"j ^13
AMERICAN SHIPS FOR AMERICAN NAVIGATION
THE SHIPPING SOCIETY OF AMERICA
* €» -o ® 3
vi"* 'I ^ »
Our Wronged and Ruined Marine
and Captured Carrying Trade
LLS
o 3 *
3 o a a
Our Government to Blame—Its Perfidious Change of Policy
from Care and Encouragement to Indifference and Neglect, and
Its Refusal to Perform Devolved Obligations and Duties, Have
Proved Hurtful and Deadly to American Shipping; but, to a Few
Foreign Rations, Its Course Has Been and Is Now of Great Ad¬
vantage and Benefit.
By William W. Bates, N. A.
Former U. S. Commissioner of Navigation.
President the Shipping Society of America.
Reprinted from The Editorial Review
New York, May, 1910. |4
U >
Nothing is so foolish for our nation as foreign dependence on
the ocean."
he
<Vithc, awn from Crerar Library
OUR WRONGED AND RUINED MARINE
AND CAPTURED CARRYING TRADE.
OUR GOVERNMENT TO BLAME—Its perfidious change ot
policy from Care and Encouragement to Indifference and
Neglect; and its Refusal to perform devolved Obligations
and Duties, have been Hurtful and Deadly to American
Shipping, while, to that of a few foreign Nations, its
course has been of signal benefit. A DEPENDENCY upon
these Nations for the conduct of our Commerce and its
Carriage has been Established, and our flag at Sea has
been struck by OUR OWN erring Government—All in the
honor of a new-fangled political FAD, but to the DISAD¬
VANTAGE, DISGRACE, and DANGER of our REPUBLIC.
By William W. Bates, N. A.,
President of the Shipping Society of America.
Once, when we had a wise and vigilant Government, we had a
marine and a foreign carrying trade, of which our nation was
proud. That trade was smitten with blight, its growth checked, its
decline started, new ships have ceased to be built, and the interest
is so nearly extinct that what is left of the marine will last only a
few years. The spring head and active cause of this decline and
decay have been ill-advised and BAD government.
Many years ago, in violation of a COMPACT of the Constitu¬
tion, our promised and successful navigation laws for ship Pro¬
tection were suspended—by agreement with rival nations who had
economic advantages. They gladly agreed to reciprocity in un-
protection, because it would bring us adverse conditions. These
soon obtaining, the new policy proved profitable to them, but
worthless to us. The principle was at fault. Ruin has resulted.
Our misfortune has become an old story. Congress so far has
refused restoration of protection under the Compact, though
4
THE EDITORIAL REVIEW.
National Conventions have promised relief, and .JUSTICE de¬
mands it. In short, our rights and interests in navigation seem to
be abandoned—as an easy way out.
THE CLAIMS OF NAVIGATION.
Consider the case of Navigation, once esteemed as a "pillar of
our prosperity." Had there been no shipping question, or no
statesmen competent to solve it, after winning our Independence,
there would have been no commanding cause of Union under the
Constitution, no urgent reason for a permanent National Govern¬
ment, and no great continent-wide Republic, but, the several
States would have continued as so many weak and discordant
nations. Were there no shipping question noiv, our rulers might
all pass for statesmen, going down into history famed for wisdom,
vigilance and patriotism. The shipping question is now at the foot
of the list of unsolved problems before our rulers, not because it
has lost any of its original import—by no means. It is there be¬
cause it is unstudied and not comprehended. With some of our
rivals the problem is economic, but with us it is necessarily
political. Economics are against us, but if the NATION needs
a merchant marine, it must have it, though conditions be adverse.
Necessarily, it is for our statesmen 'to provide encouragement.
