[316] Vide letter of Rufus King, ‘State Papers,’ vol. ii. pp. 29-64. The case seems undoubtedly well authenticated.
[317] The duties imposed were as follows:—On pig-iron, bar-iron, and pearl ashes, ten per cent. additional, when imported without certificate from the British Colonies in America; ten per cent. upon the customs duties on pitch, tar, resin, turpentine, masts, yards, bowsprits, and manufactured goods and merchandise (except wood-staves and tobacco); and a similar percentage upon the customs duties on all manufactured wood-staves when imported from Europe in British ships. On oil of fish, blubber, whale-fins, and spermaceti, ten per cent. on the customs duties payable when imported from countries not under the dominion of Great Britain. On tobacco, one shilling and sixpence per one hundred pounds weight; and on all other American goods, ten per cent. upon the customs duties payable for the same when imported in British-built vessels from the American States. The countervailing duties were to be calculated upon the rates of duties as they stood previously to the Act of 37 Geo. III., c. 15. By the statute above recited, a tonnage duty of two shillings sterling was imposed on all American vessels arriving in the ports of Great Britain.
[318] The Americans always employ the word “discriminating” for our “differential” duty. Our sugar duties were discriminating duties. The duties on the three categories of tea, before they were made uniform, were discriminating duties, distinguishing qualities of different values. The present duty on foreign and Cape wines is a differential duty.
[319] If the word “British” is substituted for “American,” we have the exact expression constantly used by the opponents in England during the numerous meetings held in 1849 against the repeal of the British Navigation Laws.
[320] Tybert’s ‘Statistical Annals of the United States.’
CHAPTER XI.
A special mission sent to England—Concessions made in the Colonial trade—Blockades in the Colonies, and of the French ports in the Channel—The dispute concerning the trade with the French Colonies—What is a direct trade—Reversal of the law in England—Effect in America—Instructions to Commissioners—Proceedings of the shipowners of New York—Duties of neutrals—Views of the New York shipowners—Conditions with respect to private armed vessels—Authorities on the subject—Negotiations for another treaty—Circuitous trade—Commercial stipulations—Violation of treaties—Complaints of the Americans against the French—Language of the Emperor—Bayonne Decree, April 17, 1808—American Non-intervention Act, March 1, 1809—Intrigues in Paris against England—Hostile feelings in United States against England—Diplomatic proceedings in Paris—Convention with Great Britain—Retaliatory Acts to be enforced conditionally—Hostile legislation against Great Britain—Bonds required—Treaty negotiations renewed—Dutch reciprocity—Bremen reciprocity.
Although there is reason to fear that the shipowners of America, having made the profits of a war in Europe a matter of deliberate calculation, paid less attention than they might otherwise have done to the remonstrances of the British government against their piratical acts, they had, on the other hand, some reason for complaining of the conduct of British cruisers. The Americans complained that their vessels were searched on the high seas, not merely for enemies’ goods, but, as already noticed, for seamen to man the British navy, a practice which they alleged was derogatory to them, and tended to destroy all cordial friendship between the two countries. In reply, the English government held that no State had such jurisdiction over its merchant vessels upon the high seas as to prevent a belligerent from searching them for contraband of war, or for the persons and property of enemies; and if, in the exercise of that right, the belligerents should discover on board of a neutral vessel any of their subjects who had withdrawn from their lawful allegiance, they asked upon what grounds could the neutral refuse to give them up.
But the public mind was so inflamed in the United States by stories of thousands of Americans forced to serve in the British Navy; of American ships upon the high seas deprived of their hands by British cruisers, and compelled to put into the nearest port for want of seamen to pursue the voyage; and of other outrages still more extraordinary and unpardonable, that, looking only to the alleged abuses of the right, their popular leaders went to the extreme of denying its existence altogether. A Bill upon this principle was consequently brought into Congress, but it was rejected by the Senate.[321]
A special mission sent to England.