Difference in Footing no Argument for Subsidy. In answer to above statements it is a "fact, not fancy," that the world's carrying trade-our own included — is not done by the Spanish ship, or the French, or the Italian, or the German, but mainly by the British, though she has not the ability, according to subsidy premises, to do it cheapest. Theory is that the cheapest carrier has a cinch upon the freight market; but practice is that preference secures employment. In the case of the British ship, insurance power makes the preference; in the case of the American ship, our only recourse for preference is to regulations of our commerce.

Our experience in competing with British shipping should be worth more than every argument for subsidy pretending to show that cheapness rules navigation. We have shown that American ships in the California trade, offering from ten to forty per cent. below the rates of British ships, have been beaten out of business by them. The cheapest carriers for many years, American ships have found that competition competes no more in the foreign trade; that Political Economy is not applicable to this business.

e say

Correction of Foreign Trade. As for subsidizing our ships in trade with countries having no shipping of their own, no statesman would consider it expedient. In the trade between two nations, only these are concerned. The carriage of their commerce belongs to them alone. If we want our share of carriage, we should provide by law to that effect. We of our domestic trade, that we want it all. Our word is the law. We monopolize our coasting, lake, and river business. A proper regulation of our commerce would certainly give us our proper share of carriage, without the cost of a cent in subsidy. If we are so weak at Washington as to give away our sea transportation to foreign flags, subsidized as they may be, should Congress tax our people to get it back again? It would seem that certain steamship people, connected with the railroad lines of the country, have resolved to wait no longer for subsidy, but to provide themselves with shipping and set it at work to extend their business seaward.

Outlook for Increasing our Transportation. It will be re

A

membered that the "Clyde line"- that part of it running to foreign ports did not accept the subsidy of 1891, preferring to run without the restrictions involved. This line has got on fairly well without the "aid," that other lines welcomed, because it commanded full employment. Also the Pacific Mail Steamship Co. resigned its contract under the subsidy act of 1891, preferring to run free, as it could command employment.

The Commissioner of Navigation reports "the building of ten trans-Atlantic steamers," which he thinks "rests presumably on anticipated legislation by Congress." Surely, it is not on mere anticipations, now more than thirty years old, that wise transportation men are investing their money. We regard regulations of trade as more likely to come than subsidy, but any business that will furnish constant employment freight both ways is not in need of relief. The President of the Great Northern Railroad is having built two monsters of ships, not abroad, but at home, for trans-Pacific service. He expects to control their employment, which is better than a subsidy act. The purchase of the "Leyland line" (British) by Mr. Morgan, says the Commissioner of Navigation, " is considered as evidence that American capital is willing to invest in ocean steamships." In the few cases where this capital can control employment, there is nothing to discourage it. The recent combinations in several of the industries favor our navigation in respect to the command of ship employment.

Threadbare Story of Cheap Foreign Ships. It appears from a published letter of the President of the "Atlantic Transport Line," that this Company is getting ships built both in Britain and the United States, notwithstanding the difference in cost of "similar ships" is stated by him to be from 30 to 50 per cent. The foreign builders, not long since, were purchasers of American ship materials. But what is the meaning of this dear patronage of American yards? Is it not that our builders construct more durable vessels? If it will take two or three years longer for the American ship to reimburse her cost, and she will last for service three to five years longer than one foreignbuilt, the difference in price vanishes.

CHAPTER XXV.

THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION ON REGULATING OUR COMMERCE.

Unanimity of Sentiment. In his letter transmitting the Constitution to the Continental Congress, September 17, 1787, General Washington, who had been President of the Convention, observed:

"The friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the corresponding executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general Government of the Union."

One of the principal objects of the Constitution thus declared to be the regulation of our foreign and domestic trade, in the interest of an American marine, it was natural that in the Convention unanimity of sentiment on this subject should prevail. Some have supposed that the extreme Southern States, having but a scanty shipping, took no interest in provisions for a merchant marine, but left that to the Middle and Eastern States. But there is no warrant for this belief. One of the ablest of the Delegates from that section was Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, who offered a plan for a Constitution. In this. paper the second of the enumerated powers granted to Congress, in article 6, read thus:

"To regulate commerce with all nations and among the several States."

And his plan provided, also, that all laws regulating commerce "shall require the assent of two thirds of the members present in each house."

In the plan of Constitution, reported to the Convention by a Committee appointed therefor, August 6, 1787, section 2 of arti

cle 7, being the second of the enumerated powers granted to Congress, provided for the regulation of commerce with foreign nations and between the States.

Pinckney's Two-Thirds Proposition. The Delegates from South Carolina and Georgia desired for a while the continuance of imports of African labor, and they argued that this was necessary to induce their States to adopt the Constitution. The Convention finding it difficult to agree on the migration proposition, the matter was referred to a committee of eleven. Mr. Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, "wished the whole subject to be committed, including the clause relating to taxes on exports and to a navigation act." Finally, Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Langdon moved to commit section 6, as to a navigation act, by two thirds of each House. On this question only Connecticut and New Jersey voted no. The Committee, in the order of States, consisted of Messrs. Langdon, of N. H., King, Johnson, Livingston, Clymer, Dickenson, Martin, Madison, Williamson, C. C. Pinckney, and Baldwin, of Ga. Livingston, of N. Y., was chairman. He reported to strike out so much of the 4th section as was referred to the Committee and insert, "The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year A. D. 1800, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such migration at a rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports." "The 5th section to remain as in the Report."

"The 6th to be stricken out."

This last was the two-thirds restriction.

When this Report was taken up, General Pinckney moved to strike out the words, "the year 1800," and insert the words, "the year 1808," as the time limit of slave importation.

Mr. Gorham seconded the motion.

Mr. Madison said: "Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution." New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia voted no, the others, aye. Gouverneur Morris was for making the clause to

read, "importation of slaves into North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia shall not be prohibited," etc. Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.

When the Report was again taken up, Mr. Pinckney moved to postpone it in favor of the following proposition: "That no act of the Legislature for the purpose of regulating the commerce of the United States with foreign powers, or among the several States, shall be passed without the assent of two thirds of the members of each house."

Reasons for Restriction. Mr. Pinckney remarked, "that there were five distinct commercial interests: 1. The fisheries and West India trade, which belonged to the New England States; 2. The interest of New York, which lay in a free trade; 3. Wheat and flour, the staples of the Middle States (New Jersey and Pennsylvania); 4. Tobacco, the staple of Maryland and Virginia and partly of North Carolina; 5. Rice and indigo, the staples of South Carolina and Georgia. These different interests would be a source of oppressive regulations, if no check to a bare majority should be provided. States pursue their interests with less scruple than individuals. The power of regulating commerce was a pure concession on the part of the Southern States. They did not need the protection of the Northern States at present."

Mr. Martin seconded the motion.

Continuing, Mr. Pinckney said: "It was the true interest of the Southern States to have no regulation of commerce; but considering the loss brought on the commerce of the Eastern States by the Revolution, their liberal conduct towards the views of South Carolina, and the interest the weak Southern States had in being united with the strong Eastern States, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the power of making commercial regulations; and that his constituents,

1 The editor of the work quoted from says in a note: "He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding on the two subjects of navigation and slavery had taken place between those parts of the Union, which explains the vote on the motion (Pinckney's), as well as the language of General Pinckney and others."