The founders of our Government did that thing. The Constitu¬
tional Convention did not leave so important a matter to the in¬
ventiveness of future generations. How to do it had to be settled
before the Federal Government could be formed. The "regula¬
tion of foreign commerce" was the method selected. The States
would not have stood for "ship subsidy." No difficulties appeared
insuperable. The several States, feeble as they were, had "naviga¬
tion laws." Their right to make them was unquestioned. Their
rights so to do were given up for the use of the Federal Govern¬
ment, on condition, however, that it be considered a COMPACT
to exercise these rights in perpetuity for the protection of ship¬
ping of the future "United States." So this subject is in politics,
and there it will remain. It will not take itself out of politics,
though ever so much ignored and dodged, but it will stay, if for
nothing better, to expose THE DISREGARD OF NATIONAL
INTEREST, as that is involved in marine rehabilitation, put off
for the past forty years by our inattentive rulers.
PAST AND PRESENT STATESMANSHIP.
It would seem that there must be something amiss, much in¬
herent difficulty or strange shortcoming, or our Representatives,
OUR MARINE AND CAPTURED CARRYING TRADE. 5
Senators, and Presidents would handle the shipping subject as
easily as their fathers did, and as earnestly and promptly, too.
Is the trouble with the sons or in the subject? Is it due to ob¬
stacles or under-estimation? To apathy or lack of inquiry? Can
foreign influence account for it?
In the beginning, our people were poor as well as few. Our
nation was weak and inferior. But our statesmen wrere able,
courageous, and persistent. Hindrances were removed or over¬
come. They acted with judgment—waiting awhile for numbers
and strength before full protection was given to shipping, but
they began the work faithfully and continued it with confidence,
until every right on the ocean was fully secured by STATUTE
LAW. Shipping measures were not put off from one session to
another, lest the opposition should gain advantage from their
passage. To their constitutional method there was NO opposition.
A "ship subsidy" scheme would have been scouted by ALL.
Regulation of our foreign trade was the way of the COMPACT.
No one feared, and no one cared, about foreign opinion. After
thirty years of endeavor every point desired had been gained.
Our prestige on the ocean was acknowledged by the world. Many
were the advantages resulting from the circumstance. Our In¬
dependence was complete—as to merchants, shipowners, ship¬
builders, seamen and underwriters. We carried and conducted
our foreign commerce with safety and satisfaction, and with the
pride of freemen. Best of all, American sentiment ruled every¬
where throughout our land.
God help us! The opposite of all this prevails NOW. If
subordination and inferiority be good things, we have a surfeit.
These things are silently deteriorating our character and pro¬
ducing a people satisfied with foreign dominance. Our GOV¬
ERNMENT is succumbing to it. Were this not so, our states¬
men would be up and doing for shipping restoration and the re¬
covery of our place in the world of commerce. On the contrary,
the sons of the "founders" have been forty years forgetting the
importance of INDEPENDENCE on the ocean; trying to be¬
lieve that foreign merchants, shipowners, shipbuilders and under¬
writers, with consequent dependency, are quite the thing in mod¬
ern American life.
EVIL EFFECTS OF A CHANGE OF POLICY.
Review a few eventful facts. As I have said, the present situa¬
tion has resulted from governmental PERFIDY, beginning in
6
THE EDITORIAL REVIEW.
1828. The President then in office imagined that shipping in
foreign trade had been long enough protected. From an "infant"
it had become a "giant." Our ships were carrying 90 per cent,
of our foreign trade—take off protection—that "barrier to busi¬
ness"—and "they would carry it all!" And the "fly" walked into
the "parlor" that was so "fine." Protection was prepared for
gradual "suspension"—as it might be desired by foreign nations,
one after another. In twenty-two years as many nations were en¬
joying privileges opposed to the RIGHTS of American ships—
cutting down our percentage of carriage in our own foreign trade—
as though that was of national benefit. A more impolitic course
could hardly have been devised. "Maritime reciprocity" was the
idea—the fad—mutual giving up of governmental ship protection.
But the most uneven and dissimilar conditions resulted. Reci¬
procity in lazv-makmg was not followed by reciprocity in business.
