1. Flour.—This article, on its importation into France, was subject to a duty of one-eighth per cent. ad valorem. Since the commencement of the Revolution, it has been, with all other foreign flour, made free. Here is no distinction for or against us. In Great Britain, it was, and is, like other foreign flour, subject to a duty so high as in ordinary times to be prohibitory; this duty is 24s. 3d. per quarter, until the price of British flour rises as high as fifty shillings, when a duty of six pence only is payable. [H. OF R. occasional suspensions with a view to seasons of scarcity, and they have from time to time exercised that power. But the Secretary of State is mistaken, when he says that the general prohibition; unless he refers to a period later than that tion has been latterly suspended without interrupwhich he mentions as the point of time to which his report is limited, (namely, the Summer of 1792,) a period in which all systems has been sus pended. vernment of St. Domingo, of May 9th, 1789, There was indeed an arrêt of the Colonial Gowhich established a partial suspension till August, 1794: but this suspension was confined to a particular and small part of the island, on very special reasons, with cautious guards to intercept its posed that even this arrêt was revoked in France. effect with other parts of the island; and it is sup this article, and with respect to its West India CoThe real system of France then, in regard to lonies, was completely prohibitory. In the British West Indies, on the contrary, flour from the United States was and is a free article, and with this distinction in our favor, that the flour of any other foreign country cannot be carried thither from such country even in British It enjoys the right of deposite, with the privilege of exportation, duty free, and with the option of waiting till the market prices give effect to the low duties. There is no distinction for or against us. The same system applies generally to grain. The ordinary state of things renders the result of both systems the same to us. In neither country is our flour saleable with advantage but in times of particular scarcity; in Great Britain, because the duty prevents an advantageous compe-bottoms. tition, except in such times; in France, because the capacity of that country to supply herself is such, that we cannot, in common cases, afford to sell our flour in her market. The average price of flour in France, in times of tranquility and common plenty, may be stated at five dollars and two-thirds of a dollar per barrel of Pennsylvania. This, computing the price at which flour has been for a number of years past in Pennsylvania, would not pay freight and charges, taking the average here, at four dollars and two-thirds (the charges, including freight and insurance, being about one dollar and two thirds) the price, to pay freight, ought not to be less than six dollars and a third. The conclusion is, that neither France nor Great Britain is to be considered as a valuable market for the flour of the United States. If an authority, respectable on that point, I mean the report of a committee of the British Privy Council, may be trusted (which declares an increasing incompetency for self supply on the part of Great Britain) the chance even is, that Great Britain may prove the better customer of the two for this article, notwithstanding her high duties. That nation discourages the competition of foreign flour with her own in her own market, of France and Great Britain, in relation to this The comparison therefore between the systems article, concludes clearly in favor of Great Britain. In Europe, their systems, though different, from difference of circumstances, terminate nearly in the same point. In the West Indies, the steady, certain, and therefore the truly important market for us, the system of France aims at the total exclusion of our principal staple; that of Great Britain gives it a free admission, and even a prefer ence. from Philadelphia in the years 1786 and 1788 Authentic statements of the exports of flour (which I accidentally possess) serve to illustrate the natural operation of the two systems, being applicable to years in which no extraordinary causes changed the common course of the trade. By these statements it appears that in 1786, the exports were To France To the French West Indies Total because she has reason to fear that such competi- To Great Britain Total tion may supplant her own and injure her agri- To the British West Indies In the French West Indies, the introduction of flour from the United States and other foreign countries was prohibited by a standing law. There was no distinction for or against us. The Colonial Government, it is true, had power to make In 1788, the exports were- Total H. OF R.] To Great Britain To British West Indies Total Commerce of the United States. 