American Democrat. (Macon, Ga.) 1843-1844, May 31, 1843, Image 1
jyngmojiM DiMocut.
r Jhe most perfect Government would be that which, emanating directly from the People, Governs least—Costs least—Dispenses Justice to all, and confers Privileges on None.—BENTHAM.
VOL. I.| DR. WM. GREEN —EDITOR.
AIOF.Xa&IT DSMOOnAT.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY,
BY W. A. & C. THOMPSON,
MULBERRY STREET, MACON, GEO.
AT TWO BOILARS PER ANNUIC,
£Q“* IN ADVANCE. -=Cti
Advertisements inserted at the Customa
ry Prices.
Mr, Webster’s Speech, at Baltimore.
“ Our Guest— Daniel Webster.”
The sentiment was received with great applause.
Mr. Webster then rose and was received with
louJ cheers. Ho returned thanks as follows : I
trust none of you will doubt that I receive with pe
culiar gratification this mark of your respect for well
intended efforts to serve the country; and I feel ob
liged to you, sir, who have, I well know, long since
retired from active life, for doing me the honor of fill
ing the chair this night. I hope I may consider it a
proof of respect, mutual at least, and founded on an
acquaintance of many years. The gratification which
the occasion gives is certainly greatly enhanced by
the consideration that, as you, sir, have remarked,
the gentlemen who compose this respectable meeting,
come here actuated by no party motives by no sin
ister or partisan designs by no wish to promote or to
depress the cause of mere politicians. Decause I
know that in the absence of gucli feelings 1 have the
assurance that this meeting is what it purports to
be, a compliment to an honest purpose to serve the
public, not unattended perhaps, with some degree of
success. And conscious that in these endeavors to
serve the country I have been free—free from, and far
above all party feeling all local and sectional ob
jects of policy, I do think that I perceive in this a
compliment not altogether inappropriate. Mr. Presi
dent and Gentlemen, I know not how best to return
to you my thanks —to make some not unbecoming
acknowledgment ot this proof of your attention and
regard. Dut as 1 feel myself to he in one of the prin
cipal cities of tiie Union distinguished for its com
mercial intercourse its rapid, career—its patriotic
character; and as I feel that the present period is one
of great interest to the commercial community, per
haps I cannot do better than occupy the few moments
I may be permitted to address you, in offering some
suggestions touching the commercial interests of the
country, and the policy in regard to them which the
time demands. It is a truth most trite, not the less
important, that the great interests of society are all
mingled. The commercial—the agricultural—the
manufacturing pursuits of individuals are entwined,
if 1 may so speak, around the same column are
supported by the same trunk flourish together or
fade together. And he is a friend to neither that
would attempt to set up an opposition between the
interests of tlio ono nnj of the other TM« is a irum,
however common, which cannot perhaps be too of
ten repeated. Because, in the contests of interests in
the struggle for preference by law, in favor of the one
or against the other, this general union 1 may say
this common destiny is not always understood, or if
understood, is not always regarded. In a country
like this, especially where the greatest number of in
habitants find sustenance in the pursuit of agricul
ture— where great masses again are fed, and housed,
and clothed by manufacturers —and where there are
also other great masses whose houses and support are
on the seas, the very first principle of legislation
should imply the recognition of this essential con
nection between the interests of these various pur-
suits, anil the high importance of always regarding
them{*4 having a generar character. Agriculture
furnishes the means of sustenance to human beings,
but it does not supply them with cheap and comforta
ble clothing— what then would become of agricul
ture without manufactures, and of them in their turn,
if there were no buyers of the manufactured articles 1
The commercial interest is dependent on both ; for
there must be commodities to be transported and ex
changes to bo accomplished, before the vessels des
tined for this transportation can be engaged, or the
agents find employment and reward. Mr. President
and gentlemen, allow me on this occasion to express
what l feel that it is to the commercial interests
to the animation and the spirit and the enterprize of
the great commercial cities of this country, that we
are to attribute in the first place the original move
ments in favor of the great works of internal im
provement, by which we are now so honorable distin
guished. This results from the nature of the case.
The capital is in the cities the means of commun
ication are in the cities the stimulus is in the cities.
