To mitigate the rigor of this restrictive policy, Congress, on the 1st of March, 1809, passed an act, since called the non-intercourse law, by which the embargo law was repealed, and all intercourse with Great Britain and France prohibited. The act, however, provided, that if either nation should so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States-which fact the President should declare by proclamation-the trade suspended by this act and the embargo should be renewed with that nation.

In retaliation of the non-intercourse act, Napoleon issued a decree more sweeping in its operation on American property than any that had preceded it. Any American vessel and cargo entering any port of France or her colonies, was liable to be seized and sold.

The non-intercourse law having expired, Congress, on the 1st of May, 1810, passed a new act of a like nature, which provided that, if either Great Britain or France should, before the 3d of March, 1811, so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they should cease to violate our neutral commerce, and if the other nation should not, within three months thereafter, do the same, then the act interdicting commercial intercourse, should be revived against the nation refusing to revoke. It was from the effects of this policy that these petitioners prayed for relief.

To meet the expenses of the anticipated war with Great Britain, in addition to the loans which were authorized at this session, an act was passed imposing an additional duty of one hundred per cent. upon the permanent duties then imposed upon all goods imported from any foreign port or place; in other words, doubling the duties. And to these, ten per cent. was to be added if imported in foreign vessels. An additional tunnage duty also, at the rate of $1,50 per tun, was required to be laid upon all foreign vessels entered in the United States, making such duty $2 per tun.

CHAPTER IV.

Encouragement to manufactures recommended by President Madison. Petitions. Report of the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures. Report of Secretary Dallas. Bill reported by Committee of Ways and Means. Bill debated, and passed. Acts of 1817 and 1818.

THE peace of 1815, marks a new era in the history of the policy of this country. From the first organization of the Government under the Constitution, American industry had been more or less affected by special causes, both external and internal. A long war had existed in Europe; and during a large portion of this period, the United States had been involved in a commercial warfare with two of the most powerful of the belligerents, and for the last three years in a state of actual war with one of them. Laws had been enacted from time to time, which had, to a considerable extent, promoted the progress of manufactures. Much, however, must be ascribed to necessity. During the suspension of our commercial intercourse, the supplies of foreign manufactures were inadequate to the wants of the country, and much capital was turned into this branch of industry.

On the return of peace, the channels of our former foreign trade were reöpened. The double duties mentioned in the preceding chapter, which were to continue for one year after the termination of the war, were soon to cease, (February 18, 1816;) and the usual influx of foreign goods was anticipated. Our manufacturers, many of whom had just invested their capital in this business, were alarmed, and applied to Congress for protection.

The first session of Congress after the close of the war, which was the first session of the 14th Congress, commenced the 4th of December, 1815. At this session, the attention of the Government was naturally directed to the adaptation of its policy to our altered condition. The general peace of Europe, as well as that between the United States and Great Britain, demanded a change in our commercial regulations. Provision must be made for the payment of the public debt, which had been vastly increased by the war. Importations, it was foreseen, must largely augment our indebtedness to foreigners, and the more, because the peace of Europe would

greatly lessen the foreign demand for our agricultural products, and seriously affect our carrying trade. A similar state of things had not existed since the establishment of the present Government.

President Madison, in his annual message, thus recommended " a tariff on manufactures :"

"In adjusting the duties on imports to the object of reve nue, the influence of the tariff on manufactures will necessarily present itself for consideration. However wise the theory may be which leaves to the sagacity and interest of individuals the application of their industry and resources, there are in this, as in other cases, exceptions to the general rule. Besides the condition which the theory itself implies of a reciprocal adoption by other nations, experience teaches that so many circumstances must occur in introducing and maturing manufacturing establishments, especially of the more complicated kinds, that a country may remain long without them, although sufficiently advanced, and in some respects even peculiarly fitted for carrying them on with success. Under circumstances giving a powerful impulse to manufacturing industry, it has made among us a progress, and exhibited an efficiency, which justifies the belief that, with a protection not more than is due to the enterprising citizens whose interests are now at stake, it will become at an early day not only safe against occasional competitions from abroad, but a source of domestic wealth, and even of external commerce. In selecting the branches more especially entitled to the public patronage, a preference is obviously claimed by such as will relieve the United States from a dependence on foreign supplies, ever subject to casual failures, for articles necessary for the public defense, or connected with the primary wants of individuals. It will be an additional recommendation of particular manufactures, where the materials for them are extensively drawn from our agriculture, and consequently impart and insure to the great fund of national prosperity and independence an encourage ment which cannot fail to be rewarded."

