Gazette of the United States & evening advertiser. — Philadelphia [Pa.], 1794-02-18 00:00:00, page 2

men is perhaps rather dearer than our?,
on the other hand, the rate of iUteri:it is
lower in England and fo-are feamtn's wa
ges. It would be improper, therefore, to
coufidcr the amount of Briiilh tonnage in
our ti-adc, as a proof of a bad Hale of
things, ariiing either from the reductions
of that government, or the negligence or
timidity.of this. We are to charge it to
causes which are more coune£ted with the
natural competition of capital and industry,
causes which in fr.ft retarded the growth
of our (hipping more when we were
colonies and our (hips were free than since
the adoption of the present government.
It has been said, with emphasis, "that
the conttitution grew out of the com
plaints of the nation respecting commerce
efpeciaUy that with the British dominions.
What was then lamented by our patriots ?
Feebleness of the public counsels, the (ha
dow of union, and scarce the flradow of
puVnc credit, every where despondence,
the pre (lure of evils, not only great, but
portentous of civil diltrattions. These
were the grievances and what more was
then delired than their remedies! Is it
pofiible to Purvey this profperons country,
and to aflert that they have been delayed?
Trade fioui idles on our wharves, although
it droops in ipeeches ; manufoftures have
riie:i under the lhaic of protecting duties
from ahnoll nothing, to such a Hate, that
we are even told it is fafe to dep end on
the domed ie ftipply, if the foreign (hotild
ceafc. The-lifheries, which we ibuifd in
decline, are in the molt vigorous growth ;
the whale fiihery, which our allies would
have transferred to Dunkirk, r.ow traver
ses the whole orean. To that hardy race
of men, the fe'a is but a park for hunting
its monlters ; such is their activity, the
deeped abyfTes scarcely afford to their prey
an hiding place. Look round, and fee
how the frontier circle widens, how the
interior improves, and let it be repeated,
tint the hopes of the people, when they
formed this conditution, have been fruf-
Is not this increase of American ship
ping rapid enough ? Many perfor.s fay it
ia too rapid, and attrafti too much capi
tal for the circumftanrte-of the .country.
1 cannot readily myfelf \o think
so valuable n branch of employment thrives
too fai- But z it&dy and sure encou
ragement ii more to be relied on than vio
lent methods of forcing its growth. It
it not clear that the quantity of our navi
gation, including our coasting and fifHing
vefTels is lei's, In proportion to those of
that nation. In tint computation, we
fhaO probably find, that we are already
more a navigating people than the Eng
li(h.
But if it should happen' that our pre
judices prove stronger than our senses, Jf
k should be believed that our farmers and
merchants fee their products and {hips
and wharves going to decay together,and
they are ignorant or silent on their own
ruin—itill the public documents would
not disclose k> alarming a state of our af
fairs. Our imports are obtained so plen
tifully and cheaply that one of the avow
ed objects of the refutations is, to make
them scarcer and dearer. Our exports,
fj far fom languishing, have increased
two millions of dollars in a year. Our
navigation is found to be augmented be
yond the molt sanguine expectation.—
We hear of the vast advantage the Eng
lish derive from the navigation ad, and
we are asked in a tone of accusation, (hall
we fit still, and do nothing Who is bold
enough to fay, Congress has done no
thing for the encouragement of Ameri
can navigation ? To counteract the navi
gation aCI, we have laid on Britilh a high
er tonnage than our Own veflels pay in
their ports —and what is much more ef
fectual we have imposed ten per cent, on
the duties, when the dutied articles are
borne in foreign bottoms. We have also
made the coailing-trade a monopoly to
our own velfels. Let those who have as
serted that this is nothing, comparc faCts
with the regulations which produced
t rated.
American 1789 297,468 American
Foreign 265,116 tonnage.
them.
American 1790 - — 347,663
Foreign 258,916
American 1791
American 1792
Foreign
Foreign
Tonnage.