Where was the origin of the canals and railroads,
and all the great w r orks that distinguish modern times
where but in active commercial places'! And
where has individual treasure been poured out like
water, not on the ground of a hope for a rich return
in the shape of interest or dividends, but for an ap
propriate reward in internal improvement where
else has individual property been poured forth with
this affluence, as it has been in the cities of the Uni
ted States 1 I have seen the many enterprises in
which you have been engaged, and particularly that
great work, worthy of Rome when Augustus was at
the head of the empire— worthy of Buonaparte, if
his thoughts had not been turned more on works of
war than of peace worthy of any empire— the
communication by steam between the waters of the
Chesapeake and the Ohio river; a work that propo
ses to surmount some of the ridges of the Allegha
nies to penetrate others —to proceed from tide-wa
ter by steam power on the land, until the power of
steam on the land surrenders to the power of steam
on the water, and which exercised on one element
or on the other, connects the great valley of the west
with the ocean. The prosperity of the commerce of
the country, then, as connected with individual hap
piness, as connected with the growth of our States
—as connected, I may add, with the revenue of the
country, and as connected with all the works of inter
nal improvement which unite us by so many tics
North to South and East to West the prosperity of
this commerce is of the highest and most important
consideration for all public men, and all intelligent
citizens. 1 may be permitted, sir, to say that we see
all around, in every part of the country, that there
exists a conviction of the truth that we are now at
the end No: lam incorrect in that expression
I was about to say at the end of a universal peace of
twenty-five years. God grant that we may be far
from the end of it! But I say we are at a period
when a universal peace of some twenty-five years has
prevailed. During that period all the civilized na
tions of the world have been turning their thoughts
from war to peace have given attention to their
DEMOCRATIC BANNER --FREE TRADE; LOW DUTIES; NO DEBT; SEPARATION FROM BANKS; ECONOMY; RETRENCHMENT;
AND A STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION.--./, C. C.MLUOU.Y.
own improvement —the advancement of their own
interests, agricultural, commercial and manufactur
ing- So that while there is not now going on a con
test by armed force, there is going on a very severe
a very warm maintained contest on many sides in re
gard to the promotion of the arts, the furtherance of
the pursuits and products of labor, and general im
provement in all ranks of society. In short, we live
in an age —it is our good fortune to live in an age
in which governments and individuals are thinking
more of benefitting themselves than of annoying or
destroying their enemies. This appears to me, gen
tlemen, to have led to a very general feeling, by no
means confined to this country, but pervading a great
part of Europe, of this character— men, public and
private men, have adopted a strong opinion that the
intercourse of the principal nations of the world may
be made the subject of treaty, of stipulation, which
term I use in a much more enlarged sense than that
usually attached to it. We find this subject a com
mon topic of discussion in the houses of Parliament
in England, in the Chambers of France, in our own
legislatures, and, indeed, throughout the commercial
world. It seems to have its origin in the opinion
a just one— that if nations seek their own interests,
whether of revenue, or those which are called pro
tective by the regulation of duties, it is wise for them,
before resorting to independent legislation, with the
view on the part of one to countervail the acts of
others, to consider whether it be not more expedient
that the parties should come to an understanding, in
stead of at once adopting this almost hostile legisla
tion. The commercial intercourse of nations is af
fected in our day, almost in all nations certainly in
the principal nations bv two considerations rev
enue, and the encouragement and protection of the
home industry. These two considerations influence
the subject of commerce. Sometimes the one pre
vails, and sometimes the other. But all nations at
the present moment appear to be manifesting a great
degree of acuteness in the perception of what their
interests, whether financial or industrial, seem to re
quire. We know that between England and Rus
sia there has lately been anew commercial treaty
not very important, I think. We know that at
tempts have been made to accomplish a treaty be
tween England and France, and between England
and Portugal. We know that a recent attempt has
been made in a case very important to us, and which,
in its results, might have been very important to our
commerce. I allude to the attempt to form anew a
commercial treaty between England and Brazil. The
failure, in this instance, may very well inspire us
with a doubt as to the practicability of this regulation
of commerce by treaties of stipulation. I do not mean
to speak with much confidence or much distrust on
this subject. lam of opinion that with respect to
us here in America, the experiment is worth the trial.
But at the same time it is to be remembered that not
too strong confidence should be entertained of a fa
n.ut>, ....J lAic «!ie result Is ascertained,
there may be a very inconvenient stagnation of affairs
produced. The peculiar point in our foreign com
mercial relations which in this regard has lately at
tracted the most attention, is the relations between
the United States and England, and this in two as
pects. In the first place, the duties which are to be
imposed by cither party on the other at his own dis
cretion; and in the next place, the state of the in
tercourse between the United States and the colonial
provinces of England, on this continent and in the
West Indies.
