History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 2 (of 4)

by W. S. Lindsay

Threatened destruction to American shipping.

Accordingly, they contended that to meet the advances of Great Britain and to repeal the American countervailing Acts, would not be to place the two nations on an equal footing, so long as England retained her Navigation Act. The mutual repeal of differential tonnage duties they urged would not establish a perfect system of reciprocity; as the Americans, in that case, would thus permit Great Britain to carry to the United States, not only goods the growth or manufacture of that country, but of all others, while by maintaining in force her Navigation Act, the Americans would be expressly confined in their trade to the carriage of goods the growth or manufacture of the United States. British vessels would accordingly bring goods from England to America, take a freight in one of the ports of the United States to the British colonies, where American vessels are not admitted, and thence a third, home, making three freights in one voyage; so that foreigners would crowd their wharves, underbid their freight, monopolize their markets, and “leave American vessels idly to rot in their docks.”[319]

Such was the almost universal feeling against the measure entertained by the shipowners of the United States, who endeavoured to enlist the agricultural and mechanical classes on their side, and employed for this purpose arguments which have been repeated over and over again in our own generation. They asserted that although, generally speaking, freight is paid by the consumer, and that, therefore, it may be said it is immaterial to the farmer how high or how low it may be, nevertheless this is not the case when the demand ceases or slackens; it then falls back on the husbandman. In this point of view, to transfer the American trade to foreigners would, it was alleged, lessen very much the certainty of the demand.

They went farther, and told the agriculturists that the active enterprise of the American merchants and shipowners was constantly on the alert in looking abroad to every part of the world for a market, and if it was anywhere to be found, or if there existed only a reasonable presumption that it might be found, the farmer was thereby secured a ready vent for his produce. Perhaps the calculation of the merchant might be disappointed, perhaps not even a freight would be earned, and he might be ruined; nevertheless, this misfortune did not reach the farmer, who had secured the benefit of a good market. But, in the event of American vessels disappearing, he must then be left at the mercy of chance adventurers for a market; and when the demand is not very great, the price of the freight would be deducted from the article itself. This serious contingency, it was argued, must tend necessarily to lessen essentially the value of the farmer’s produce. As nothing less than the total annihilation of the American merchant navy was anticipated, it was pointed out to the mechanic that those numerous bodies connected with shipbuilding, the carpenter, the blacksmith, the sail-maker, the rope-maker, and others would of course all be thrown out of employment; their labour would be neither wanted nor paid for. The American ships, being, under these circumstances, banished from their native shores, would no longer furnish a nursery for seamen, but that valuable class of citizens would be driven to seek for their bread in other countries, and finally, in any future European wars which might supervene, and which were constantly liable to happen, the American people would find themselves denuded of seamen and ships, and would not be able to avail themselves of that neutral position which reflection and experience equally warranted them in calculating upon, as one of the “blessings” allied to their remote and secure geographical position.

Popular clamour.

The history of these struggles shows that however enlightened the members of Congress may have been, it was, even at that time, impossible to run counter to popular clamour, although this may have been instigated by perhaps an erroneous view of the self-interests of the parties primarily concerned. The consumer did not feel the same deep immediate interest in the controversy as the shipowner, whose voice was loudly heard in Congress through the representatives of the great ports and maritime towns.

Opinions in Congress.

Upon a consideration of all the circumstances, Congress was led to consider that any retaliatory legislation imposing heavier discriminating duties on foreign tonnage or goods would in its consequences materially tend to increase the commercial warfare, and render more serious the war of tariff between the United States and foreign nations. The reflecting, far-seeing members perceived that if the United States were to increase her differential duties, there was every probability that England and other foreign nations would also augment theirs in every instance, and that at every time the United States pursued their plan of increase, foreign nations would repeat the same process. But they were met at all points, as we have seen, by the almost universal opposition of the American shipowners, who were as eager to maintain a protectionist policy in shipping as any of their rivals in the same business on this side the Atlantic.

Great influence of the shipowners.

Though the shipowners of the Northern States exercised for a time considerable influence over the Legislature, a committee of the House of Representatives passed a resolution which went no further than to recommend to the House, “That so much of the several Acts imposing duties on the tonnage of ships and vessels, and on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States, as imposes a discriminating duty of tonnage between foreign vessels and vessels of the United States, and between goods imported into the United States in foreign vessels and vessels of the United States, ought to be repealed, so far as the same respects the produce or manufactures of the nation to which such foreign ships or vessels shall belong, such repeal to take effect in favour of any foreign nation whenever the President shall be satisfied that the discriminating or countervailing duties of such foreign nation, so far as they operate to the disadvantage of the United States, have been abolished.”