828 60,766 In these years the shipments from the same port to other British ports amounted to 6,358 barrels. The last three or four years present, indeed, a different state of things, as will be shown hereafter. But these having been years of revolution and convulsion, are not such good criteria as those which have been just noticed. [JANUARY, 1794. But it is important to us that nearly a treble 59,938 duty is laid upon the same commodity from other countries, the difference being a clear bounty upon ours, at the expense of the British consumer, by obstructing that free competition of other countries which always cheapens an article. This difference of duty is very considerable, and, as far as we can furnish a supply of equal quality, must tend to give us a monopoly of the British market. It is the more worthy of attention, since a competitor with us is Portugal, a Power with which Great Britain has always cultivated the closest ties. In the West Indies, the comparison is still in favor of the system of Great Britain. Tobacco was prohibited in the French while it was free in the British West Indies. The result is, that the system of Great Britain, in respect to tobacco the production of the United States, the second in magnitude as an export, was far more favorable to the United States than that of France. 2. Tobacco. This article was under no duty in France; but it was subject to a monopoly of the Farmers General, a circumstance which was a serious impediment to our trade with France in this article, obstructing the enterprise and competition of our own merchants in the markets of that country. There is no distinction for or against the United States. In Great Britain it was and is subject to a duty of 1s. 3d. per pound on importation, other foreign tobacco paying 3s. 6d. per pound.* The Secretary of State has omitted to notice this difference. Our tobacco then stood, and, it may be added, still stands upon a better footing in Great Britain than in France. Here I request the attention of the Committee to a principle of importance, which appears to have been overlooked by the Secretary of State, who indiscriminately presents, as a discouragement of our produce, all the internal duties which are laid upon it by foreign nations. 3. Rice. This article was subject in France to one-eighth per cent. ad valorem. There was no distinction for or against us. In Great Britain there was and is a duty upon it of 7s. 4d. sterling per cwt., while the British East India Company pay 8s. 10d. upon the rice imported by them. In the French West Indies, rice was subject to a duty of one per cent. ad valorem, with no distinction for or against us. In the British West Indies, it was and is free, with a distinction in our favor, resulting from the prohibition of other foreign rice. It is not easy to pronounce whether this article stands, on the whole, upon a better footing in the system of France than in that of Great Britain. The difference, if any, is perhaps less material than it may at first sight appear. The principle I allude to is this, that it is wholly immaterial to us, what internal duty is laid upon any commodity of ours by a foreign nation, when that nation does not itself raise or make the article, or some other which is a substitute for it, pro- However disagreeable the reflection, we have vided the duty be not so high as to render the ar- reason to believe that rice will not become the ticle too dear for consumption, and an equal dutỷ common food of countries where it does not grow, be laid on the article from other foreign countries. and which raise for themselves an adequate sup The reason of it is this, that the consumer in such ply of other breadstuff, &c.—a state of things case, who is the subject of the foreign country pays which exists both in France and Great Britain. the duty. Thus the duty we lay on China wares It will therefore be in those countries essentially is immaterial to any foreign nation which manu- an object of luxury, consumed by the richer classes. factures it, because we do not ourselves manufac- This position is verified by those parts of the Unitture it, or a substitute for it, and because it ex-ed States which do not grow rice. The duty uptends equally to the same manufacture of all countries. This remark will not a little abridge the catalogue of grievances which has been exhibited by the Secretary of State. Indeed, if it were not so, what abundant room for recrimination would our revenue code give to all other countries. Tobacco is an article, in reference either to France or to Great Britain, to which the observation is peculiarly applicable. Neither of those countries raise it themselves. It is one of these objects of fancy and caprice in respect to which a duty most certainly falls on the consumer. The duties, therefore, upon it in Great Britain can be no concern of ours. on it in Great Britain (there being a higher duty upon that brought from the East Indies by the East India Company) does not, of course, interfere to any considerable extent with its consumption there, because the addition which is made to the price of a luxury of the wealthier classes is no great obstacle to its consumption by them. The probability, then, is, that the consumption of rice in Great Britain is nearly as great as the habits and taste of the country are calculated to render it. The observations made with regard to the duty on tobacco apply to that on rice, though with far less force. Great Britain is not a competitor with us in the