The direct trade between us and England, stands
upon a real principle of reciprocity ; I do not know
that in cither country there exists much disposition
to disturb it. It is fair, equal, just. The trade be
tween the United States and the British Colonieson
the Continent and the West Indies, has quite a dif
ferent character. It is not my purpose to go into
that matter. But with regard to the direct inter
course between us and England great interest is
excited, many wishes expressed, and strong opinions
entertained in favor of an attempt to settle duties by
treaty or arrangement; I say. gentlemen, to you on
a tariff of duties by “arrangement,” and I use that
term by design. The Constitution of the United
States leaves with Congress, the great business of
laying duties to support the government. It seems
especially to have made it the duty of the House of
Representatives to originate measures of revenue, or
which eventually affect revenue. There have been
some few cases in which treaties have been entered
into having the effect to limit duties; but it is not ne
cessary —and that is an important part of the whole
subject it is not necessary to go upon the idea that
if we come to an understanding with foreign govern
ments upon rates of duties, that the understanding
can bo effected only by means of a treaty ratified by
the President and two-thirds of the Senate, accord
ing to the form of the Constitution. Because, follow
ing the example of the Government in what now ex
ists, the arrangement between the United States and
England touching the Colonial trade, it is practicable
to give to an understanding between the two govern
ments, the force of law by ordinary acts of legislation.
We all know that the present basis of trade between
the United States and the British Provinces, is con
stituted by the concurrent acts, concurrent or condi
tional acts of the legislatures of both countries. Our
Senate and House of Representatives have, tiierefore,
passed upon it; and so have both Houses of Parlia
ment; and if the executive governments of the two
countries should enter into any negotiations upon the
subject of duties proposed by the one side, they might
in the same manner be made to terminate in a treaty.
But if one party by law provided for certain duties;
the other party by law could provide for tho equiva
lent. I mention this, because I see it often stated
that to regulate duties by treaty, would be to deprive
the House of Representatives —one great branch of
the National Legislature —of its just authority ; and
lam of that opinion. I think that the treaty-making
power should not be extended, unless in cases of
great importance, to any such subjects. It is true, a
treaty is the law of the land. But, then, as the whole
business of revenue and general provisions for all the
wants of the country, is undoubtedly a very peculiar
business ot the House of Representatives or of Con
gress, I am of opinion, and always have been, that
there should be no encroachment upon that power by
the exercise of the treaty-making power, unless in
cases of great and evident necessity. Well, then,
gentlemen, if there be a constitutional mode of ar
ranging those subjects by means of negotiations be
tween the two governments, what is there, I would
ask, in our present relations to England, which makes
it desirable that such an attempt should now be made!
All that can be said is, that the leading interests of
the United States are all at present in a considerable
degree of depression. The commercial interest
MACON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1843.
the manufacturing interest —and, so far as lam able
to perceive, the agricultural inteiest, are all equally
depressed. If I look at the price current in the great
wheat growing States of the West, or in the planta
tion States of the South, I perceive, as all perceive,
great depreciation of prices, and a great discourage
ment to activity and emulation. What is there, then,
in our condition! what is there in the intercourse
between the two countries that might justify an at ■
tempt to come to a mutual stipulation 1 Well, gen
tlemen, on this subject, I of course, speak without
any authority. It is not for me to assume more than
any of you. But it is true, that an opinion has be
come somewhat current, that with England there
might be an arrangement favorable to this country.
That agreement must of course be founded on what
would be regarded as an adequate consideration.
