The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-24
TwENTY-NINTH CONGRESS,
First Session.
TUESDAY. March "a. ls4e.
in SENATE.
The journal having been read
PETITIONS,

II
citizens Of Oneida county, New York, rcmonstra-
ting against the renewal Of patent granted 10 Jethro
Wood for an. Improvement ia the plow; which
were laid on the table.
| Mr. DIX submitted similar remsnstrance from
citizens Of New York; which also was laid ON the
table. If#
Mr.. TURNEY presented document from The
Secretary Of War in relation to the pay and allow
ances OF officers in the armY which was order.
ed TO be printed. ..
| Mr.. DIX presented a memorial Of Jacob b.
Clark, praying that certain duties illegally exacted
| rom him by the collector of the port OF New York
may be refunded To him; which referred to the
Committee on Finance.
| Mr.. HANNEGAN presented the petition Of ct-
| gems of Indiana, asking that Evansville in that
State, may be made port of entryj also that ma
rinc hospital may be established there; which was
referred to the COMMITTEES on Commercs.
| Duty ON SALT.
Mr.. DAVIS presented a petition OF $40 owners
Of fishing vessels, and fishermen, citizens of the
town of Marbehesd, Massachusetts,, demonstrating
against the repeal Of the fishing bounties and allow
4 ances.
l Mr.. D., in presenting the remonstrance, submit
ted few remarks setting forth the condition of the
| petitioners, and opposing the bill introduced by
Mr.. Benton, TO repeal the act laying duty on i'm
ported salt and granting fishing bounties and al
owances to fishing vessels in lieu Of drawback of
the duties paid on foreign salt used on FISH ex-
ported.
Mr.. BENTON offered few remarks in reply,
explaining tho nature Of the bill introduced by him,
and contending that the law sought to be repealed
| WIS unconstitutional and unjust.
1 Aher some further remarks by Mr.. DAVIS,
| MI. FAIRFIELD said, that having the honor to
| number among his constituents many of that class
| Of persons who 10 be particularly benefited or
injured by the repeal Of the fishing bounty, he
hoped he should be INDUCED in saying few words
4 m hta auht Ia Il. II ..s. -.
large upon its discussion. He could not add force
70 the facts and Arguments presented by the senator
\ from Massachusetts, Mr.. DAVIS nor would he
attempt IT, His principal object was to show where
he stood in reference TO this matter-to show that
when the question should come up on the bill for
/ repeating the fishing bounties, he should be
found voting for what he deemed to be lot only in
accordance with the interests of his constituents,
| but the interests Of the country. He was against
the proposed repeal. He believed that the law was
entirely defensble, even upon the most rigid prin-
cPles Of democracy. The origin Of the law author
lzng certain payments upon the expectation of cod.
fish, beef and pork, and picked fish, was undoubt-
eddy that suggested by his friend the distinguished
senator from Missouri--that is that the design was
TO give drawback Of the duties paid upon the
salt used in curing and preparing these articles
Tor expectation The phraseology of the law ITSELF
and several Of the early laws upon this sub.
lject, are too explicit upon this point to admit
OF doubt. But IN process of time this object
ceased TO be operative, and subsequent laws
bestowing what was called the fishing bounty
came to rest upon an entirely different basis. Ii
was some time, he said, since his attention had
been particularly called to the subject, and he was
therefore unable to refer with precise accuracy to
dates But many years ago-tl6l3, said MIR
EVANS, l-yes, 1913, he believed, was the year
when, as the senator from Missouri himself ad-
ms, the several interests under the law became
separated. The drawback or bounty on beef
lam ,Nnr a,da all L II
was continued on Goldfish; and was then, he be-
eved, also transferred from the amount Of fish ex-
ported, to the vessel itself in which the fish were
caught, and was regulated by its tonnage. And il
was at this period that the system was changed, and
the law was placed upon different basis. Ii
would seem that Congress- at that period, was dis
posed to withhold generally tho drawback of du-
ties; and the whole law would probably have been
repealed, had 1t not been seen that though those
engaged in the cod fisheries were no more entitled
upon principle, TO bountes, than those engaged in
packing and exporting beef and pork, yet that some
encouragement should be extended to the cod fisher
les as a school for seamen, and a nursery for the
navy. The law, therefore, though continued in |
form the same assumed different basis and was
continued for new and different object. And there
can be no doubt that this object was justfabe and
the law judicious All history shows that upon
these men, those engaged In the fisheries, the |
country must rely, in case of war or other contin-
gency, to man the navy. They are among the har- |
dlest, bravest, most orderly, and patriotic men that
ever entered the naval military service of this or
any other country. The history Of the last war
abounds in proof of this. It s them decidedly for
the interest Of the country that this school should be
continued. He admitted that the reference of sena-
tors frequently to the resources Of the country in
case of war, in the strong arms, brave hearts, and
sound patriotism OF the people, sanctioned by
reason and experience. But all brave men are not
seamen. This profession, as well az Others re- |
mir ran A ho al, Ill
and without this education, in vain might we have
looked upon the pages Of history for those brilliant
victories which adorned the last war, and which |
tended to bring that war to SO early close. If,
then, the navy must be supplied by seamen, and the
business Of the cod fishery is nursery for such
men, there is no greater violation of prnciple-he
meant of democratic princple--ln bestowing aid for
the support Of this school, than in supporting |
school at West Point to educate young gentlemen |
for the army. Both rest upon the same principle.
If one is unsuitable, so is the other.
But it is objected to these bounties by the senator
from Missouri, that they 60 to the owners of the
hshng-vessels, and not to the fishermen themselves
10 reply, he would say that, in his view,
1t was OF no consequence to whom the boun- |
ty was, in the first instance, paid. 1t went
eventually for the common benefit of all concerned
in the voyage The fishermen, it is well known,
do not receive specific wages as in mercantile voy-
ages; but instead thereof, have certain share of
the fish. This share is enlarged by the fact that the
owner receives portion of his profits of the voyage
in the bounty received from the government II the
bounty was received in the first place by the fisher
men, they would receive smaller share Of fish.
Again; the senator from Missouri alludes to the
whaling business, and says that though this BUSH
ness furnishes many and excellent seamen, those
engaged in it neither ask nor receive any bounty
For this, there was a very good reason--to witt
that none was needed. The business was highly
lucrative; and on turning to New Bedford, Nantuc-
at he orth xye ma hat
large fortunes have been accumulated in it. II it
were otherwise--if it was necessary to bestow a
bounty on those engaged in this business, in order
that 1t should be conNnued--be for one, knowing
how many good sailors it furnishes, and how de-
pendent the country would be upon il in case of
war, would cheerfully vote for such bounty. But
no such bounty is needed; and, indeed, the senator
from Missouri has drawn IA comparison between
this and the cod fisheries, showing that the
latter is in declining condition. If this
be so, and he was not disposed to deny it,
1t certainly furnished no reason why the scanty
aid nou furnished IN bv tho H. -,