University of Virginia Library

APRIL 21. DUTIES ON IMPORTS.

Some gentlemen have seemed to call in question the policy
of discriminating between nations in commercial alliance with
the United States, and those with whom no treaties exist.
For my own part, I am well satisfied that there are good and
'substantial reasons for making it. In the first place, it may
not be unworthy of consideration, that the public sentiments
of America will be favorable to such discrimination. I am
sure, with respect to that part from which I come, it will not
be a pleasing ingredient in your laws, if they find foreigners of

every nation put on a footing with those in alliance with us.
There is another reason, which, perhaps, is more applicable
to some parts of the Union than others; one of the few nations
with which America has formed commercial connexions has
relaxed considerably in that rigid policy it before pursued—
not so far, to be sure, as America could wish, with respect
to opening her ports to our trade; but she has permitted our
ready built ships a sale, and entitles them to the same advantage,
when owned by her own citizens, as if they had
been built in France, subjecting the sale to a duty of five per
cent. The British market receives none; the disabilities of
our ships to trade with their colonies continue, even if they
are purchased by the subjects of Great Britain; of consequence,
they cannot be sold without a considerable loss.
Nay, so cautious are they to prevent the advantages we
naturally possess, that they will not suffer a British ship to
be repaired in America, beyond a certain proportion of her
value; they even will not permit our vessels to be repaired
in their ports.

Another consideration has some weight with me in deciding
the question of discrimination. The policy of our ally,
from the views of the minister employed, has frequently been
adverse to the interest of this country. The person who has
had the charge of our affairs at that Court has long been
soliciting a relaxation in our favor, and although it cannot
be declared that he has succeeded, yet there is reason to
believe he has made some impressions, which our conduct
ought to avoid effacing; they are such as merit national
attention, and might justify a discrimination at this time,
although it may be proper to hold ourselves at liberty to
pursue that policy which a change may make necessary.
There are also other considerations which ought to be taken
into view. From artificial or adventitious causes, the commerce
between America and Great Britain exceeds what may
be considered its natural boundary. I find from an examination
of the accounts of tonnage for the three large States of

Massachusetts, Virginia, and South Carolina, that the tonnage
of nations in alliance with us holds no proportion with
that of Great Britain, or of the United States. This is a
proof that a very small direct commerce takes place between
those countries and this; that there is less of direct intercourse
than there would naturally be if those extraneous and
adventitious causes did not prevent it; such as the long
possession of our trade, their commercial regulations calculated
to retain it, their similarity of language and manners,
their conformity of laws and other circumstances—all these
concurring have made their commerce with us more extensive
than their natural situation would require it to be. I would
wish, therefore, to give such political advantages to those
nations, as might enable them to gain their proportion of our
direct trade from the nation who has acquired more than it
is naturally her due. From this view of the subject, I am
led to believe it would be good policy to make the proposed
discrimination between them. Is it not also of some importance,
that we should enable nations in treaty with us
to draw some advantage from our alliance, and thereby impress
those Powers that have hitherto neglected to treat with
us, with the idea that advantages are to be gained by a reciprocity
of friendship? If we give every thing equally to
those who have or have not formed treaties, surely we do
not furnish to them any motive for courting our connexion.

It has been objected, that the price of our produce at foreign
markets would not bear this additional burden, and that
the freight must be paid by the planters. It will be unnecessary,
after what was said by the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
(Mr. Fitzsimons,) to take up the time of the committee
in observing that foreigners must receive our tobacco, rice,
&c., in American shipping, if they cannot be otherwise got.
There may be a discrimination made in other respects besides
in tonnage, so that a very high impost on this article
need not be insisted upon. But will any gentleman say,
British vessels ought to enjoy in American ports greater

advantages than are enjoyed by Americans in British ports?
Yet were theduties laid equal in both cases, the British
merchant would have a very great superiority. In the first
place, some of the most valuable ports which she possesses,
and most conducive to our interest, are absolutely closed,
while every port in the United States is open to her without
restriction or limitation. Again, even in those which it is
permitted America to enter her vessels, she must bring nothing
but the produce of her own soil, whilst the British ship
makes circuitous voyages, and brings with her the produce of
every quarter of the globe. These are material advantages;
and take the whole of these observations together, I think
they furnish substantial reasons for making the proposed
discrimination.