The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-01 00:00:00

HAY.

SMITHFIELD.—Meadow hay, £4 4s to £5 15s; clover,
£5 108 to £7 Os Od ; and straw, £ll6B to £2 2s per load.
A fair demand.

OUMBERLAND.—Meadow hay, £4 4s to £5 17s 6d; clover,
£5 lOs to £7 Os Od ; and straw, £1 18s to £2 4s per load.
Supply very moderate.

.. . .
WHITECH.APEL.—Meadow hay, £4 4s to £5 15s; clover,
£5 lOs to .£7 Os Od ; and straw, £1 16s to £2 2s per load.
Trade steady.

AMERICAN SHIPPING.—The following communi-
cation from the Secretary of the Treasury has been laid
before the House of Representatives at Washington :—Sir,
—By a resolution adopted in the House of Representatives,
Feb. 23, 1865, I am directed to communicate at the present
session facts and information concerning the decrease of
the mercantile marine, and to suggest such remedial legis-

lation as I may deem expedient. Appended to the resolu-

tion is a communication from Mr. Eastman, United States
Consul at Cork, presenting an outline of a plan to encour-
age and stimulate the building of ships, and in which he
assumes the loss of our commercial marine in the past five
years to be four million of tons, the total American tonnage
being stated in round numbers at five millions before the
war. It is, however, ascertained by diligent inquiry, that
shipping to the amount of but 901,466 tons has actually
disappeared from our lists from all causes; 800,303 tons
have been transferred to foreign owners, and 101,163 tons
destroyed by pirates, being less than one-fifth instead of
four-fifths. In addition to the resolution above mentioned,
I have received a copy of another instructing the commit-
tee on commerce in the house to inquire into the expedi-
ency of so amending the registry laws as to admit of the
registry of any vessel actually owned by a citizen of the
United States, without reference to the place of construc-
tion. I have the honour, therefore, to submit the expres-
sion of my views on the subject. The existing laws exclude
from the privileges of the American flag all foreign built
vessels, and the vessels of domestic build which, after hav-
ing been documented under the laws, aro transferred to
foreign ownerships. The policy of exclusion has been uni-
formly adhered to since the first establishment of our com-
mercial system, and no general law at any time prevailed
at variance with it, except the Act of December, 1852,
which permits, under certain conditions, the registry of
foreign-built vessels wrecked in the waters of the United
States. The prohibition, as far as it relates to vessels of
foreign build, rests upon the 2d section of the Navigation
Act of December 31, 1785, and is calculated to encourage
and cherish domestic building, which has been regarded
as vital to our commercial prosperity; and whatever opinion
may be entertained as to the propriety of as eventual re-
laxation of the stringency of the laws, I do not regard the
present as an auspicious moment in which to make an ex-
periment involving, as it would, so radical a change in the
established policy of the government. The Act of June 27,
1787, forbidding registry ef vessels built and registered in
the United States and subsequently transferred to a fo-
reigner, rests upon a different but quite as cogent a reason,
viz., the facilities that a privilege of unrestrained transfer
would afford for the perpetration of fraud and evasion of
our navigation laws. During the late war the transfer, in
many cases it is believed fictitious and fraudulent, of Ame-
rican bottoms to a foreign flag, has been a favourite expe-
dient by which to escape the payment of war rates of in-
surance, and avoid the risk of capture. Upwards of 800,000
tons of shipping have thus disappeared from our recent re-
cords, for a large portion of which the owners are now
claiming re-admission, when the risks of war are no longer
imminent, and the privileges of an American registry are
again appreciated. They transferred their vessels with a
full knowledge of the sacrifice they incurred, regarding, it
must be supposed, the temporary security from losses an
equivalent for it, and I should be unwilling to advise in
their favour any relaxation of the vigour of the law.
Neither do I, on the other hand, recommend any additional
encouragement of shipbuilding, by allowance of drawback,
and otherwise enjoying, as they do, an absolute protection
from foreign competition, I cannot conceive that our do-
mestic shipyards require any further stimulus or more ex-
tended privileges.—l am, sir, very respectfully, J. 0.
34`CVLLOCH, Secretary of the Treasury.