563,810
2 Vp,799
~£ 123,011
+ij>33'
244,263
Tons. Excess of
171,067
3 2 >35 2
88,747
As this is a growingcounfry,we have the moftfteble
fround 0 d pendente on the corresponding growth
or our navigation : and that the inueaGng/ienund
tor (hipping wilt rather fall to the iliare of Americans
than loielgners is ant to bi denied We
this from die nature ot our own I w.—we have been
conhr cried in rt oy experience—ai.u we know that an
American bottom is actually preferred © a toreigA
If we uke the aggregate view of our commercial
intereiis, we fliall had much more occalion tor fa
t:staCtio;i,& eve., exultation, t!un co«.pUint,& none
lor defpondeiice. it woo id be too bold to lay iliac
our condition is so eligible there is nothing to be
wilhed. Ncitliej the order of nature nor the allot
ments of Providence alibid perleCt content* and it
would be absurd to expect in our politics what is de
nied in the laws of our being. The nations with
whom we stave intercourse have, without exception,
more or lets reitrifted their commerce. They have
tramed their regulations to suit their real or Uncied
intcrelts. The code of France is as full of reltric
tions as that of England We have regulations of
our own, and they are unlike those of any other
country —inasmuch as the intereiis and circum
ftuuees ol nations vary so essentially, the project of
an exa£t reciptocity on our part is a viiion. What
we defne is to have not on exa£l reciprocity, but an
imercourfe of mutual benefit and convenience—lt
has scarcely been so much as inftnuated that the
change contemplated wiil be a profitable one —that
it will enable us to fell dearer and to buy cheaper—
on the contrary, we are invited to submit to the ha
zards and losses of a conflict with our customers—
to engage in a contest of felf-denial. For what —to
obtain better markets ? no such tiling—But to (hut
up, forever, if pollible, the best market we have for
our exports, and to confine ourlelvea to the dearest
and scarcest markets for our imports. And this to
be done forthe benelit of trade, or as it is sometimes
more corredtly said for the benefit of Franoe. This
language is not a little incontinent and ltrange from
those who recommend a non-importation agreement
and who think we thould even renounce die sea and
devote ourselves to agriculture. Thus to make our
trade more free it is be embzrraffed and violently
(hifted from one country to another, not according
to the interest of the merchants, but the visionary
theories and capricious ralhnefs of the legislators.—
To make trade bettei it is to be made nothing.
it has been avowed, that we are to look to
France, not to England, for advantages in trade; we
are to (hew our spirit, aud to manifelt towards those
who are called enemies, the spirit of enmity, and
towards those we call friends something more than
paflive good will—We are to take adtive measures to
force trade out of it's accustomed channels, and to
Ihift it by such means from England to France. The
care of the concerns of the French manufacturers may
be left perhaps as well in the hands of the Conven
tion as to be usurped into our own. However our
zeal might engage us to interpofc, our duty to our
own immediate conltituents demands all our atten
tion. To volunteer it, in order to excite competi
tion in one foreign nation to supplant another, is a
verv ft range business; and to do it, as it has been
irrefutably proved it will happen, at the charge and
cod of our own citizens, is a thing equally beyond
all juftification and all example. What is it btit to
tax our own people for a time, perhaps for a long
time, in order that the French may at latt fell as
cheap as the Englifli—cheaper they cannot, nor is it
so much as pretended. The tax will be « loss to us,
one. Id cases where one partner is an American
and (mother a foreigner, the ihip is made an Ameri
can bottom A fatt ot this kind overthrows a
whole theory ot reafonirie on the neceditv of further
It lhj\y j thai the work, of rcttriction
So far as commerce and navigation are regarded,
the pretences for this contest are confined to two.
