CONGRESS.
lieuft of R > f/ila-'iw'
Jauuary 2'i
fit ioMmtUce cf the n boU on Mr, ftfiulifons
rtjtAutions.
Mr. A m es (poke ax follows
Tiie qucftion lies within this eompafi,
Is there any mejfure proper to be adoptid
by Cungrtls, which will have the effect to
put our trade and navigation on a better
footing ? If there is, it is our undoubted
right to adopt it; if by right is »nder
ltood the power of felf-governrr.ent which
every independent nation pofleffet, and our
own as completely as any other. It is
our duty alio, for we are the depolitories
and the guardians of the intereils of our
confJtucnts, which on every confidera
tiori ought to be dear to us. I make no
<t they are so, and that there is adif-
fufficicntly ardent exiiting in this
body to co-operate in any meaiures for
for the advancement of the common good.
Indeed io fai a; I can judge fiom any know
ledge I have of human nature or ol the
prevailing spirit of public tranlaftions,
that fort of patriotism, which makes us
w!(h the general profptrity when our pri
vate inurjft dees not happen to (land la the
way, is no uncommon sentiment.- In
tiu'.h, it is very like felf-love and net
leis mucli prevalent. There is little occa
sion to excite and inflame it. It is like
lt!f-love, more apt to want intelligence
than zeal. The danger is always that it
will refh blindly into embarrafiments,
which a pnrdent spirit of enquiry might
have prevented, but from which it will
icarcely find means to extricate us. While
therefore, the right, the duty, and the
inclination to advance the trade and navi
gation of the United States, are acknow
ledged and felt by us all—the choice of
the proper means to that end, is a matter
requiring the molt ciYcv.mfpeit enquiry,
and the rnoft dilpallicnate judgment.
After a debate has continued a long
time, the fubjeit very frequently becomes
tirefeme befoie it is exhauftid. Argu
ments, however solid, urged by different
speakers can scarcely fail to render the
clifcuflion both cothpiex and diffufive—
without pretending to give to rr.y r.rgu
ments any other merit, I frail aim at
fimplioity.
We hear it declared, that the design of
the refutations is to place our trade and
navjgation on a better footing. Bv a
better footing, we are to understand a
more profitable one. Profit is a plain
v ortl that cannot be mifrepreftnted.—
We have, to speak in round numbers)
twenty millions dollars of exports annual
ly. To have the trade ]of export on a
good footing, meant nothing more than
to fell them dear—and conlcquently the
trade of impoit on a good footing, is to
buy cheap. To put them both on a bet
ter footing, is to fell dearer and to buy
cheaper than we do at present. If the
effect of the resolutions will be tt> cause
our exports to be fold cheaper, and our
imports to be bought dearer, our trade
v. ill fuffer an injury.
It is hard to compute how great the
injury would prove : for the firft loss of
value in the buying dear, and felling cheap,
is only the symptom and beginning of
the evil, but by no means the measure of
it—lt will withdraw a great part of the
nouriflnnent that now supplies the wonder
fnl growth of our industry and opulence.
The difference may not amount to a great
proportion of the pi ice of the articles, but
it may reach the greater part of the pro
fit of the producer—lt may have efte£ts
ill this way which will be of the word
kind, by difcoui aging the produfls of our
land and industry. It is to this test I
propose to bring the resolutions on the
table, and if it (liall clearly appear that
they tend to canfe our exports to be fold
cheaper, and our imports to be bought
dearer, they cannot escape condemnation.
V\ hatever specious shew of advantage may
be given them, they deserve to be called
aggravation* of any real or supposed evils
in our commercial system, and not reme
dies.
I have framed this flatement of the
qiieftion so as to comprehend the whole
fubjeet of debate, and at the fame time, I
confcfs it was my design to exclude from
conlideration, a number of topics which
•ppcar to me totally irrelative to it.