Many articles of domestic manufacture, household goods, &c., had been heavily taxed during the war. At this session, numerous petitions for the repeal of these taxes were presented; also petitions for protection to different kinds of manufactures, by duties upon the foreign, and especially upon coarse cottons. Two of these petitions were from manufacturers in Rhode Island and Connecticut. As their cases are

ably stated, some of their arguments will be read with interest.

They represent that they had, during the interruption of our foreign commerce, expended much money and labor, and put into operation extensive works, for manufacturing cotton goods. By means of their exertions and of the commodities furnished from these sources, the pressure of the late war was considerably alleviated. But from the difficulties attending the establishment of new branches of manufacture; the scarcity of persons properly qualified to superintend their operation; and the enormous compensation demanded by them; and the high price of labor throughout the country; they had not yet been remunerated for their expenditures, while the prospect which was just opening of a free importation of the same articles of foreign manufacture, threatened to crush their establishments, and sink the capital invested in them. Under these circunistances of impending ruin, they desire an absolute or virtual prohibition of the importation of foreign cotton fabrics of a coarse texture.

In favor of their claims upon the attention of the Government, they urge, that the establishments already erected in the United States are nearly or quite capable of supplying the demand for these fabrics for home consumption. They have afforded the means of employment to thousands of poor women and children, which the ordinary business of agriculture does not furnish them. They had supplied, at moderate prices, the demands of the country and the Government during the recent interruption of our foreign trade.

They had also assisted the Southern agriculturist by the consumption of some portion of that superfluous produce which had been deprived of its ordinary vent in the demands of foreign nations.

The petitioners suggested that the articles which might be subjected to large additional duties, or an absolute prohibi tion, were chiefly the production of countries lying beyond the Cape of Good Hope. They were manufactured, in a large proportion, of cotton of foreign growth, and thus discouraged a primary object of our own agriculture. They were not paid for with articles of domestic production, but occasioned a continual drain of the specie of the country. They were made of a very inferior material, and in a manner which made them a mere deception on the consumer. Nearly all Europe had legislated against them. They paid an ad valorem duty, and added but little to the resources of the Treasury.

They afforded employment to but a few tuns of our shipping, and would, in all probability, be hereafter introduced in the ships, or through the medium of a rival nation. It was by admitting those goods that England would not herself admit for home consumption, that we encouraged her to make conquests in India, by thus making them valuable to her.

Every nation with which we have commercial intercourse, had sought, by artificial means, to secure some peculiar advantage by favoring certain branches of commerce and certain articles of manufacture. France had more than six years since prohibited all cotton and cotton goods from beyond the Cape of Good Hope. England did not admit an article for home use that had the appearance of being manufactured, but gives a bounty to the exporter of her own manufactured cottons.

Another argument in favor of the petitioners was, that even the freest commerce was exposed to frequent interruptions. And while a nation is liable to be embarrassed by the hostile aggressions of others, it behooves such nation to guard its own vital interests. When we rely upon a foreign market for commodities of universal and necessary consumption, we receive only the surplus productions which they can spare, and subject ourselves to an absolute dependence upon their caprices or passions. Every nation, whose government had been wisely administered, and whose natural resources interpcsed no serious barriers to the attempt, had labored to place those objects upon which they depended for subsistence or defense, beyond the reach of accident or war, by encouraging their domestic production at any expense or sacrifice.

The domestic manufacture of cotton goods, the petitioners said, demanded such encouragement, for two reasons: First, the cultivation of cotton, as a product of agriculture, was an object of primary importance to a large and wealthy section of the country; secondly, the consumption of the coarser cotton fabrics extended so equally and universally, as to include every family in the United States. Unless the domestic manufacturing establishments should afford some vent for the productions of the Southern agriculturist, and afford an adequate supply for the extensive demands of a population of eight millions, any sudden interruption of our foreign commerce must produce disastrous consequences to the growers and consumers of the article in question.

It was apprehended by the petitioners, that some of the Eu