We are not allowed to carry manufactured articles to
Great-Britain, nor any produ&s, except of our own
growth ; and we are r.ot permitted to go, with our
own veflTels, to the Wett-lndies. The former,
which is a provision of the navigation adt, is of lit
tle importance to our intereth, as our trade is chief
ly a direitone, our (hipping not being equal to the
carrying for other nations, and our manufactured ar
ticles arc not permitted in quantities for exportation,
and, if they were, Greaf-Britain would not be a cus
tomer. So far therefore the reftri&ion is rather
nominal than real.
'n ilv>ue.
The exclusion of our veflels from the Weft-Indies
is of more importance. When we propose tp make
an effort to force a privilege from Great-Britain,
which (he is loth to yield to us,it is necessary tocom
pofe the value of the object with the effort, and,
above all, to calculate very warily the probability of
success. A trivial thing deserves not a great exer
tion ; much less ougfit we to (lake a very" great
good in poftelfion for a (light chance of a less good.
The carriage of one half the exports and imports to
and from the Briti(h Weft-Indies is the object to be
contended for Our whole exports to Great-Britain
are to be hazarded. We fell on terms of privilege
and positive favor, as it has been abundantly (hewn,
near seven millions to the dominions of Great-Bri-
tain. We are to rifle the privilege in this greata
mouat —For what. For the freight only of one
half the B. Well-India trade with the U. States.
It belongs to commercial men to calculate the entire
value of the freight alluded to. But it cannot bear
much proportion to the amount of seven millions.
Beiides, if we are denied the privilege of carrying
our articles is our vetrels to the illands, we are on a
footing of privilege in the lale of them. We have
one privilege if not two. It <s readily admitted that
it is a deniable thing ro have our veiTels allowed to
go the Lnijiifh illands, but the value of the objedt has
it's limits; and we go unquestionably beyond them,
when we throw our whole exports into confufion and
run the rilkof looting our belt markets, for the fake of
forcing a permiifion to carry our own produdh to
one of those markets; in which too, it lhould be
noticed, we fell much less than we do to Great-Bri
tain herfelf—lf to this we add, that the success of
the contert is grounded on sanguine and passionate
hypothecs of our being able to llarve the islanders,
which on trial, may prove falfe, and which our be
ing involved in the war would overthrow at once, we
may conclude, without going further into the dif
cuflion, that prudence forbids our engaging in the
hazards of a commercial war; that great things
(hould not be stated againll such as are of much less
value ; that what we poflefs (hould not be risked for
what we desire without great odds in our favor; (till
less if the chance is infinitely against us.
If these confederations (hould fail of their effect,
it will be neceflary to go into an examination of the
tendency of the system of discrimination to redress
and avenge all our wrongs, and to realize all our
hopes.
&6ns.
and the f«nci.J tendency of il not to thss
country in event, but to France —We ftull pay
more tor a time, and iu the end pay no lef>; tor no
objeit but thai of one nation may receive our money
initcad of tht other: If this is generous towards
francejit is-uot just to America. It is facriftciugwhat
we owe to our constituents to what we pretend to
feel towards strangers. We have indeed heard a ve
ry ardent protcifion of gratitude to that nation, and
infinite reliance seems to be placed on her readiness
to lacrifice her intcreft to ours. The ltoryot this
gejfcrous ftrife Ihoul.l be left to ornament hot ion.
I hit is not the form nor the occasion to discharge
our obligations of any fort to,any foieign nation —it
concerns not our feelings but our interests yet the de
b.ue has often soared high above the smoke of busi
ness into the epic region. The market for tobacco,
tar, turpentine and pitch has become matter of sen
timent, and given occasion alternately to rouse our
courage and our gratitude.