The different nations, no longer obliged to freight our ships,
gave employment to their own. Straightway, too, all sorts of pro¬
tections were devised—to hold their own trade, while cutting into
ours. Our Government took no heed of these things. It takes no
heed now. It shut its eyes to our annual losses of carriage, and
practically said to foreign nations: "Sail in and gobble up, and
make our commerce your own;" and the foreign interest, thus
encouraged, actually looks now to Congress, to continue its mo¬
nopoly. It protests against any regulations calculated to help
American shipping in its unequal struggle for survival. It is so
mean as to want the sea itself. This foreign interest, countenanced
by one administration after another, is stripping us of power to
conduct commercial business; of character belonging to an inde¬
pendent people; of liberty to make the sea a theatre of enterprise;
of freedom to regain our place on the ocean; of the RIGHT to
seek prosperity as becomes an independent nation. These are
very serious consequences of bad government. Presently, our
foreign merchants and carriers will be at war among themselves;
our productions for export will have very costly transportation
OR NONE AT ALL; panic will attend the interruption of trade;
bankruptcy will follow panic—maybe a revolution eventuate—all
for the want of INDEPENDENCE on the ocean, and in over-sea
commerce. And for the lack of wise and vigilant government the
evil of the situation increases with time.
VIOLATED PLEDGES FAVOR FOREIGN NATIONS.
Have we no rulers at Washington qualified to see, appreciate,
OUR MARINE AND CAPTURED CARRYING TRADE. 7
and obviate the disadvantages, the dangers and the disgrace that
our country has fallen into? Do unimportant things necessarily
use up all the time of Presidents, Cabinets, and the Houses of
Congress? If we have the ability and the time, why is action de¬
layed? What authority determines which measures shall be con¬
sidered and which put oil? Some authority has given out this:
"It is not expected that a ship subsidy bill will be passed at the present
session, despite the high hopes of advocates who have organized to impress
their views upon the lawmakers. * * * It might prove dangerous in the
CONGRESSIONAL elections."
Shipowners of Liverpool and Hamburg; of Amsterdam and
Havre; of Antwerp and Tokio, the best of news right from
Washington! To these gentlemen, "ship subsidy" means ship
protection—no American ship protection! "On with the dance,
let joy be unconfined!"
The last Republican platform reads thus:
"We adhere to the Republican doctrine of encouragement to American
shipping and urge SUCH LEGISLATION as will revive the merchant
marine (prestige) of the country, so essential to national defence, the en¬
largement of foreign trade and the industrial prosperity of our own
people."
The President has declared for the observance of "pledges"—
what does he think of this—is it a poor "pledge" or very good
buncombe? Which way does he interpret it—as for "subsidy"
or "discriminating duties?" Manifestly, it stands for either, or for
neither. If it means "ship" subsidy, is it he who cautions Con¬
gress not to touch it with a ten-foot pole, lest some "M. C." shall
be retired ? Or is it the Speaker, or the campaign committee, who
scents the danger? No matter—this "pledge" is officially inter¬
preted to mean "ship subsidy;" manifestly, a meaning that the
platform makers dared not venture to put plainly into print. Why
was this? Simply, because "ship subsidy" has no warrant in the
Constitution, and would not bear the scrutiny of a campaign. It
was different with the platform makers of 1896. They declared
SPECIFICALLY for "discriminating duties"—constitutional
"regulations of commerce." The popular vote largely endorsed
this plank. Nobody was ashamed of it; nobody apologized for it;
it was opposed only by the FOREIGN INTERESTS dominating
our commerce and navigation; and the administration elected
proved to be so weak, and so unfaithful, as to repudiate it, instead
of carrying it out. The truth seems to be that the PEOPLE de¬
mand an "American Marine," but the foreign interests, in terrify-
8
THE EDITORIAL REVIEW.
ing tones, say, "No! a foreign marine has the job, and is bound
to keep it;" so the politicians promise an American marine, but
the rulers take care not to pass any effective bills.
UNFRUITFUL PRETENSION.
Really, the Republican shipping plank of 1908 is ambiguous, if
not equivocal—it binds nobody. In his speech on the observance
of pledges, before The Republican Club of the City of New York,
on February 12, 1910, the President wholly disregarded the ship¬
ping plank. In fact, he ignored all such planks from first to last.