Now, as to the objects favorable to the United States
in that agreement, I may mention them. The ad
mission into England upon lower rates of duty of sev
eral of our large agricultural products, would be one
ol the most prominent advantages. It has been found
for examplo, that England might be induced to make
a very important reduction in the duties on tobacco,
and 1 confess I never have been able to see why they
should not do so. The tobacco duty in England js a
mere matter of revenue. It has no collateral or ulte
rior object. It is So much money collected for the
public purposes of the kingdom. The question there
fore in the mind of an English statesman, it seems to
me, can only be, whether a reduction of duty would
diminish the aggregate revenue. We all know that
it does the contrary. If then, with regard to this ar
ticle, the dimiuntion of the duty one-half would aug
ment the importation one-half, it is equally beneficial
to the revenue —a good deal better for the tobacco
raisers—and I suppose not at all disagreeable to
those who consume the article. (A laugh.) It is
also supposed the duty, to be sure, is not a very
heavy one, but it is still of some importance that
the regulations respecting the admission into England
of cotton and rice might undergo material and bene
ficial changes. These are articles of considerable
importance to the plantation states of the South, a
part of the country certainly at present as much de
pressed as any other. Then again there is that great
staple agricultural product of ours —the maize, or as
it is ca%d, the Indian corn. I have not heard it
suggested from any quarter, that England would
modify her corn laws, hut it has been suggested— 1
know not witii what degree of plausibility, and I pray
you to receive what I now say as an expression of
ray own opinion merely that in regard to the arti
cle of wholesome and cheap food, it is possible that
England might be disposed to stipulate for its intro
duction into her ports at a low and fixed rate of duty.
Now, if there be a probability of that I may say
even a slight probability it is at least worthy of in
quiry. It is true that this is a very great wheat pro
ducing country, but it is much more a grant corn pro
ducing country. Our maize is the great grain pro
duct of the United States. Statistical tables shew
that five bushels of Indian corn are produced to one
bushel of wheat. Now, however small the surplus
ot tliis grain might be —if only five or ten per cent,
every body can see that its introduction on favorable
terms into the English markets would be highly ad
vantageous to the producers. lam aware, sir, that
many of you understand this subject much better than
Ido that it is an article of heavy freight —and
yet it is brought from Maryland, Virginia and the
Carolinas to Boston, and thence distributed through
tile East. The question then is, whether it is rea
sonable and expedient to entertain the purpose to
try the experiment of arranging with England for the
diminution of the duty on this and other articles.
Considering this question, every one naturally asks,
where is the quid pro quo where is the equivalent 1
For what inducements may we hope that any ofthese
benefits thus supposed to be possible, can be obtained 1
Undoubtedly, the only inducement we can hold out
to England is a modification of the tariff of the Uni
ted States. 1 his includes, obviously, many ques
tions. Our tariff and duties are for revenue and pro
tection. And how efficiently cither one or the other of
those objects could be maintained under any modifi
cation, is a question of great delicacy and difficulty.
I mean to express no confident opinion on this point.
But this 1 mean to say, because it is a settled convic
tion of my own judgment — if by any great operation
that should unite the interests and opinions of all parts
of'the country, tee can place American industry and
American labor on a permanent foundation, that is a
much more important consideration than the degree
to which protection should extend. (Applause.)
Depend upon it, gentlemen, it is change, and the ap
prehension of change that unnerves every working
man’s arm in this country. (Loud applause.) Changes
felt, or changes feared, are the banc of our industry,
and the prostration of our action. (Renewed ap
plause.) I live in a part of the country full of indus
try, with some capital, with great activity; and when
I go amongst my neighbors they uniformly ask me
“'For God’s sake, tell us what we are to expect lay
down your law prescribe your rule let us see '
what is to be the course of the government, and we
can then apply our industry, invest our capital, and
adapt our circumstances to this state of things, be it
what it may—warm and scorch us, burn us —do
what you please, but let us know what you propose
to do —and stick to it!” (Thunders of applause.)