Ifinllead if hexameters, we prefer discussing our
relation to foreign actions in the common language,
we (hall not find that we are bound by treaty to esta
blish a preference in favor of the French. The treaty
is founded on a profelTed reciprocity—favor for fa
vor —why is the principle of treaty or no treaty made
so eflcntial, when the favor we are g*ing to give is an
ad of supererogation. It is notexpe&ed by one of the
nations in treaty : for Holland has declared in her
treaty with us, thatfuch preferences are the fruitful
source of animosity, embarraflment and war. The
French have set no such example. They discrimi
nate, in their late navigation a&, not as we are ex
horted to do between nations in treaty and not in
treaty, but between nations at war and not at war
with them so that when peace takes place, England
will (land by that adl on the fame ground with our
selves. Mr. Ames proceeded to (hew that if we expedt
by giving favor to get favor in return, it is impro
per to make a law. The business belongs to the ex
ecutive in whose hands the constitution has placed
the power of dealing with foreign nations. He no
ticed it's Angularity to negotiate legislatively—to
make by a law half a bargain, expecting a French
law would make the other. He remarked that the
footing, of treaty or no treaty, was different from the
ground taken by the mover himfelf in supporting his
system. He had said favor for favor was principle;
Nations not in treaty grant savors—those in treaty
reftridl our trade. Yet the principle of discrimi
nating in favor of nations in treaty was not only in
consistent with the declared dodtrine of the mover
and with fails, but it is inconsistent with itfelf. Na
tions not in treaty are so very unequally operated
upon bjtthe resolutions it is absurd to refer them to
one principle. Spain and Portugal have no treaties
with us, and are not disposed to have Spain
would not accede to the treaty of commerce between
us and France, though (he was invited—Portugal
would not ftgn a treaty after it had been difcufled and
signed on our part. They have few (hips or manu
factures and do not feed their colonies from us ; of
course there is little for the discrimination to operate
upon. The operation on nations in treaty is equal
ly a satire on the principle of diicrimination. Swe
den, with whom we have a treaty, duties rice higher
if borne in our bottoms, than in her own. France
does the like, in refpedt to tobacco two and half li
vres the quintal, which in effedt prohibits our vessels
to freight tobacco, as the duty is more than the
freight. He then remarked on the French naviga
tion adt, the information of which had been given to
the house since the debate began. He said the mo
ver had, somewhat unluckily, proposed to except
from this fyllem nations having no navigation adts,
in wUich cafe France would become the fubjedt of
unfriendly discrimination as well as Great-Britain.
To do justice to the fobjeft its promised
advantages Ihou'd be examined. Exciting the com
petition of the Frenck is to prove an advantage to
1 his country, by opening a new market with that
nation. This is scarcely intelligible. If it means
any thing, it is an admilfion that their market is
not a good one, or that they have not takin measures
to favor our traffic with them. In either cafe our
system is absurd. The balance of trade is against us
and in favor of England. But the resolutions can
only aggravate that evil, for, by compelling us to-buy
dearer and fell cheaper, the balance will be turned
still more against our country. Neither is the sup
ply from France less the aliment of luxury than that
from England. The excess of ciedit is an evil which
we pretend to cure by checking the natural growth
of our own capital, which is the undoubted tendency
of retraining trade, the progress of the remedy is de
layed. If we will trade, there mult be capital. It
i 9 bed to have it of our own, if we have it not we
must depend on credit. Wealth springs from the
profits of employment, & the best writers on the fub
jedl eltablifh it, that employment U in proportion to
the capital that is to excite and reward it. Toftrike
off credit, which is thr substitute for capital, if it
were poflible to do it would so far Hop employment.
Fortunatelv it is not pofiible ; the activity of indivi
dual industry eludes the mif-judgine power of go
vernments. The refolwtions would in effedt in
crease the demand for credit, as our produ&s felling
for less in a new market, and our import* being
He remarked on the disposition of England to fet
tle a commercial treaty, and adverted to the known
desire of the Marquis of Lannfdowne (then prime
minister) in 1783, to form such an one on the mod
liberal principles. The history of that business and
the causes which prevented it's conclusion ought to
be made known to tho public. The powers given to
our ministers were revoked, and yet we hear that no
such disposition on the part of Great-Britain has ex
isted. The declaration of Mr. Pitt in parliament,
in June, 1792, a:i well as the correspondence with
Mr. Hammond, (hew a desire to enter upon a ne
gociation. The statement of the report on the pri
vileges and reftri&ions of our commerce, that
Great-Btitain has {hewn no inclination to meddle
with the fubjedl seems to be incorredt.