The best answer to many aflerti
on» we have heard, is to admit them
without proof. We are exhorted to ifiert
our uatural rights, to put trade on a rcfpec
tjole iUt'.i.igi to dictate rtiirw of trade to
uther nations, to in a contctt of
feli'-den.sl, and by that, and by Ihiitiiig
our commerce from one country to ano
ther, to make our enemies feel the extent
of our power. This language, as it ref
ptct» the proper fubjett of dilcullion, means
nothtng, or wiiat is worse. If our trade ig
already on a profitable footing, it is on a
respectable one. Unlcfs war he our object,
it is ufelels to enquire, what are the dil
politions of any government, with whose
lubjeds our merchants deal to the bell ad
vantage ! While they will smoke our to
bacco, and eat our proviiioi.s, it is very
immaterial, both to the consumer and the
producer, what are the politics of the two
countries, excepting so far as their quar
rels may dillraft the benefits of their mu
tual intercourse.
So far therefore as commerce is concern
ed, the enquiry is, have we a good market ?
The good or bad state of our etSual
market is the quellion. The a&ual mar
ket is every where more or less a reftrifted
one, and the natural order of things is
chlMaced by the artificial—Moll nations
so / rcafons of which they alone are the
rightful judges, have regulated and ref
t ricked tlieir intercotirfe, accoiding to their
views of fafety and profit. We claim for
ourlelves the fame right, as the acts in
our (latutc book, and the refolutione on
the table evince, without holding ourselves
accountable to any other nation whatever.
The right which we properly claim, and
which we properly exercise when we do
it prudently and ulefujly for our nation,
is as well ellablilhed, and has been longer
in life in the countries of which wc com
plain, than in our own. If their right is
as good as that of Congress, to regulate
and rcftric*, why do we talk of a strenuous
exertion of our force, and by dictating
terms to nations, who are fancied to be
phyfrcally dependenton America, tochange
the policy of nations ? It may be very
true, that their policy is very wife and
good for themselves, but not as favorable
for us as we could make it, if we could
Legislate for both fides of the Atlantic.
The extravagant despotism of this lan
guage accords very ill with our power to
give it c'ietl, or with the affectation of
zeal for an unlimited freedom of com
merce. Such a (late of absolute freedom
of commerce never did exist, and it is very
much to be doubted whether it ever will.
Were I inverted with the trust to legislate
for mankind, it is very probable the firft
ast of my authority would be to throw all
the reftriftive and prohibitory lawsof trade
into the fire—the resolutions on the table
would not be spared. But if 1 were to
do so, it is probable I (hould have a quar
rel on my hands with everv civilized na
tion. The Dutch would claim the mono
poly of the spice trade, for which their
ancestors pasTed their whole lives in war
fare. The Spaniards and Portuguese
would be no less obilinate. If we calcu
late what colony monopolies have colt in
wealth, in fufFering, and in crimes, we
frail fay they were dearly purchased
The Englilh would plead for their navi
gation ast, not as a source of gain, but as
an eflential mean of securing their inde
pendence. So many interests would be
disturbed, and so many loft, by a violent
change from the existing, to an unknown
order of things, and the mutual relations
of nations, in refpeft to their power and
wealth, would fuffer such a (hock, that
the idea must be allowed to be perfectly
Utopian and wild. But for this country
to form the project of changing the policy
of nations, and to begin the abolition of
rellriftions by reftriftions of its own, is
equally ridiculous and inconsistent.
Let every nation, that is really disposed
to extend the liberty of commerce, beware
of rash and hasty schemes of prohibition.
In the affairs of trade, as in moll others,
we make too many laws. We follow ex
perience too little, and the visions of theo-
great deal too much. Instead of
listening to discourses on what the market
ought to be, and what the fchemet,which
always proinife much on paper, pretend
to make it, let us fee what it the actual
market for our exports and imports. This
will bring vague affertiont and sanguine o
piniom to the test of experience. That
rage for theory and fyllem, which would
entangleVven practical truth in the web
of the brain, it the poison of public dif
cuffioo—One fad is better than two sys
tems.