Now I am of opinion that if, under any comprehen
sive system of policy, wc could bring about a result
in which the north and the south, the east and the
west, should concur, it would be one eminently fa
vorable to agriculture —to the grain growing and
plantation States reasonably favorably also to the
manufacturing and commercial interests —and be
sides all this, wc could stamp on that result a feature
of permanence. If we could make an impression on
it that should last for twenty years, we would soon
have a much better state of things than we haveseen
for years and years past. (Applause.) I have al
ready said, gentlemen, that without mutual stipula
tions, it is quite evident that governments will soon
be driven to 11 countervail,” as it is called—to re
taliate. If one will not accept the products of anoth
er, the nation whose products are thus rejected, will
seek to retaliate to countervail, and thus to dimin
ish the intercourse of the two nations. It seems to
me that before we attempt to venturo on countervail
ing legislation or retaliatory legislation, to produce a
state of tilings desirable to us, it is much wiser to
sec iu the present friendly disposition of nation to
nation, the invitation to come to a better result by a
more amicable kind of procedure. Now, gentlemen,
we have fallen into some errors in the course of treaty
stipulations, ido not mean our country in particu
lar, but all countries. Wc have indulged too much
in generalities in the terms of these treaties. We
speak of placing each other in the “ position of the
most favored nation.” In my opinion what ever
treaty stipulation is entered into between states, that
stipulation should be specific, indisputable, unequivo
cal, precise. All those general expressions in trea
ties, that A treating with B and holding intercourse
with him should be placed on the fooling of the most
favored nation, are impracticable in a great degree,
and are in many cases wholly unintelligible. What
does this phrase — ll position of the most favored na
tion mean !” There is no practicable meaning to it,
because our treaties arc with men who deal in such
various commodities that there cannot possibly be a
common standard. We make a treaty with Russia,
in wtiioh, for instance, wc stipulate that so much du
ty shall be laid on a ton of iron; and no more than so
much on a hundred weightof hemp. We then make
a treaty with the Celestial Empire, whose only traf
fic is in silks and teas, and wc tell them that wc place
them in the position of the most favored nation, llow
are we to do it 1 How can we give for Russia a-tar
iff which can be applicable to the Chinese I The
whole history of this generalization of treaties is pro
ductive of nothing but mischief, quarrels and confu
sion. We have treaties with France, Portugal and
Belgium, using these general terms, and the moment
Congress passes an act laying duty, wc have com
plaints from one or all ofthese states of infractions of
their treaty ; and these complaints arc not always ea
sily answered, and never possible to he denied. In
all sucli cases the stipulations, therefore, should he
specific. I will add that it does not follow that be
cause one nation enters into stipulations with anoth
er, it becomes the duty of any one to associate in
league against the interests of other States. These
subjects must be looked on in the light of mutual
regulations stipulations leading to mutual advan
tage. There is nothing derogatory to other States
nothing injurious, because the same impulses that
lead to a favorable course upon specific stipulations
with one nation, may lead to a like favorable inter
course upon other specific stipulations with other na
tions. For example: I put the case, not as one in
which I should choose to make a practical experi
ment, but simply as an illustration of the general
principle. Let us advert to the state of trade between
this country and Brazil; to see if the interests of both
countries would not require or justify some stipula
tion to the mutual advantage of the two. What is
the state of trade between Brazil and the United
States'? I ought to take humiliation to myself for
assuming to speak of such a subject here, before gen
tlemen, most of whom are better acquainted with it
than lam myself. But I use it to illustrate the gen
eral view 1 may take of the whole matter. There is
no more unequal trade in the world than that be
tween the United States and Brazil. It is altogether
on one side. The United States take some five mil
lions, (I believe a trifle more,) of Brazilian products
untav»<j I Btntl Ualf a million olighilv tJAcd I mean
her sugar. And what do they receive from us un
tax cd ! Nothing at all! Their taxes on commodi
ties from the United States are excessively high.
They lax the products of the labor and land of this
country and sea 30, 40 and 48 per cent! We take
five millions untaxed and a half million slightly taxed.
How did they stand with England under the late
treaty between that country and England! Her
stipulation by treaty which still exists was that
English commodities should not be taxed more than
15 per cent. English cotton, clothing, &c., is taxed
only fifteen per cent, and ours from 30t050 percent!
Yet England taxes them 100 per cent on some com
modities. We take Brazil coffee free, and England
taxes it six to twelve cents per pound. According to
the English interpretation, the treaty between Eng
land and Brazil docs not terminate till 18-14. Brazil
insists that it expired in 1813; for I believe the Bra
zilian government is anxious to ged rid of it. On
the whole, however, she was forced to yield to the
English construction, so that the treaty was declared
to remain in force till 1841. In the meantime some
distinguished person was sent from England to re
new the treaty ; and I must say that I think the Bra
zilian Government manifested little address on that
subject. Brazil insisted that the treaty expired in
1813 England that it lasted till 1811 Brazil
yields, and then says to the English Minister sent to
renew the treaty “lf the treaty last till 1814, as
you say —and we submit to what you say we will
take till 1811 to consider what new treaty we will
make.” (Laughter.) Watching the progress of
events, you will take it for granted that our govern
ment is not so inattentive to the great interests of the
commerce of the country, as not to see that in a prop
er time a treaty may be concluded between the Uni
ted States and Brazil. Brazil would assuredly think
it most extraordinary if England would give her by
treaty any such advantages as those we have afford
ed her. In short, there is no case in the whole world,
so far as now occurs to me, so proper for a treaty stip
ulation positively favorable to the United States.