After tracing the operation of the resolutions on
different nations, he examined the supposed tenden
cy to dispose Great-Britain to fettle an equitable
treaty with this country. He alked whether those
who held such language towards that nation as he
heard could be supposed to desire a treaty and friend
ly conne&ioa. It seemed to be thought a merit to
express hatred— it is common and natural to desire
to annoy and to crulh those whom we hate, but it is
somewhat lingular to pretend that the deiign of
our anger is to embrace them.
The tendency of angry measures to friendly difpo
lit ions and arrangements is not obvious. We affect
to believe that we (hall quarrel ourlelves into their
goodwill. We lhall beat a nfcw path to pcace and
friendlhip wiih Great-Britain, one that is grown up
with thorns and lined with men-traps and fpring
guns It (hould be called the war path.
Im%1: wou'.J > U'. rx> ?v i. A r.-orr
licej ui :t. vs.;u:J prouutc c.'edir. W:.- .t
I'.ic laws arc itrkt it *ni K»ou hud > ts />'opor 1 c
.the uses of credit will remain and the ev.i Will d
appear.
Eut th» whole theory of balances of trade, of help
ing it by relfraint, and protecting it by lyrtems or
prohibition and reflriCtion aguinlt foreign nations, as
well as the remedy torcredrt, are among the exp<o
ded dogmas which are equally the maxiir.s
of science and the authority of time. Many such
topics have been advai.ccu which were known to
exirt as prejudices, but were riot cxpe&ed as ar-;u-
ty are in their nature aggravations awe not icincdiei.
We complain of the Bntifn reitndiioes asot a in il
ftone —our own fvlteni *ill be another, lo that our
trade may hope to be situated between the uygfcfand
the neiher tniliftone.
On the whole, theTefolutions contain two greet
principles. To control trads by ia*', inltead of
leaving it to the bettermanagement of the merchants,
and the principle of a sumptuary law. 'o play the
tyrant in the compting house, and in diretting the
private expences of our citizens, are employments e
qually unworthy ot difcuflion.
Besides the advantages ot the fjftera, we have
been called to another view ol it, and-which seems
to have less connection with the merits of the difcuf
lion. The adts of states and the votes ol public bo
dies before the constitution was adopted, and the
vot.-s of the house since, have been ft. ted as frounds
for our assent to this measure at this time. To help
our own trade, to repel any real or supposed attack
upon it, cannot fail to prepoflefs themind, according
ly the firft feelings of every man y icfcf to this propo
rtion. But the foberjudgment on the tendency and
reasonableness of the intermeddling ot government
often does, and probably ought (till oftenei ia change
our impreflions. On a second view of the question,
the man who voted formarly for reftridtions may
fay—much kas been done under the new constitution
and the good effedts are yet making progress. The
necessity of mealures of counter rettridticn will ap
pear to him muuh less urgent, and their cfficacy in
the present turbulent state of Europe infinitely less
to be relied on. Far from being inconsistent in his
condudt, consistency vvill forbid his prefling the ex
periment of his principle under circumstances which
baffle the hopes of its success. But if to muchftrefs
is laid on former opinions in favor of this meal u re,
how happens it that there is so little on that which
now appears againll it. Notone mechant has ("poke
in favor ot it in this body ; not one navigating or
commercial state haspatronifed it.
it Icims io be Uviievcu liiit 15 jC i:;crty or
commerce ij> oi !jmf Va.u.\ tl.<*re ciie
jeltrictions o;'. one liJc. thcieu.il fume I.Seriy
Icti, courucr ,c.IJ .itiojis, uiuiu.iii.nig tii.il ii T> -
ments.
