159 



year was insufficient. The fislierinen represented tliat their condition 

 was deplorable, and they earnestly implored the ])rotection of the gov- 

 ernment. In the petition jiresented Congress frcnn Marhlehcad, are 

 several statements which deserve attention. That document shows, 

 from an exact investigation, the expenses and earnings of the fishing 

 vessels of that town for the three preceding years. For the year 17S7, 

 each vessel earned S4S3 ; in 17SS, the sum of S456 ; and in 17S9, only 

 $273. The annual average of ex])enses, including insurance, was $41(3 : 

 thus aflording a gain of SG7 for the first of these years ; of $40 for the 

 second; and a loss of $143 for the third. It estimated that the duty 

 paid on articles necessary for a vessel of sixty-five tons and eleven men, 

 amounted annually to $138 ; the duty on molasses being computed at 

 ninily-nhie cents, and that on rum at just fourteen dollars ! This petition, 

 and several others of similar character, were referred to Mr. Jeflerson, 

 the iSecretar}- of State. His brief but able and interesting report, sub- 

 mitted to Congress in 1791, is the only state paper of the kind to be 

 found in our archives. 



The additional relief desired was not long delayed. Early in 1792 

 an act was passed which abolished the bounty on dried and pickled 

 fish exported, and granledin lieu thereof a specific allowance to vessels 

 en^.ployed in the cod-fishery. This allowance was graduaterl accord- 

 ing to the size of the vessels. Boats between five and twenty tons bur- 

 den were entitled to receive one dollar per ton annually ; those between 

 twentv and thirt}" tons, fifty cents per ton additional; and to those more 

 than thirty tons, the allowance was fixed at two dollars and fifty cents 

 the ton ; but no vessel could receive more than one hundred and sev- 

 enty dollars in one season. By a subsequent act the same year, these 

 several rates were increased one-fifth, to commence in January, 1793, 

 to continue seven years, and thence to the end of the next session of 

 Congress. 



The first act was opposed. INIr. Giles, a member of the House from 

 Virginia, refused his suppcjrt, because "the bill appeared to contain a 

 direct bounty on occupation; and if th;it be its object," said he, "it is 

 the first attempt as yet made by this government lo exercise such 

 authority; and its constitutionalitv struck him in a doubtful point of 

 view; f()r in no part of the constitution could he, in (express terms, find 

 a. power given to Congress to grant bounties on occupations. The 

 power is neither directly granted, nor (by any reasonable construction 

 that he could give) annexed to any other specified in the constitution." 

 IMr. Williamson objected for similar reasons. In his apprehension, 

 "the object (;f the bounty and the amount of it aree(|nally to be disre- 

 garded in the present case. We i\xv simply to consider whether boun- 

 ties may be safely given undei- the etnisiitntion. i''or myselt, I would 

 rather begin with a bounfv of one miNion per ;iiinuni than one thou- 

 sand. • * * Establish the doelrine of boiinlies, and it is not ;i li-w 

 fishermen that will enter, claiming ti'ii oV iwcKc thousand dollars, but 

 all manner of j)ersons; pcH)[)le of ever\- tiad-' and oeenpation may 

 enter at the breach, luitil tlie\- ha\-e e;iien up ilie bicnl of oiu- child icn.'' 



Still further to cncourag<; the pro.-eeulion of the fislu-ries, an act of 