What is the trade of the United States with Brazil!
Wc now receive her great articleof product coffee,
free. We receive her sugar at 2 1-3 cents a pound
duty. And we have a great advantage in this re
spect, that we have no colonial interests to protect.
England is restrained in her disposition to admit Bra
zilian products, from the circumstance that she has
colonial products of like character, and that she is
bound to give preference to them. That would be a
very good reason for her; but it constitutes one of
the advantages of our situation to which wc are fairly
entitled, and no man can say that there is any reci
procity or justice in our vast consumption of Brazil
ian commodities without duty, at a moment when our
products arc so highly taxed in every Brazilian port.
And this shows the fallacy of an argument which 1
understand was made by the British government in
its communications with the Brazilians on this sub
ject. They said, “It is true that the United States
take a good deal of your coffee, hut we take as much
more ; and we are paymasters even for a part of what
they take.” There is a little approach to arrogance
in that argument. It is true, that the severe duties
on American manufactures in Brazil, exclude vast
quantities of these manufactures; and therefore, we
do import from Brazil merchandise to a far greater
amount than that of which wc send in return, and
we pay the difference out of other earnings of ours,
usually by means of exchanges on London, made
good from other sources of property or industry. Now,
if wc entered the Brazilian markets on as good terms
as England, we could pay on the spot, and not be in
a condition to ask England to pay our debts to the
Brazilian merchants. (Applause.) I perceive, gen
tlemen, that 1 am going into these subjects much too
far, and I havo alluded to them because, in a govern
ment like ours, an enlightened public opinion must,
on these subjects, precede legislative action ; and be
cause I feel that the time has come when the inter
ests of the country require that such opinion should
be formed and expressed one way or the other. I
have said, gentlemen, that these two States are in
stances of the impulse of commerce —of exchanges.
We are very remote from Brazil none the worse
for that. They have a different climate different
products different habits. So much the better for
all that. It has been said that amidst the various be
ings and properties of things which constitute this
globe, it is
“ All nature’s difference, that makes all nature’s peace I”
It may be said with as much truth, that in matters of
commercial intercourse, it is difference of climate
of soil —of products —and of habit, that really
unite States, conspiring for the lienefit of all. It is
this very difference in their pursuits that gives them
an identity of interest in one respect that is, in the
mutual interchange of commodities. Inlced with
respect to Brazil the other end of the continent
and much the largest power on it, except our own
one might say, that the products of both countries
seem to contribute very much to what is common to
both in the common enjoyments of life. We sip with
pleasure the coffee of Brazil at our breakfast table,
and sometimes sweeten it with their sugar; whilst the
Brazilians, do not, I believe, reject our rollsor a rasher
of American bacon. (Laughter.) The two coun
tries, of all nations on the Continent, or perhaps in
tlic world, are so placed, that the most beneficial com
mercial intercourse might exist between them. Well,
gentlemen, parting from this subject, I will conclude
with a few remarks on another. It so happened that
very soon after I entered upon the duties of the office
which I lately held, it was the pleasure of Congress
to call upon the Department for Reports on the Tariff
and Commercial regulations of other countries, and
the effects of the 11 Reciprocity Treaties,” as they arc
called, into which the Government entered with va
rious countries at various times, from 1835 to a late
period. 1 do, gentlemen, entertain the strongest be
lief that all this principle of reciprocity acted upon
by the Government is wrong—a mistake from the
beginning, and injurious to the great interests of the
country. What is it! By every reciprocity treaty
wc give to the nation with which it is concluded a
right to trade between us and other nations on the
same terms as we trade ourselves. Wc give to the
Hanse Towns anil the other States of the same class,
the right to fetch and carry between us and all the
nations of the world, on the same terms as wc do ;
and practically they can do it, much more profitably.