production of rice more than tobacco. But the extent of the rule in the application to this case is qualified by the circumstances that rice and other breadstuff are, in certain cases, substitutes for each other, and a duty on the for JANUARY, 1794.] Commerce of the United States. mer may tend to prevent its being consumed in such cases in place of the latter. In the West Indies, the subject wears a different aspect. Rice there makes a part of the common food. A duty upon it tends to prevent its being such, by letting in cheaper substitutes. This reflection operates in favor of the British against the French system, in respect to the West Indies, there being a duty upon it in the French, none in the British West Indies. But that duty is so light that, from this cause, and its extending to other articles, it ought scarcely to be counted. The prohibition of other foreign rice, however, is a circumstance of some value, assuring to this article from the United States a monopoly of the British West India market. [H. or R. high premiums upon it, when produced from her own fisheries. The duties on foreign and the bounties and premiums on her own fish, would amount to a complete prohibition of ours, if her own fisheries had been able to produce a complete supply; but their incapacity to do this has let ours into the French market, in spite of the discouragements upon it. It merits particular attention that, in reference to this article, the French system conferred upon us no particular privilege or favor. Other foreign salted fish, in foreign bottoms, stood upon the same footing with our fish, in our bottoms. with France) lets us into her market with our fine oils, in spite of the discouragement upon ours. Great Britain, less able to supply herself with fish oil than with fish, makes a difference in her system. She does not prohibit the article, but 4. Wood. This article (the fourth in import- lays a prohibitory duty upon it; but her incapaciance as an export) stood and stands on a decided-ty to supply herself (as in the case of salted fish ly better footing in the British than in the French system. In Great Britain it was and is free from duty, while other foreign rival woods are subject not to some small, as the Secretary of State informs us, but to considerable, and, in several instances, high duties. The observations with regard to this difference, as applied to tobacco, apply to this article in full force, with this additional circumstance, that some of the Northern nations could afford to undersell us, were it not for the protection derived from the high duties on their woods. In the French West Indies, our wood is subject to a duty of one per cent. ad valorem, with no distinction for or against us. In the British West Indies it is free, with a distinction in our favor, by the prohibition of other foreign wood. The duty, it is true, is of no great consequence, but it is not so of the prohibition in the British West Indies of all foreign wood, but from the United States. 5. Fisheries. Here the comparison is in favor of France, our salted fish being prohibited both in Great Britain and the British West Indies, while it is permitted in France with a duty of 8 livres per quintal, and in the French West Indies with a duty of 5 livres per quintal. Our fish oil being subject in Great Britain, in common with other foreign oil, to a duty of 18s. 5d. sterling per ton of 252 gallons; in France to a duty of 7 livres 4 sous per barrel of 520 pounds, while other foreign oil is prohibited. This last article is prohibited in the West Indies of both countries. While there is no distinction in the system of Great Britain for or against us, that of France, in respect to fish oil, makes a distinction in our favor. But these differences between the two systems appear greater on a superficial than upon a more accurate view. The principle upon which each proceeds is the monopoly of her own market to the productions of her own fisheries, and the exclusion, as far as possible, of all foreign countries, the United States not excepted. But, in pursuing this principle, a difference of situation creates a difference of measures. Great Britain, able to supply herself, prohibits absolutely all foreign salted fish. France, unable to supply herself, but aiming at it with all her strength, lays high duties upon that article, when produced from foreign fisheries, and bestows So France, to a considerable duty on our article, adds enormous bounties in favor of the same article the produce of her fisheries. The Secretary of State, in his report on the fisheries, has noticed the measures taken by France to erect her own whale fishery on the ruins of that of the United States. Tempting our fishermen to abandon us and settle at Dunkirk, she allows, for every ton of shipping employed, between nine and ten dollars, with some other advantages. If, in the conduct of Great Britain towards us, in this particular, we discern the spirit of a selfish rival, in that of France, in the same particular, we cannot but see the machinations of an insidious friend. The distinction in favor of our fish oil, as compared with other foreigners, is no counterpoise to the general