78 Kenneth S. Latoiirette, 



in later years, as the Netherlands finally began to import for 

 themselves. ^^' Canada got her teas largely from the United 

 States, in spite of the higher import duties in the latter country, ^^* 



Spanish dollars, Gibraltar. 235,474. Hanse Towns and Germany, 337,331. 

 France on the Atlantic. 209,252, the Brazils, 180,164, all others, 216,336. 

 Ibid. The "Brookline" came to Hamburgh with teas in 1834. Ms. 

 log of "Brookline." Pari. Papers, 1821, 7:84, Evidence of Robert 

 Richards. 



'" Report of Select Com. on E. India Co., Pari. Papers, 1830, 5 : xix-x.x. 



'** This is perhaps a good place to sketch in a footnote the history of the 

 United States tariff on China goods to 1844. Various individual states 

 had levied a tariff on tea before the adoption of the Constitution (South 

 Carolina's tariff is given in the Providence Gazette, May 29, 1784. Penn- 

 sylvania's tariff is mentioned by Fitzsimmons in a speech on the tariff, 

 Apr. 18, 1789, Benton's Abridg., i : 42) and in 1789 in the first tariff 

 passed by Congress, it was one of the luxuries which had had an impost 

 duty put on it, a duty, however, which discriminated sharply in favor 

 of American ships and of voyages made directly from China. (The 

 Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, i : 25. The 

 debates are in Benton, Abridgement, i : 42, 41.) There was some opposi- 

 tion to the heavy discrimination, and in the tariff of 1790 this was made 

 less pronounced, duties on teas brought in American ships being raised 

 to be more nearly ecjual to those brought in foreign vessels. (U. S. 

 Statutes at Large, i : 180.) The reduced protection led to a larger influx 

 of teas from Europe and to much dissatisfaction among the merchants 

 engaged in the China trade. (Report of Hamilton on trade with India 

 and China. Feb. 10, 1791, American State Papers, Finance, i : 107. 

 Petition of Philadelphia merchants, Feb. 24, 1792, Annals of Congress, 

 2d Cong., p. 427. Petition of Boston Merchants, June 7, 1797, Annals of 

 Cong., 5th Cong., Vol. i, p. 251.) The next year, 1791, the policy was 

 adopted of allowing the payment of duties on teas to be postponed by 

 a bonding process, a plan which thirty-five years later was to prove so 

 disastrous in the case of Thomas H. Smith and others. (U. S. Stat, 

 at Large, i : 219, i : 627-704, 168.) No other general schedule was adopted 

 until 1816, but in the meantime a few changes had been made. January 

 29th, 1795, a specific rate was made for gunpowder, imperial, and gomee 

 teas. (U. S. Stat, at Large.) March 3d, 1797, an additional duty was 

 levied to pay the foreign debt (U. S. Stat, at Large, i :503) ; March 

 24th, 1804, an additional duty of two and a half per cciit ad valorem was 

 imposed to help defray the expenses of the war against Tripoli and the 

 Barbary powers (Ibid., 2:291), an act which was continued from time 

 to time until 1813 (Ibid., 2:391, 456, 511, 555, 614, 675); and a slight 

 change was made, also in 1804, on duties on cassia, gunpowder, mace, 

 and nutmegs. (Ibid., 2:299.) In 1812, as a war measure to raise 

 revenue, all duties were increased one hundred per cent witli an additional 