The terms on which our exports are re
ceived in the Britifli market, have been
accurately examined by a gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Wm. Smith) Be
fore Iks ilutemunt ot facts was made to
the committee, it was urged, and with
no little warmth, that the system of Eng
land indicated her invetcracy towards this
country, while that of France, springing
from diiinterefted affection, cojiftituted a
claim for gratitude and felf-denying mea
sures of retribution.
Since that statement, however, that ro
mantic (lyle, which is so ill adapted to
the fubjedt, has been changed. We
hear it insinuated, that the comparison of
the footing of our exports, in the mar
kets of France and England, is of no im
portance ; that it is chiefly our object to
fee how we may assist and extend our com
merce. This evaiion of the force of the
statement, or rather this indirect admiffi
-011 of its authority, eftablilhes it. It will
not be pretended that it has been fliaken
during the debate.
It has been made appear, beyond con
tradiction, that the Briti(h market fur our
exports, taken in the aggregate, is a good
one, that it is better than the French,and
better than any we have, and for many
of our products the only one.
The whole amount of our exports to
the British dominions in the year ending
the 30th September 1790, was nine mil
lions two hundred and forty fix thousand
fix hundred and fix dollars.
But it will be more simple and fatisfac
tory to confine the enquiry to the articles
following—
Bread-ftuff, tobacco, rice, wood, the
produce of the fifheries, fi(h oil, pot and
pearl ash, salted meats, indigo, live ani
mals, flaxfeed, naval stores, and iron.
The amount of the before mentioned
articles exported in that fame year, to the
British dominions, was 8,457,173 dol
lars.
Mr. Ames went into a consideration of
the footing on which they are received.—
He then said, we have heard so much of
reftri&ion* of inimical and jealous pro
hibitions to cramp our trade, it is natu
ral to scrutinize the Britilh system with
the expe&ation of finding little besides the
effects of her felfifh and angry policy.
Yet of the great sum of nearly eight
millions and an half, the amount of the
products before mentioned fold in her mar
kets, two articles only are dutied by way
of reftri&ion. Bread ftuff is dutied so
high in the market of Great Britain, as
in times of plenty, to exclude it, and this
is done from the desire to favor her own
farmers. The mover of the resolutions
juftified the exclusion of our bread ftuff
from the French Weft Indies by their
permanent regulations, because he said
they were bound to prefer their own pro
ducts to those even of the United States.
It would seem that the fame apology would
do for England, in her home market.
But what will do for the vindication of one
nation becomes invedtive against another.
The criminal nation however ieceives our
bread ftuff in the Weft-Indies free, and
excludes other foreign—fo as to give our
producers the monopoly of the supply.
This is no merit in the judgment of the
mover of the resolutions, because it is a
fragment of her old colony system. Not
withstanding the nature of the duties on
bread ftuff in Great Britain, it has been
clearly Ihewn that she is a better customer
for that article, in Europe, than her neigh
bor France. The latter, in ordinary times,
is a poor customer for bread ftuff, for the
fame reason that our own country is, be
cause she produces it herfelf, and there
fore France permits it to be imported
and the United States do the like Great
Britain often wants the article, and then
she receives it—no country can be expect
ed to buy what it does not want. The
bread-ftuff fold in the European dominions
of Great Britain in the year 1790, amount
ed to 1,087,840 dollars.
Whale-oil pays the heavy duty of eigh
teen pounds three shillings sterling per
ton ; yet spermaceti-oil found a market
there to the value of 81,048 dollars.
Thus it appears that, of eight milli
ons and an half fold to Great Britain and
her dominions, only the value of one mil
lion one hundred and sixty-eight thousand
dollars was under duty of a reftriftive na
ture. The bread-duff it certainly to be
considered as within the description yet
to give the argument its full force, what
is it—about one-eighth part is reftriaed
—To proceed with the residue :
Indigo to the amount of
Live animals to the W. Indies
Flax-Seed to Great Britain
Total 756,169
Tbefe articles are received, duty free,
which is a good foot to.the trade. Yet
we find, good as it is, the bulk of our ex
ports is received on even better terms :
Flour to the British W. Indies
Grain - - - 273,505
Free—while other foreign flour and grain
is prohibited.
