78 OUR COiNTSTITUTIONAL SHIPPING POLICY. 



less of the Constitution, and that this charter, given by the states and the 

 people, cuts little figure at Washington. But this is a sad mistake. That 

 we have a constitutional shipping policy extant to-day is no wonder at all. 

 The several states, as we have seen, had a policy of trade regulations, and 

 thought it vital to their commercial independence. They turned this policy 

 over to the United States, the only object being to increase its eificiency, 

 and to get a great nation to enforce it forever. From the debates in the 

 Convention it is clear and positive that the shipping policy of the states 

 was to become that of the United States, and that this was one of the "bonds 

 and conditions" of the Union — just as much as allowing each state, big or 

 little, two Senators in Congress, or that provision reserving certain rights 

 to the states, or that concerning the President's nativity, or that limiting 

 his term of office — ^just as much, in fact, as any provision of a fundamental 

 character. 



Tet us glance at the debate in the Convention. General Pinckney, 

 of South Carolina, offered and advocated a resolution that a "two-thirds 

 vote" should be required for the passage of a "navigation act." 



Mr. Clymer, of Pennsylvania, said: — "Difficulties ought not to be 

 increased by unnecessary restrictions. The northern and middle states will 

 be ruined if not enabled to defend themselves against foreign regulations. ' ' 



Governor Morris, of Pennsylvania, declared that "preferences to 

 American ships will multiply them till they can carry the southern prod- 

 uce cheaper than it is now carried. A navy was essential to security, 

 particularly of the southern states, and can only be had by a 'navigation 

 act' encouraging American bottoms and seamen." 



Mr. Williamson, of North Carolina, thought "the restriction would 

 please the southern people." 



Mr. Spaight, of Virginia, opposed the motion — "The southern states 

 could at any time build ships for their own use. ' ' (Charleston and Baltimore 

 were then shipbuilding ports.) 



Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, also opposed the motion, while Mr. 

 Mason of Virginia supported it. 



Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, thought "if every peculiar interest was 

 to be served, unanimity ought to be required." 



Mr. Madison, of Virginia, went fully into the subject: — "The disad- 

 vantage of the southern states from a 'navigation act' lay chiefly in a 

 temporary rise of freight, attended, however, with an increase of southern 

 as well as northern shipping, with the emigration of northern seamen and 

 merchants to the southern states, and with a removal of the existing and 

 injurious retaliation among the states on each other. The power of foreign 



