1790] CESSION BY NORTH CAROLINA. 435 At this session the State of North Carolina ceded the western portion of the country within the chartered limits of that State, which portion now constitutes the State of Tennessee. The inhabitants of that region had, for some time, aimed to erect themselves into a separate State, which they termed Franklin (a name then occasionally changed to Frankland); but their efforts were resisted by North Carolina, and with success. That State, however, foreseeing that if the western people persevered in their purpose, as they were likely to do, they would ultimately prevail, made a virtue of necessity, and transferred her rights to the United States, by which transfer the purposes of those who aimed to form themselves into a separate State would be hastened and facilitated. A petition having been presented from Portsmouth, in New Hampshire, asking an increase of duties on foreign shipping, the same was referred to a select committee, who, in their report, recommended a duty of one dollar per ton on foreign-built vessels. This report indicated a determination to take more energetic measures to afford to the shipping and foreign commerce of the United States that protection which had been a principal object in forming the Federal Constitution. From the discussion of the subject, which continued, with some intermissions, from the tenth of May to the thirtieth of June, we see that the difficulties which the new government encountered did not wholly proceed from the jealous power of foreign competitors, but arose, in part, from the conflicting interests among the States. Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, moved to strike out the first clause of the report (which proposed an increase of the tonnage duty,) as highly injurious to the agricultural interests of the United States. He urged that the measure would be injurious to some of the States, and benẹ 436 RETALIATION DISCUSSED. [CHAP. V. ficial to others, by tending to increase their freights: that the ship-building interest already enjoyed great natural advantages, and required no special encouragement. Mr. Sherman was in favor of the duty, as encouraging the carrying trade and the ship-building of the United States, insisting that if it produced some partial inconvenience at present, it would ultimately benefit the whole country. Mr. Goodhue, on the same side, made remarks on the value of the carrying trade, which had declined in consequence of the restrictions of foreign nations. He was willing to impose equal restrictions on them, but to go no further. Mr. Williamson did not think one part of the community should be burthened for the advantage of another. But he was friendly to the policy of American ships carrying American produce to market. Mr. Jackson was opposed to the report, whether its object was revenue, retaliatian, or an encouragement to American shipping. He said that a tonnage duty of fifty cents was deemed sufficient at the preceding session; now one of a dollar is asked, and next year two dollars a ton will probably be insisted on. He asked for proofs that American shipping required further encouragement, before we gave it. He said the carrying trade was of little importance to the United States, or to any country not having a navy. He insisted that the shipping interest of the United States was sufficiently encouraged, and that a further encouragement would be burthensome to the Southern States. Mr. Fitzsimmons would merely state facts, without giving an opinion at this time. He said that the operation of the tonnage duty laid at the last session had proved beneficial that the Southern States have the ports of 1790.] RETALIATION DISCUSSED. 437 the world now open to them, while the Eastern States are excluded from many ports to which they formerly had access: that the present low price of rice was unconnected with the subject. He was not in favor of a duty which would prevent foreign ships from coming to our ports; but, at the same time, he did not wish to see the carrying trade monopolized by foreigners. Mr. Livermore contrasted the present with the former prosperous condition of the merchants of Portsmouth. Mr. Bloodworth thought the decision of the question was now premature. Mr. White was strongly opposed to the additional duty as injurious to agriculture; and Mr. Page, his colleague, was as decidedly in favor of it. On the following day, motions first to strike out the duty, and to reduce it to seventy-five cents, were negatived; when the Committee rose, and reported progress. Mr. Madison spoke at great length in favor of going a step further, and of discriminating between the vessels of nations which were and which were not in commercial treaty with the United States. He doubted whether the measure proposed by the committee would have the intended effect, to which he professed himself friendly: it might induce the nations of Europe to make common cause against the United States. He questioned the policy of laying the additional duty on the shipping of France. He dwelt on the advantages which the trade with that country promised, and thought it would be three times as advantageous to the United States as their trade with any other nation. He spoke of the advantage of a consuming over a manufacturing country, and that the United States could do without Great Britain better than she could do without them. He concluded 438 RETALIATION DISCUSSED. [CHAP. V. with moving to subject vessels of nations not in treaty with the United States to a higher duty.' Mr. Fitzsimmons said he had been in favor of the discrimination proposed by Mr. Madison, but now doubted its propriety. With the small amount of French shipping, the exemption from the additional duty would be no object with France; but with the large surplus owned by Great Britain, she cannot employ them so advantageously as in the American trade. He pointed out the great benefit she derives from the United States. Our advantages were correspondingly great, and he should be sorry to risk them by the proposed enhancement of the tonnage duty. Mr. Ames was also opposed to the motion. He said France could not be much benefited by the discrimination; and that American vessels were admitted with almost as much facility into the British as into the French islands. He had hoped that this question, after having been decided at the last session, would not be renewed. The motion, however, prevailed by thirty-two votes against nineteen; and the resolution, as amended, was as follows: That the tonnage on all foreign-built bottoms belonging to nations not in commercial treaty with the United States be raised to the sum of one dollar per ton, from and after the first of January next. On the following day, Mr. Madison, encouraged by the success of his previous motion, moved an addition to the resolution agreed to, that after a given day there should be an increased tonnage duty on vessels of nations not in treaty with the United States, and on a subsequent given day a further increase of duty; and that 1 II. Gales & Seaton's Debates, page 1626. 1790.] RETALIATION DISCUSSED. 439 such vessels should be prohibited from exporting from the United States "any unmanufactured article, the growth or produce thereof." He supported his motion by various arguments and illustrations. The motion was opposed by Messrs. Fitzsimmons, Lawrence, Sedgwick, and Smith of South Carolina, as haz ardous and inexpedient. Mr. Madison replied to their arguments at great length. He defended the measure, as one of retaliation against Great Britain. He said the principle on which she regulated her West India trade was a departure from her Navigation Act, which allowed other vessels to carry their own produce in their own ships into her ports. He endeavored to show that Great Britain would not throw away or put in jeopardy so extensive and valuable a trade as that she had with her West India colonies, and also with the trade in American tobacco. He laid a stress on the dependence of the West Indies upon this country for bread: said she would not seek to hasten the progress of manufactures in the United States; and the West Indies could not dispense with lumber, nor with the sale of their rum. They could neither prosper nor subsist without the trade of the United States. As Great Britain now enjoyed the full benefit of the trade to the United States, their Executive had nothing to offer or withdraw. By passing the act proposed, he may say, "if you do not give the United States proper privileges, those given to you shall be discontinued." Mr. Fitzsimmons again regarded the measure as a bold one, and he believed that Great Britain would, at all hazards, maintain her system of trade with the West Indies. He was friendly to the encouragement III. Gales & Seaton's Debates, page 1624. |