Affecting confidence, he inquired :
"In what respect has the Republican party failed in its conduct of the
Government and the enactment of laws to perform its duty? It was re¬
turned to power a year ago last November by a very large majority, after
a campaign in which it made certain promises in its platform and those
promises it has either substantially complied with, or it is about to perform
within the present session of Congress. Let us take up these promises in
order."
Did he take up the promise to enact "such legislation as will
revive the merchant marine (prestige) of the country?" Not at
all. There is a little bill pending for the establishment of a few
mail lines, and the adoption of a "Free Ship" policy, which he
approves, but on the date of his speech nothing towards "such
legislation," (as is urgent and absolutely necessary for a revival of
the shipping trade,) had been undertaken. Proper and well-drawn
measures are before the committees, but are not to be considered,
much less enacted,—because they might be vetoed. The usual
"ship" subsidy bill, come to be a farce played for the amusement
of foreign shipowners, has not been staged this session. For ten
or twelve years it has been the custom to introduce the bill, have
it printed, and put off to the short session. At the short session,
it has "gone over" for want of time, or been talked to death. A
discriminating-duty bill, that would redeem party promises, be
approved by the people, do its work as of old, may get printed,
but it is pigeon-holed forthwith. With nothing being done for
American shipping, the party is safe, and in the countries of our
rivals, POPULAR.
The people of the United States are fast tiring of this unfruit¬
ful pretension—of this continuous trifling with a very serious
question, in effect, whether or not the Government intends to re¬
pent its perfidy in 1828, and to enforce a policy of ship protection,
SUCH AS THE COMPACT OF UNION PRESCRIBES,
OUR MARINE AND CAPTURED CARRYING TRADE. 9
namely, effective "navigation laws?" The voters of the country
may well think of retiring their servants of all parties responsible
for our present dependency on the ocean. Why does not the ad¬
ministration cast all fears of the people aside; pass the nugatory,
unconstitutional "ship subsidy" bill; and let the people bury it out
of sight with adverse ballots? The country is being betrayed.
Foreigners are delighted at our defeat. Is there to be no relief?
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SHIP SUBSIDY.
The subsidy principle, as a protective, does not appeal to the
American people. It was carefully kept out of the Constitution.
Notwithstanding this fact, our late administrations have under¬
taken to educate Congress into its application to the merchant
marine. Ever since President McKinley, Senator Hanna and
some pushing capitalists repudiated the shipping plank of 1896,
and selected a Commissioner of Navigation to frame and tout for
the "Hanna-Payne" bill, this officer has done his best, in his re¬
ports, to prejudice Congress, and to have the "ship subsidy"
scheme carried through. His arguments are well calculated to im¬
pose upon his readers—false promises abound, and fallacious con¬
clusions follow, urged with all the sophistry at command. Here
is his latest dictum for the misleading of the unwary:
"The policy of discriminating duties on imports IN foreign ships or
discriminating tonnage duties ON foreign ships is hopelessly impracticable.
* * * Indirect discriminations are equally futile."
Per contra—only "ship" subsidy, the nostrum of the. adminis¬
tration, inherently bad, and outside the pale of law, is competent.
What a Compact of the Constitution calls for, what did its work in
our early history, must not be re-applied to the vessels and cargoes
of certain nations,—because these nations have become our- law¬
givers. Who believes this?
The Commissioner of Navigation conceals the fact, that his
bureau NOW administers the discriminating-duty law, as it stood
prior to the act of May 24, 1828—as to all nations not in conven¬
tion for its "suspension." The term of suspension having expired,
it is optional at any moment for either Government concerned to
give the notice required, and thus terminate its agreement for
"maritime reciprocity." Though we should not take such action,
were the score of nations concerned to give such notice, and thus
end the agreements themselves, as they might do, Mr. Commis¬
sioner would find on his hands for execution the very law that he
denounces, and which he says is "hopelessly impracticable." It
10
THE EDITORIAL REVIEW.
is thoughtful of him to caution Congressmen against making any
more of such law, lest all of our rivals turn upon us in a day and
inflict punishment for our audacity! Our rivals can speak for
themselves. Hear one of them :
"THE SHIPPING OUTLOOK."