The now United States exported about 13,000
barrels of flour in 1773 to the Weft-Indies, lie
land by grazing less could fufply wheat—England
itfelfufually exports it, lhe alio import? from Arch
angel, Sicily and the Karbary states furniih wheat
in abundance. We are deceived when we farlcy we
can starve foreign countries. France is reckoned to
consume grain at the rate of seven buihels to each
foul. Twenty-fix millions of fouls the quantity
182 millions buftiels—We expert to speak in round
numbers five or fix millions bufnels to jII the differ
ent countries which we fopplyi a trifle this to their
wants. Fiugality is a greater recourse. Instead of
seven bufliels perhaps two could be laved by liinting
the consumption of the food of cattle or by the ufc of
other food. Two bufliels saved to e<.ch foul is fifu
two millions of bushels, a quantity which the whole
trading world perhaps could not furnifh. Rice is
said to be prohibited by Spain and Portugal to favor
their own. Brafil could supply their rice instead of
ours. Lumber—he stated the danger of despising
Canada and Nova-Scotia too much as rivals in the
Weft-India supply, especially the former. The de
pendence the Englilh had placed on them some yea;s
ago had failed, partly because we entered into com
petition with them on very superior terms; and
partly because they were then in an infant state.
They are now supposed to have coi.fiderably mere
than doubled their numbers since the peace, and if
instead of having us for competitors for the supply a»
before, we (hould (hut ourselves out by relulihg our
supplies or being refufed entry for them, those two
colonies would rife from the ground, at least we
lhoulddo more to bring it about than the English »>i
niftry had been able to do. In 177?, 679 veli'eis,
the adhial tonnage of which was 128,00 c, weie em
ployed in the Weft-India trade. They were suppo
sed on good ground to be but half freighted to the
iftands | they might carry lumber, and the fieicht
supposed to be deficient would be at 4cf. fleriii.e »! e
ton, 128,c00 iterling. Thisfum would dimi
nish the extra charge of carrvii:? lumber to the in
lands. But is lumber to be had ? Yes, in Gerrr*-
ny, and from the Baltic. It is even cheaper in
Europe than our own. Btfides which, the lm>l
woods used in mills are abundant in the islands. We
are told they can (>ll their rum onlv to the United
States. This concerns not tfoeir fubfntence but their
profit. Examine it however. In x 773- the now
United States took, neci three million callors rum.
The remaining Briiifh colonies, Newfoundland and
the African coast have a corjfidcrable demand for thi;
article. The demand of Ireland is very much on
the increase. It was in 1763. <jjo,coo gallons;
'77°» 1,558,000 gallons; 1778, 1,729,000 gal
lons.
Mr. Ames then entered pretty fully into the con
federation of'the absolute dependence of the British
Weft-India islands on our supplies. He admitted
that they cannot draw them fowell, and so cheap
from any other quarter ; but this is not the point.
Are they physically dependent. Can we starve
them, and may we realonably cxpe£t thus to dic
tate to Great-Britain a free ad m illion of our vessels
into her islands. Ile went into details to prove the
negative. Beef and pork, from the now United
States to the Britilh Weft-Indies, 177;, J4«9v3 bar
rels. In the war time, 1780, ditto from England,
17,795. At the end of the war, 1783,16,526. —
Ireland exported on an average of seven years prior
to 1777, 250,000 barrels. Salted till) the Ertglith
take in abundance, and prohibit it from us. But
ter andcheele from England and Ireland are but
lately baniihed even from our markets. Exports
from the now United States—l 773, horfej 2768 —
cattle 1203 —theep and hogs 5,320. Twenty-two
years prior to 1791, were exported from England to
all ports, 29,13 1 horses. Ireland on an averaee of
seven years to 1777, exported 41"4*. live-dock exclu
sive of hogs. The coaftof Earbary, the Cape de
Verds, &c. supply (heep and cattle Ihe islands
fincethe war, have increased their domestic supplies
to a great degree.
(To becorc/uded in our n'r'.J