Tobacco to G. Britain 2,754,493
Ditto to the W* Indies 22,816
One (hilling and three pence fterlmg, du
ty —three (hillings and fix-pence on o
ther foreign tobacco.
In the Weft-Indies other foreign to
bacco is prohibited.
Rice to G. Britain 773*852
7s 4d. per Cwt. duty; Bs. iod. on other
foreign rice.
To Weft-Indies
Other foreign rice prohibiten
Wood to Great Britain
Free—higher duties on other foreign.
To Weft-Indies - - 382,4s
Free—other foreign prohibited.
Pot and peail-aflies - 747,078
Free—2s. 3d. on other foreign, equal to
10 dollars per ton.
Naval stores to Great Britain 190,670
Higher duties on other foreign.
To Welt-Indies
Free—other foreign prohibited,
Iron to Great Britain
Free—duties on other foreign
Dollars 6,510,92 6
Thus it appears, that nearly seven
eighths of the exports to the Britifli do*
minions are received on terms of pofitiwe
favor. Foreigners, our rivals in the sale
of these articles, are either abfolutelv
(hut out of their market by prohibitions,
or discouraged in their competition with
us by higher duties. There is some
reftridtion, it is admitted, but there is,
to balance it, a large amount received du
ty free. The above surplus of fix mil
lions and an half, goes to the account of
privilege and favor. This is better than
she treats any other foreign nation it it
better, indeed, than she treats her own
fubjedls, because they are by this means,
deprived of a free and open market it
is better than our footing with any na
tion, with whom we have treaties. It
has been demonstratively (hewn, that it is
better than the footing on which France
receives either the like articles, or the ag
gregate of our produdts—the best proof
in the world is, that they are not sent to
France—the merchants will find out the
best market sooner than we {hall.
The footing of our exports, under the
Britifti system, is better than that of their
exports to the United States, under our sys
tem. Nay it is better than the freedom f
commerce, which is one of the visions for
which our solid prosperity is to be hazardtd
—For fuppofew.-could batter down lier sys
tem of prohibitions and reftrifKons, it would
be gaining a loss—one-eighth is reftridted, and
more than fix-eights has reftrii£tions in its fa
vor. It is as plain as figures can make it, that
if a state of freedom for our exports is par,
the present system raii'es them, in point of
privilege, above par. To suppose that vc
can terrify them, by these resolutions, to
abolish their reltriilions, and at the fame
time to maintain in our favor their duties, to
exclude other foreigners from their market,
is too absurd to be refuted.
We have heard that the market of France
is the great centre of our inter ells—we are
to look to her, and not to England, for ad
vantages—Being, as the style of theory i„
our bell cuflomer and bell friend, ihewino- to
our trade particular favor and privilege,
while England manir'efts in her fvftem such
narrow and felfilh views ; it is 11 range to re
mark such a pointed refutation of aflertjons
and opinions by facts. The amount sent ro
France herfelf is very trivial; either our mer
chants are ignorant of the belt markets, or
those which they prefer are the bell—and if
the Englilh markets, in spite of the illcdgeJ
ill-usage, are Hill preferred to the French, it
is a proof of the superior advantages of tli ■
former over the latter. The arguments T
have adverted to, oblige those who urge them
to make a greater difference in favor of the
Englilh than the true state of fad's " ill war
rant. Indeed, if they persist in their argu
ments, they are bound to deny their own
conclusions. They are bound to admit this
pofition—lf France receives little of such of
our produdls as Great Britain takes on term.,
of privilege and favor, because of that favor
it " Hows the value of that favored footing.
If France takes little of our articles, becauli
she does not want them, it (hews the nbfur
dity of looking to her as the befl ciiiamtr.
It may be fsid, and truly, lhat Great Bri
tain regards only her ov.x l interest in tfcefir
arrangements—So much the better. If it
is her interest to rfford to our commerce
more etumuragraeat than France fives, if
Ihe does tins whoi Hit is inveterate again#
us, as it is alletlgcd, and vrheoL ive arc in
Dollars.
473.830
62,415
219,924
180,087
240,174
6,t62
81,012