CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. (AMERICAN SHIPPING.) 



225 



" Is it not, Mr. Speaker, marvelous that in 

 this majority report the confession is naively 

 made that our merchant shipping laws remain 

 the same as they were originally framed more 

 than fourscore years ago, and that they were 

 all that were needed so long as the English 

 laws were the same ? And yet the majority 

 stop short of the one prominent and majestic 

 feature of the newly-constituted English sys- 

 tem liberty to build and buy ! The majority 

 say that ' our error was in not imitating Eng- 

 land in so modifying our laws as to give the 

 American marine the same advantages in this 

 respect that English shipping was given under 

 English laws ' ; and yet it would perpetuate 

 the error by a blindly selfish persistence in the 

 very laws which England repealed ! Well, sir, 

 if England is to be our exemplar, if her mari- 

 time success is a sign that her laws worked 

 beneficently, then let the obstructions which 

 she removed be removed by us. This the mi- 

 nority propose in the amendments for free ma- 

 terials and free ships. 



" Without, therefore, arguing at length any 

 of the lesser propositions in the majority re- 

 port, it is enough to say that the acquiescence 

 in most of the measures proposed was hearty 

 and earnest by the whole committee ; while the 

 reluctance as to one proposition, the 'draw- 

 back,' so called, was somewhat mitigated by 

 the belief that the amendment for free materi- 

 als might prove more acceptable. And if, as 

 the minority hope, both should be adopted, 

 little harm could result, as the nullification of 

 the bad consequences of the one would be 

 nearly perfect by the adoption of the other. 

 Or, if there should be an option allowed the 

 builder to choose either the ' drawback ' or 

 free materials under my amendment, the adop- 

 tion of the drawback thus coupled would not 

 be without some utility. But if no compro- 

 mise be tendered in the interest of freedom of 

 materials or ships, I want no allowance fixed on 

 the Treasury, no leech to draw its blood such 

 as this drawback will then be. 



" The minority had no power to prevent the 

 adoption of the drawback proposed, had they 

 been inclined to balk the majority in this ex- 

 periment. All the minority could do was to 

 append the proviso to it ; that it should only 

 apply to ships begun after the passage of the 

 act. 



' This drawback proposition came from the 

 San Francisco Board of Trade. It was offered 

 by the gentleman from California (Mr. Page). 

 It was drafted by an experienced merchant, 

 Mr. Hopkins. It was not written on the Dela- 

 ware, nor in the interest of the Pacific Mail 

 Steamship Company, as will appear by the fact 

 that their interests are somewhat adverse, be- 

 cause the section is not applicable either to 

 ships already afloat or on the stocks, but only 

 to those which shall have been begun after the 

 passage of the act. 



"The reason given for this clause of the bill 

 reported, and which is most controverted, is 

 VOL. xxiii. 15 A 



set forth by its author, in the speech made be- 

 fore the San Francisco Board of Trade. That 

 speech is entitled to much emphasis. As the 

 sixth of the ninety-three seaports of the United 

 States, San Francisco owned only twelve of 

 the five hundred and fifty vessels loaded at her 

 port for Europe during the harvest year end- 

 ing June 30, 1882. For that period she paid 

 in freights to Europe by sea, $16,069,789 ; and 

 to and from all ports of the Pacific coast, $25,- 

 000,000. Nearly all of these sums went to for- 

 eigners, When this appeal for self-interest was 

 made with the patriotic fervor aroused by the 

 thought of our flag, the committee gave the 

 suggestion much favorable thought. Nor would 

 I reproach myself for acquiescence in the entire 

 report could I reconcile it with my old and ma- 

 tured ideas as to protection. 



" In urging this measure the San Francisco 

 traders evidently felt the orphanage of navi- 

 gation and the hopelessness of asking for a re- 

 peal of the navigation laws. Which way soever 

 they looked they saw the image of protection, 

 like Pluto's countenance iron and inexorable. 

 Piteously they pleaded that their plan was 'not 

 a subsidy levied on many industries to benefit 

 a few, but simply the payment of a debt due 

 by the many enterprises which are prospering 

 by means of the tariff to the one which has 

 been ruined by it.' They pleaded as those who 

 owned the cargo which was jettisoned to save 

 the vessel, and that they should be made good 

 by a general average contribution. 



" In this rhetorical masquerade they meant 

 to say : ' Behold us, the victims of your rob- 

 bery ! True, you may have robbed us under 

 pleasing disguises ; your self- seeking may have 

 made your larcenies unwitting; still, as pirates 

 of the land you have destroyed our fair and 

 free trade upon the water. And as you have 

 thriven upon this piracy, be generous to your 

 despoiled victims, as you have in your coffers 

 the loot you stole from us. Be patriotic and 

 devoted in this paramount matter and in our 

 death-agony! No longer continue to help 

 Great Britain at our expense, after rifling us 

 for the general welfare ! ' 



"It is upon such reasoning as this that we 

 are asked to allow this drawback; and if there 

 be, as Bastiat held, a reciprocity in brigand- 

 age, let us steal back from those who. stole 

 from us, that we may have some compensation 

 for our losses by the restoration of something 

 of our own. Let us cultivate a mutuality in 

 rascality ! (Laughter.) 



"Having, then, shown the origin, animus, 

 and raison d'etre of this so-called drawback in 

 a bill to revive shipping, may I not ask: 



"1. Why a tariff which kills an industry so 

 momentous as ship-building should be contin- 

 ued? I have shown in the minority report 

 how the tariff directly ruins ship-building by 

 its enormous burdens on the materials. I have 

 given in Exhibit B a list of the taxes, ad valo- 

 rem, on the principal materials used in steam- 

 ship manufacture. They range from 20 to 67 



