.

"3. That the duty on vessels belonging to the nations having commercial treaties with the United States ought to be reduced to per ton.2

This was the "Annapolis Convention," in point of fact, Mr. Madison's suggestion, as was also clause 3, in section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution to regulate our foreign trade so as to favor our navigation.

2 Four nations only, at the time, had made such treaties Sweden, France, and Holland.