In my opinion the true principle—the philosophy of
politics on this subject, is exhibited in the old Navi
gation Law of England, introduced by some of the
bold genusics of Cromwell’s time, and acted upon
ever since. The principle is this; the rule is this :
Any nation may bring commodities to us in her own
vessels and carry our corn to her own ports, we hav
ing »bo lika privilege, but no nation shall bring the
products of a third nation, or carry between us and
that nation. It has been said by a very distinguished
person not now living, that the rule of the navigation
laws had its foundation in this idea England
sought in her arrangement to secure as much of the
carrying trade of the world as she could; and what
she could not get herself she sought to divide
among all other nations. In one sense that is doubt
less a selfish policy —so far as it indicates a disposi
tion to obtain all she could ; but this is certainly not
a very extraordinary selfishness. In other respects
its o[ieration is the most just, the mast philosophical
and most beneficial that could be desired. We may
test this in a variety of ways. It does tend to a cer
tain extent, to increase the means of that State
which has the greatest mercantile marine and can sell
cheape st; but at the same time it does give to all oth
ers the advantage in carrying their own goods.
Suppose England can carry chcajicr than any other
nation in the world: And suppose all the nations in
the World should adopt the current notions of Free
Trade, and open their ports to all that chose to enter:
at once the great nation that could carry cheapest
would go, step by step, till presently she monopolized
the whole carrying trade of the world. Docs not ev
ery one see that such a state must soon become the
master of the whole world ! Or, suppose there were
two great nations like Great Britain and the United
States found to be the cheapest carriers. If all the
other nations should agree upon the full commercial
liberty, and permit all to come and go without regard
to the goods they had, thcse.two great States would
inevitably take the carrying trade of the world take
the shipping of the world, the maritime power of the
world, and the government of the world —if they
could agree among themselves. (Loud applause.)
And back to that principle must we come at last. Wo
ought to give to every nation the right of bringing
here in her ships, if she gives to us the like privilege.
But by these reciprocity treaties, to give for the car
rying of a nation of Europe like Bremen, which has
but one port, all the ports along a coast of 1500 miles
vvilli 17 millions of people when she has scarcely
300,000 of her own, pray what sort of reciprocity is
this! (Loud applause.) It is very much like the
story in Joe Miller, of tiie horse and the cock, who
were talking together. The cock thought to make
a reciprocal agreement with the horse “ I’ll not
tread on you,’’ said he, “if you'll not tread on me.”
(Laughter and applause.) Now, gentlemen, 1 know
that nothing is so dull as statistics. But I will ven
ture here iu this city of Baltimore, and before a body
of men as much interested in the matter as any other,
to present in that repulsive form of statistical figures,
some of the results arrived at by me in the course of
investigations instituted in pursuance of a resolution
of Congress.
[The following arc the resolutions referred to,
which we think it proper to insert in this connexion:]
In the Senate of the United States, February 14th,
1813. Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce
be discharged from the further consideration of a res
olution referred !o them on the 271 h of December,
1843, directing them to “ inquire into the state of our
tonnage, freights and commerce with foreign powers,
and rejKirt whether it is prosperous under the exist
ing arrangements, by treaties or laws in relation
thereto; and also, whether the regulations by other
governments are equal and in conformity to the
spirit of these arrangements; and if either be not so,
what measures are proper to insure greater prosperity
and reciprocity;” and that the same be referred to the
Secretary of State, who is hereby directed to make
the inquiries in said resolution mentioned, and report
to the Senate at the next session of Congress.
Congress of the United States, in the House of
Representatives, March 3d, 1843 Resolved, That
the Secretary of State l»e, and he is hereby required
to procure through the Consular and Diplomatic
agents of the Government abroad, and such other
Vi. A. Jt C. THOMPSON - PUBLISHERS. I NO. 3.
means as to him may seem most suitable, full and ac
curate information as to the wholesale and retail pri
ces in foreign markets, during the year commencing
on the first day of September last, of all commodities
upon which duties arc levied under existing laws, as
well as of such as are imported freejof duty, with the
rates of insurance, freight and commissions usually
charged at the places of export upon said commodi
ties when imported into this country; the modes and
terms of sale customary there; the average rates of
exchange during each monA in said year, and the
true par of exchange between this and each foreign
country; also t as to the duties of export and import,
and ns far as practicable the various internal taxes
levied upon such commodities either in a crude, par
tially manufactured or wholly complete state, to
gether with the rates of wages in the various branches
and occupations of labor anti of personal service in
the business of commerce and trade: And it shall
bo his duty also to procure from said Consuls and
Diplomatic agents full and regular files of prices cur
rent sheets for said year, at each of the most important
foreign markets, and such other documents and pub
lications as may exhibit truly the information called
for in this resolution, which shall be transmitted to
this House at the next session of Congress, and
from which, together with the rqiorts received from
said agents, and such other information as may be
obtained, he shall compile & have printed for the use of
thi» House,a dccumenlembodying all the information
called for, arrange*- in such manner as to be most
convenient for r. fcrence and comparison exercising
especial care in ail instances to give said information
in Federal currency, weights and measures.