"At the annual meeting of the Manchester Liners steamship line, held
in England on October 15, (1909), Sir Christopher Furness, the Chairman,
said: 'One thing perfectly clear is that the high water mark of the ship-
owning supremacy of this country has been reached. All other great na¬
tions have determined, rightly or wrongly, to have a greater share of the
carrying trade of the world in the future than they have had in the past,
and I think it is time that British shipowners realized the reasonableness
of that ambition in other nations."
Spoken like a sensible man! Our right to enjoy proper ship
protection is only disputed by our own politicians whose fear
vitiates their judgment. It is not the kind of protection, but the
WORK it will accomplish, that might be resented. We have only
to keep within our rights, to fear no evil from our fellow-men.
Denied our RIGHTS, we will have them—"peacefully if we can,
but forcibly if we must."
COMPACT FOR PROTECTION BY N A VIG ATI ON LAWS.
When it is considered that a COMPACT OF UNION exists
for ship protection, by the very means tabooed above as "imprac¬
ticable ;" that, without an amendment of the Constitution, which
is not even suggested, it is "ship" subsidy that is "impracticable,"
the bluff .of the Commissioner looms up like the peak of Tene-
riffe rising out of the sea. And what of the effrontery of his
friends who had him put to work and who keep him at it—serv¬
ing the interests of foreign nations? If "ship" subsidy were set
up, it could not be established, but would be soon overthrown by
a change of administration. Nobody believes the people would,
year after year, tax themselves to support the shipping trade, even
were it attempted by Congress. On the other hand, regulation of
trade, COSTING NOTHING, has behind it the warrant of
LAW, the prestige and popular favor of our early history, and
the power of the American Republic. There is no political party
opposed to it. Chiefly, it is foreign influence that induces our
Government ITSELF to discourage and obstruct the passage of
proper bills. But this administration will pass away. Another and
a better will come, that will one day rightly interpret the CON¬
STITUTION, THAT GREAT PLATFORM OF ALL THE
PEOPLE, and American shipping will then come into its own.
OUR MARINE AND CAPTURED CARRYING TRADE. 11
It would be of immense and immediate national benefit, if the
present administration would "reform" its mal-treatment of the
merchant marine. It might rightly interpret its shipping plank
by the light of the Constitution, and sanction "such legislation"
as that instrument requires. It could cease to encourage foreign
shipping, by providing employment for it, and justly prefer
American vessels for all its purposes. If a shipowner is loyal to
his Government, a loyal Government can not do otherwise than
reciprocate. Loyalty should be of a kind to deserve applause at
home. "Whoever hauls down the American flag, shoot him on
the spot," was the order of a loyal Secretary of the Treasury.
A DISLOYAL POLICY, continued to the present day, has
hauled down the American flag at sea, and keeps it hauled down
—for the benefit of foreign flags. From the President down,
where shall we find in office one single consistent, earnest, active
friend of American shipping? Were this otherwise, it would
appear in practical legislation and administration, not in plati¬
tudes and platforms and broken pledges.
A PROPER BILL AND SQUARE TEST OF LOYALTY.
Here is a bill which, if passed, as it should be, being disservice-
able to foreign interests, while beneficial to our own, would be
instantly vetoed:
"To repeal the Act' of May 24, 1828, and all other Acts authorizing the
suspension of discriminating duties; to notify foreign nations of the termi¬
nation of conventions made in pursuance thereof; and to extend the coast¬
wise laws to the trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of May 24,
1828, and all law whatever, at any time made, authorizing the President to
suspend the laws or regulations then in force for the encouragement of the
foreign carrying trade, on condition that any foreign nation shall recipro¬
cate such suspension on its part, is hereby repealed; and the Secretary of
State is hereby charged with the duty of notifying each of the nations now
in convention with the United States, for mutual suspension of navigation
laws in pursuance of this or any other Act, that in one year from receipt
of said notice, as stipulated in said convention, the same will be terminated
and its privileges revoked.