tendency of the French system, which aimed at excluding us finally from the competition in her markets, though it was deemed preferable, till it could have its full effect, that the United States should enjoy the benefit of the competition, in exclusion of an ancient and formidable rival. To elucidate still more clearly the spirit of the French system, in this particular, the following facts are submitted to the consideration of the Committee: 1. In August, 1784, the arrêt giving admission to foreign fish in the West India markets was passed. In September, 1785, another arrêt passed, granting a premium of 10 livres per quintal on French fish. Seven days after, so great was their jealousy on this subject, another arrêt passed, raising the duty on foreign fish, including that of the United States, from 3 to 5 livres. 2. An arrêt of the 29th of December, 1787, grants a right of deposite or storing for six months, in France, to all the productions of the United States, in order to re-exportation, paying only a duty of one per cent. In February following, less than two months after, another arrêt passed, excepting from this right all the products of our fisheries, evidently from a jealousy of our interference with the French fisheries. 3. A further explanation of the spirit of the system on this point is to be found in a passage of a H. OF R.] report to the National Assembly, in the year 1789, tine, and Rosin.-These articles were more favorfrom the Committees of Agriculture and Com-ed by the system of Great Britain than of France. merce. After stating a diminution of the product In the latter, they were subject to a duty of twoof the French cod fishery, during the year 1789, and-a-half per cent. ad valorem, with no distincthe report proceeds thus: "This diminution ought tion in our favor. In the former, our tar and pitch " to be attributed to the collusion of the English are subject to a duty of 11s. per last, while tar and "and Free Americans, who contrived to disap- pitch of other countries pay 12s. 4d. per last; our "point the French fisheries by finding means to turpentine is subject to a duty of 2s. 3d. per cwt., "supply us with their fish, while they eluded the while that of other countries pays 12s. 9d.; our payment of the duty which was imposed on im- rosin only 1s. 6d. per ewt., that of other countries "portation, in order to establish a preference in 2s. 4d. These duties fall under a like considera"favor of the cod of the French fishery." tion as those on tobacco. The duty on our commodity produced in the British Dominions is no detriment to us. The higher duties on the same commodity from other foreign countries are bounties on ours, in common with the same commodity produced in the British possessions. In the French West Indies these articles were received upon a duty of one per cent. ad valorem equally with the like articles of other foreign countries. In the British West Indies, besides being free, they enjoy the advantage of a prohibition of the foreign articles. 6. Pot and Pearl Ashes.-The system of Great Britain is evidently more favorable to this production (sixth in importance of the exports of the United States) than the system of France-the former giving a preference to our article by making it free, while the same article from other foreign countries is subject to a duty of 2s. 3d. per cwt.; the latter placing our article on the same footing with that of other foreign countries. The observations I have made with regard to tobacco apply to this article in full force. In the West India possessions of the two countries it is equally prohibited. 7. Salted Meat.-The regulations of France with regard to this article (seventh in consequence of our exports) are clearly more favorable than those of Great Britain. France admits both beef and pork into her home market, with a duty of 5 livres per quintal; in her West India markets, she admits beef, with a duty of one per cent. ad valorem, and 3 livres per quintal, but prohibits pork. Great Britain prohibits both beef and pork in her home and West India markets. Neither country makes any distinction in this particular for or against the United States. 12. Iron, Bar and Pig.—In respect to this artifavorable than that of France. cle, likewise, the system of Great Britain is more While in France there is no distinction for or against us, in Great Britain, our iron is free, and that of other countries is subject, bar iron, to a duty of from 56s. 2d. to 67s. 2d. per ton; pig iron, to a duty of 5s. 6d. per ton. It is remarkable that Irish iron pays in Great Britain a duty of 30s. 10d. per ton. Both in the French and British West Indies, the article is prohibited. The Secretary of State, to show the insignificance of the discrimination in our favor, observes, that we do not make enough for our own consumption; but this was 8. Indigo. This article (eighth in value of our not foreseen by Great Britain when the discrimiexports) stands upon a decidedly better footing nation began, having arisen from the late rapid in the system of Great Britain than in that of increase of manufactures of iron. This is evinced France. France is herself our competitor in the by the fact that, in a year, ending 30th Septemsupply of her own market, and she aims at secur-ber, 1790, our export of iron to Great Britain ing to herself the monopoly of it by adding to the amounted to $81,612. advantage of a superior quality of her own indigo, as asserted by the Secretary of State, the discouragement to ours of double the duty paid on her own. Great Britain admits the article into her home market free of duty. Both countries exclude it from their West India market. Neither make any distinction for or against us. 9. Live Animals.