Let Us take the history and present state of ou!
trade with Bremen for an example. Bremen is ono
of the Hanseatic towns; and the United States had
formerly a considerable trade with that city in Amer
ican vessels. Before 1837, sixty to eighty such ves
sels arrived, and cleared, annually.
On the 30th of December, 1837, a commercial con
vention was entered into between the United States
and the Hanseatic Republics of Lubcc, Bremen and
Hamburg. The first articlo of this convention is in
the following terms :
Convention of Friendship, Commerce, and Naviga
tion, between the United States of America and
the Free Hanseatic Republics of Lubec, Bremen
and Hamburg, concluded at Washington, Decem
ber 30, 1837.
ARTICLE I.
The contracting parties agree, that whatever kind
ot produce, manufacture, or merchan Jize of any for
eign country, can be from time to time, lawfully im
ported into the U. States in their own vessels, may
be also imported in vessels of the said Free Hanseat
ic Republics of Lubcc, Bremen and Hamburg, and
that no higher or olhcrdutics upon the tonnage or
cargo of the vessel shall be levied or collected,
whether the importation be made in vessels of the
United States, or of either of the said Hanseatic Re
publics. And, in like manner, that whatever kind
of produce, manufacture, or merchandize of any for
eign country, can he, from time to time, lawfully im
ported into either of the said Hanseatic Republics in
its own vessels, may lie imported in vessels of the U.
States; and that no higher or other duties upon the
tonnage or cargo of the vessel shall be levied or col
lected, whether the importation he made in vessels of
the one party, or of the other. And they further
agree, that whatever may be lawfully exported, or re
exported, by one jiarty in its own vessels, to any for
eign country, may, in like manner, be exported or
rc-expoitcd in the vessels of the other party. And
the same bounties, duties and drawbacks shall be al
lowed and collected, whether such exportation or re
exportation he made in vessels of the one party, or
of the other. Nor shall higher or other charges of
any kind be imposed in the ports of the one party on
vessels of the other, than arc, or shall be, payable in
the same ports hv national vessels.
* * * • * * .
H. CLAY,
V. RUMPFF.
The-fourth article of the same convention provi
ded that any vessel shall be regarded as a Hanseatic
vessel which is owned by a Hanseatic citizen, and of
which the master and three-fourths of the crew are
also Hanseatic citizens, or subjects of the confedera
ted States of Germany. But the vessel may hava
been built any where, without injury to her national
character.
Citizens of these republics may buy ves els in Nor
way, Sweden, or elsewhere, wherever they can buy
cheapest, and such vessels become at once Hanseatic
vessels under this convention.
This is a matter of importance to some of these
ports which are not considerable ship-building ports.
The merchants of the place can buy their vessels al
ready built. The Government of the United States
agreed to this stipulation, although the cautious ex
ample of England was before it, as by the English
Convention with the same Republic, two years be
fore, it was required that vessels should have been
built in one of the republics, as well as owned by its
citizens, in order to be regarded as Hanseatic ves
sels.
In consequence of our convention of 1837, the
number of American vesselsentering the port of Bre
men has vastly ‘alien off; and in some years has
been as low as twenty-five. To show this falling off
of our tonnage, and the increase of Bremen tonnage,
it may be stated, that from 1826 to 1830, five-sevenths
of the arrivals in Bremen from the United States
wi re American vessels, and two-sevenths Bremen;
from 1831 to 1836, three-sevenths American, and
four-sevenths Bremen; and from 1836 to 1840 one
fifth American, and four-fifths Bremen.
I have a statement of the amount of exports from
the United States to the Hanse towns, in 1841, and
the national character of the vessels, transporting
such exports and their respective numbers and ton
nage.
Statement showing the amount of exports from the
I. nited States to the 11-" iwns during the year
1841, distinguishing tl, -nt exported in Amer
ican and Foreign vessels , ,y, together
with the number, tonnage am. ,nal character
of said foreign vessels.
Value of foreign merchandize exported in
American vessels, . §93,(520
In foreign vessels, 356 141
Total, 8449,761
Vaiue of domestic exports in American
£1,278,450
In foreign vessels, 2,832,306
£4,110,655