"Sec. 2. That the provisions of law restricting to vessels of the United
States the transportation of passengers and merchandise directly or indi¬
rectly from one port of the United States to another port of the United
States shall be applicable and shall be applied to foreign vessels engaged
in trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States in sixty days
from and after the passage of this Act, and while the ports of the Philip¬
pines shall be American."
12
THE EDITORIAL REVIEW.
The first section of this bill would restore the protection of our
shipping enjoyed in our early history, under which it carried over
90 per cent, of our foreign trade. The second section would secure
to our vessels the carriage of our trade with the Philippines. This
carriage belonged, by right and by law, to our own vessels the
moment that Philippine ports became American. An Act passed
to secure the enjoyment of this right was extended one year for
foreign benefit, to delight one executive; and an Act superseding
it has been slipped through to please another. Such are now the
ways of our Government towards our shipping—unjust'and un-
blest.
ADMINISTRATIVE INJUSTICE.
Note, the carriage of mails freely given to support, in part,
the great lines of our R I VA L S, who have unfairly driven our
ships out of trade. No Postmaster-General deprecates this course.
Note, the preferred employment of foreign vessels, by the
Army and Navy Departments, whenever they have patronage to
bestow—showing their disloyalty to the rights and interests of
their countrymen, and their disregard for lazv; for, there never
was any law permitting the employment of foreign vessels in place
of our own, but it has been procured of late.
Note, the employment of foreign carriers of Panama Canal
supplies. Examine the Hay-Pauncefote treaty with England, con¬
ditioned to prevent any protection to American vessels through
the using of this costly Canal, by means of discriminative tolls.
It was our RIGHT to build this canal free of diplomatic bondage
to any nation, and to charge discriminative tolls, if we pleased,
but Mr. Roosevelt thought not, the Senate thought not, or they
sold out the Republic. Anyway, in the interest of the British
marine, and DEAD AGAINST the right and interest of Amer¬
ican shipping, Congress is FORBIDDEN to establish tolls favor¬
ing our ships.
Note, that the European Governments are paying the tolls of
the Suez Canal, and the British are, as might have been foreseen,
REBATING THEM TO THEIR OWN VESSELS. So, prac¬
tically, England has compelled us to dispense with tolls; for we
should do as well by our ships, if we have any, as other nations
do by theirs. Thus, while England has realized canal protection,
we have entirely failed. We had a chance for it, but, not appre¬
ciating the need for ship protection, treated it away—to delight
Roosevelt and please John Hay. We are stuck on more treaties
OUR MARINE AND CAPTURED CARRYING TRADE. 13
than any other nation in Christendom. With such diplomacy, is it
any wonder our place at sea is lost?
Note, the superseding of a recent Act of Congress, already de¬
scribed, that a British shipping combine may continue its monop¬
oly of carriage between the Philippine Islands and all American
ports. Natural and constitutional rights are rubbish with Mr.
Taft—here is his dictum:
"THE DOMESTIC TRADE MENACED."
"The coastwise laws of the United States should be made inapplicable
to the trade between the ports of the Islands and the ports of the United
States."
Relying upon their rights, our shipowners several times shaped
their business to enter the Philippine trade. They have been sadly
disappointed. On the other hand, the British and Japanese, rely¬
ing upon our new-fangled politics, are highly delighted. Their
interests are attended to—at Washington.
Mr. Taft has not said that our vessels should abandon all hope
for the Philippine trade—it would not do to extinguish hope—but
that "a reasonable subsidy should be paid our vessels to run in this
trade." Subsidize the domestic trade! That means to open it
everywhere to foreign vessels, helping our own from the Treas¬
ury for a few years, and in the end losing all! And the Constitu¬
tion provides for ship Protection by navigation laws!
The domestic trade—that from one of our ports to another—
BELONGS WHOLLY to our own vessels as a matter of impre¬
scriptible and absolute RIGHT. At the most, foreign ships could
get only a privilege in it. It is because foreign vessels have no
right in domestic trade, that they are by law excluded from it.