--The regulations both of France and Great Britain may be considered as substantially the same in regard to this article; the small duty of one per cent. ad valorem laid by France in the West Indies, while it is free in the British West Indies, being really of no great consequence. Neither country makes any distinction for or against us. 10. Flaxseed. The same may be said of this as of the preceding article. If free in Great Britain, it was subject only to a duty of one-eighth per cent. ad valorem in France. It is prohibited in the West Indies of both countries. There is no distinction in the system of either nation for or against us. 11. Naval Stores, viz: Pitch, Tar, Turpen principal productions of this country, generally The foregoing remarks establish clearly that the speaking, are more favored by the British than by the French commercial system. the several articles which have been the subject Here it may be proper to show the amount of those countries for the period of one year, ending of inquiry exported to the respective dominions of 30th September, 1790: JANUARY, 1794.] Commerce of the United States. West Indies. [H. OF R. there would be no hesitation to pronounce that Great Britain is a more important customer to us than France, not much short, indeed, of the ratio 4,197 of two to one. But the Secretary of State informs 623 | սs, "that the greatest part of what she receives "from us is re-exported to other countries, under To the Dominions of France-Continued. 3,031,050 To the Dominions of Great Britain. Salted fish Live stock Articles. Great Britain. $676,274 411,566 2,754,493 898 773,852 240,174 10 81,048 Salt meats Indigo 473,830 219,924 190,670 81,612 6,651,425 1,805,744 8,457,173 West Indies. 6,162 1,805,744 the useless charges of an intermediate deposite "and double voyage." The accuracy of this assertion may justly be questioned. It is probably, in a great measure, founded on the statements of Lord Sheffield, without a proper allowance for the change of circumstances. Admitting those statements to be correct, they are no standard for the $858,006 present state of things. It is known, that, at the 273,505 period to which they relate, Great Britain had a 22,816 monopoly of our trade; that we could not, gene180,087 rally speaking, carry our commodities to other 382,481 countries. Of course, she became an intermediary 7,189 between us and them, and her re-exportations of 124 our commodities must have been very considerable. But, having had, since the establishment of 6,659 our independence, free access to other countries, 5,700 Great Britain has ceased to be an intermediary 62,415 between them and us, except in those cases in which the direct relations of commerce between us and certain countries render it less convenient to carry our commodities ourselves directly to them, than to use Great Britain as an entrepôt. This, however, is a case of limited extent. For the most part, we carry on a direct commerce with the different countries of Europe. Any rule, drawn, then, from the state of things prior to our Revolution, would be entirely false, in reference to the actual state of things. We may, therefore, venture boldly to question the accuracy of the Secretary of State's assertion, as he does not furnish us with the data on which it is grounded, as, from the nature of the thing, it is not probable that any satisfactory ones were possessed by him; and it is improbable, on a general view, that so large a proportion as he supposes is re-exported. we may satisfy ourselves further, by a more particular view, of the error of his conjecture. The same authority from which, I presume, his suggestions are derived, "that, before the war, onethird of our indigo and three-fourths of our to"bacco and rice, carried to Great Britain, were re-exported," informs us that "most, if not all, our other articles were consumed there."* A document,t before referred to, informs us, in addition, that the average of imports into Great Britain, for six years, ending in 1774, from the United States, was, annually £1,752,142 That the average of six years, ending in 1789, was Thus it appears that our exportations to the British Dominions, upon an average of three years, have exceeded those to the French Dominions, in the very considerable sum of $3,752,760 annually. To judge from the fact of our exportations, whe-wasther viewed in the detail, according to the table of particular articles, or by the aggregate, for three can States, p. 229. successive years, established by official documents, *Lord Sheffield's Observations on the Commerce of the Ameri. + Report of the Lords of the Privy Council, Ap. 91. |