159 



year yrns insufiicient. Th^ fishermen represented that their condition 

 was deplorable, and they earnestly implored the protection of the gov- 

 ernment.. In the petition presented Congress from Marblehead, 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 1787, 

 each vessel earned $483 ; in 1788, the sum of $456 ; and in 1789, only 

 $273. The annual average of expenses, including insurance, was $416 : 

 thus affording a gain of $67 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 

 ninety-nine cents, and that on rum at Just fourteen dollars ! This petition, 

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

 the Secretary 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 granted in lieu thereof a specific allowance to vessels 

 employed in the cod-fishery. This allowance was graduated 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 

 twenty and thirty 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 couldreceive 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. Mr. Giles, a member of the House firom 

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

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

 the first attempt as yet made, bv this government to exercise such 

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

 view; for 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^ould give) annexed to any other specified in the constitution." 

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

 " the object of the bounty and the amount of it are equally to be disre- 

 garded in the present case. We are simply to consider whether boun- 

 ties may be. safely given under the constitution. For myself, I would 

 rather begin with a bounty of one million per annum than one thou- 

 sand. * * * Establish the doctrine of bounties, and it is not a few 

 fishermen that will enter, claiming ten or twelve thousand dollars, but 

 all manner of persons; people of every trade and occupation may 

 enter at the bireach, until they have eaten up the bread of our children." 

 StUl further to encoura,ge the prosecution of the fisheries, an act of 