Evidently, our rulers who are willing to give up the domestic
trade, as well as the foreign, to rival nations, know little about
shipping rights—possibly, think none exist for American use.
RELATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO OUR
SHIPPING. -
The relationship of our National Government to our shipping
trade is closer than exists in any other country. Besides the
usual relation involving protection of Government on one side,
and allegiance of subject on the other, American shipping has a
SPECIAL CLAIM to protection from a COMPACT for "navi¬
gation laws" provided for in the Constitution. No other industry
is thus favored. The relationship is like that of guardian and
ward. Not only is the Federal Government in duty bound to
14
THE EDITORIAL REVIEW.
foster and protect by law, against ruination by foreign competi¬
tion, but the Government ITSELF is under obligation, by the
principle of fidelity, to bestow its patronage upon ships of our
flag. A guardian can not, in decency, employ a ship of foreign
flag in preference to one flying "Old Glory"—neither in decency
nor in loyalty to our Republic. A guardian can not, in law nor
morals, neglect, appropriate or waste the estate of a ward, as
these acts would be in contravention of the compact, as well as
against a sound public policy. Government carriers can not be
foreign vessels, except in violation of this compact and this right¬
ful policy. Relations and rights are mutual and reciprocal, and
more sacred than treaties. The only defense of the Government,
for the employment of foreign ships, is in the necessity that knows
no law; but our Government is barred from pleading a necessity
THAT IT HAS ITSELF CREATED.
Why, then, does the Government trample upon its obligations
to American shipping? Why does it not cease its oppression and
injustice? Navigation is a NATIONAL INTEREST. Govern¬
ment injustice toward it is a crime against our Republic. The
treason of Benedict Arnold was a trivial thing—to give up a single
fort—compared with the treason of recent years, THE SUR¬
RENDER OF THE OCEAN TO OUR RIVALS, with conse¬
quent dependency on them in peace and in war—upon their ship¬
builders and owners for supply vessels for our navy and carriers
of our commerce; upon their merchants to conduct it; upon their
underwriters to cover it; upon their bankers to finance it; upon
their markets to receive and distribute our exports, all these inter¬
ests to fix their own prices—regardless of the principles of states¬
manlike government. Can we go back to FOREIGN DEPEN¬
DENCY without giving up Liberty, Union of States, National
Life, and other ideals distinctly American?
And now, let our supplications ascend for better government
and higher regard for industrial rights; for a renewal of a patri¬
otic spirit throughout our nation; for a revival of national senti¬
ment among our rulers at Washington, to the end that the marine
in foreign trade shall receive JUSTICE from Congress—in the
fulfillment of the COMPACT for "navigation laws," for lack of
which the Republic is already suffering in character and estate,
while its former glory is passing away—but will yet be RE¬
STORED, let us hope, though it should prove in vain to rally
expectation in this year of grace.
THE DUTY OF SHIP ENCOURAGEMENT
"If particular nations grasp at undue shares [of ocean
carriage], and more especially, if they seize on the means of the
United States to convert them into aliment for their own strength,
and withdraw them entirely from the support of those to whom
they belong, defensive and protecting measures become necessary
011 the part of the nation whose marine resources are thus in¬
vaded; or it will be disarmed of its defence, its productions will
lie at the mercy of the nation which has possessed itself exclus¬
ively of the means of carrying them, and its POLITICS may be
influenced by those who command its commerce. * * *
"It is true we must expect some inconvenience in practice from
the establishment of DISCRIMINATING DUTIES. But in
this, as in so many other cases, we are left to choose between two
the loss of wealth and loss of force, which will follow our perse¬
verance in the plan of indiscrimination. * * * It is not to the
evils. These inconveniences are nothing when weighed against
moderation and justice of others we are to look for fair and equal
access to market with our productions, or for our due share in the
transportation of them, but to our own means of independence
and the firm will to use them."
From Jefferson's Report on Traffic, 1793.