The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-03-28

carried cheaper than before. II there is any escape
from that reasoning, am unable to perceive it.
The Senator from Kentucky made another
remark which think perfectly fair. and which
propose to apply to this question. he asks, how
do we know that in the competition between our
shipping and the shipping Of other nations, our
shipping is njuriously affected? He asks how do
we know that they can underworld us How DO
we know that thekshippng interest requires relief!
When Great Britain discovered that her shipping
interest reqnired relief she was afraid other nations
were under working her, and she intended to restore
the balance, rather to give an advantage-and l
do not complain of ito her shipping over that of
every other nation. Great Britain did, several
years ago, give those advantages to her shipping
which it is now proposed to give to ours. Can we
expect that our ship.owners can come in cOmpetl-
ton with Great Britain and be subject to the old
rule to which the ship owners of Great Britain are
not subject2 ] have before me table showing
the number Of clearances during the last year
The number Of tons cleared in American vessels
was 2,573,016. The number of tons cleared in
foreign vessels was 1,775,623. Thus the clearan-
in foreign vessels were about three-fourths as
large clearances in American vessels. Then
they do underworld us. Why do these ships come
into our trade? Why do these foreign vessels
come into our ports bringing products which
American vessels might carry? Why do they
carry away American products except it is that
they do it cheaper? To be sure. they do not carry
trade to precisely the same extent they do not
employ the same amount, but they employ three
fourths as much. And will the gentleman from
Kentucky say that we ought to wait until they
employ much more than we do? | think
that when they employ three-fourths as much, it
is a warning to | think it shows us that there
is competition against which we ought to guard,
and believe that in removing the present burdens
on American ship-owners we do an act OF justice,
called for by the previous step which Great Britain
has taken. 1t is proposed to remove these burdens
Al c. e 4. IL
the benefit OF the transporter OF the freight for the
benefit of him whose goods to be carried.
Sir, it is said that the rule of the common law F.,
with regard to common carriers, is old rule, a
venerable rule, which ought not to be broken in
upon The reasons that caused that rule to be
adopted were not commercial reasons. 1t was
adopted rule applying to common carriers on
the land. Whether it is just rule not, with
regard to common carriers on land, ] do not now
propose to argue Sufficient is it for this occasion
to settle this question. The reasons why this rule
should be applied rather to carriers upon land than
the common carriers vpon the water is, that the
danger Of breaking the rule is not the in both
cases. How is the ship owner to allow his ship to
be consumed by fire on account Of negligence with
out great destruction to his property? How are
his agents who are on board the ship-the master
and crew-to destroy it by their negligence with
out danger II their own lives! That is not the
cause with regard to a common carrier on lund
he may risk the property of others without rsking
his person. Not so with the shp-swner, for then
his ships would be in danger. You recollect, Mr..
President, (Mr Norris,) for it happened in New
Hampshire, the launching Of the ship "Typhoon,' -
at Portsmouth, which is worth $4,000. Will
the owner of that ship permit negligent and fraud
ulent persons to have charge of her? Would he
allow her to be Intentionally consumed by fire Is
It an easy matter for ship foreign voyage to
be destroyed by those navigating her without dam
ger to their own lives? There are many reasons
why the rule should be relaxed in the case of ships
which do not apply to the case of common carriers
land. Other considerations have occurred to
me which would control my vote, il these which |
have assigned not sufficient. But, in throwing
out these ideas, perhaps | have taken up as much
Of the time of the Senate as | ought to occupy
considering the short time which remains of the
session.