CHAPTER XXIII.

DOCTRINE OF BOUNTIES ADVERSELY SETTLED BY CONGRESS.

The Fishery Bill Debate of 1792. The tenor of the Constitution with respect to bounties had an emphatic rendering at an early day. In February, 1792, the Senate passed a bill for "An act for the encouragement of the Bank and other Cod Fisheries, and for the regulation and government of the fishermen employed therein." After debate, amendment, and passage in the House, the title was changed to: "An Act concerning certain fisheries of the United States, and for the regulation and government of the fishermen employed therein."

First Section of the Senate Bill. "That the bounty now allowed upon the exportation of dried fish of the fisheries of the United States, shall cease on all dried fish exported after the 10th day of June next; and in lieu thereof, and for the more immediate encouragement of the said fisheries, there shall be afterwards paid, on the last day of December annually, to the owner of every vessel, or his agent, by the Collector of the District where such vessel may belong, that shall be qualified agreeably to law, for carrying on the Bank and other Cod-fisheries, and that shall actually have been employed therein at sea, for the term of four months at least, of the fishing season next preceding (which season is accounted to be from the last day of February to the last day of November in every year), for each and every ton of such vessel's burden, according to her admeasurement, as licensed or enrolled; if of 20 tons and not exceeding 30 tons, $1.50, of which bounty three-eighths parts shall accrue and belong to the owner of such fishing vessel, and the other five-eighths thereof shall be divided by him, his agent or lawful representative to and among the several fishermen who shall have been employed in such vessel, during the season aforesaid, or a part thereof, as the case may be, in such proportion as the fish they shall have respectively taken may bear to the whole quantity of fish taken on board such vessel during such

season. Provided, that the bounty, to be allowed or paid on any vessel for one season, shall not exceed one hundred and seventy dollars."

The Debate in Committee. Mr. Giles, of Va., having doubt about the principle of the bill, moved to strike out the first section; observing that "he could not positively assert, whether the reasons which determined him against the principle of the bill were well founded or not; that in matters where a local preference is given, it is necessary to accommodate; and he would be happy if his objections could be removed.

"The present section of the bill appears to contain a direct bounty on occupations, and if that be its object, it is the first attempt as yet made by 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 could give) annexed to any other power specified in the Constitution. It might perhaps be brought in under a mode of construction already adopted by the House, viz.: that of ways and ends' by which any power whatever might be equally implied; but he wished ever to see some connection between a specified power and the means adopted for carrying it into execution. There is a great difference between giving encouragement, and granting a direct bounty. Congress have a right to regulate commerce; and any advantage thereby resulting to a particular occupation connected with commerce comes within that authority; but when a bounty is proposed to a particular employment or occupation, this is stepping beyond the circle of commerce; and such a measure will affect the whole manufacturing and agricultural system. In all cases, the revenue, to be employed in this bounty, is drawn from all the sources of revenue in the United States, and confined to a particular object."

Individual Rights forbid Bounties. Mr. Giles was averse to bounties in almost every shape, "as derogations from the common right;" and he thought there would be no great difficulty in proving that a Government is both unjust and oppres

sive in establishing exclusive rights, monopolies, etc., without some very substantial merit in the persons to whom they are granted; although even in that case, the propriety of such grants is still questionable. “Under a just and equal government every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle than that the whole product of the labor of every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by governmental discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any government to exercise such a principle would lead to a complete system of tyranny."

A Drawback must not cloak a Bounty. "Although the apparent intention of the bill is only to convert the present existing drawbacks into a bounty; yet the drawbacks being allowed only to the actual exportation of the fish, and the bounty being granted on the tonnage of the fishing vessels, there can be no comparative value between the drawback and the bounty; they have no necessary relation to each other, and the latter may exceed the former, or the former exceed the latter. He had made a calculation, and upon the most favorable principles, grounded upon the reports of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State." He then offered a calculation tending to show that the proposed bounty on the tonnage of the fishing vessels would considerably exceed the amount of the present drawbacks. From a comparison between the bounty and the number of sailors employed in the fisheries, he showed what an expense each man would be to the United

States; and after other remarks, observed that "even Great Britain, whose whole national support and defense depends on her navy, had found that the men employed in the fisheries, thought so necessary for that defense, cost her too much; that America, whose consequence as a nation does not depend on a navy, ought to take a lesson from the experience of Britain, ... we could not compete with her, and would only exhaust the Treasury."

Views of Mr. Murray, of Md. "In order to demonstrate the propriety of the measure, it would be incumbent on the friends of the bill, first, to prove that the fisheries trade is in a state of decay; that the stock employed in it does not yield the ordinary profits, so as to justify the merchants in embarking their capital in this branch of trade: that there is a system of defense in contemplation, which the circumstances of the country call for, and which this trade is calculated to furnish; that other branches of trade, which do not stand in need of encouragement, are not equally capable of furnishing seamen for the purpose; that this particular object so peculiarly claims the attention and encouragement of the United States as to leave far behind every consideration of the manufacturing interest, the agricultural industry, etc. All this was necessary for gentlemen to prove, and to show some very strong necessity for encouraging one particular class of men, in preference to all others."

Mr. Goodhue, of Mass., in Reply. "It happens that the fisheries of the United States are almost entirely confined to the State of Massachusetts; and they furnish a principal portion of our export trade. As we are a part of the United States, the United States in general are interested in the prosperity of that branch of business, so far at least as it contributes to the national defense: it furnishes a copious nursery of hardy seamen, and offers a never-failing source of protection to the commerce of the United States. If we engage in a war with any European Power, those seamen will be excluded from their ordinary employment, and must have recourse to privateering. During the late war with Britain, we annoyed the enemy more in that line than all others; and had it not been for privateer

ing, it would often have been impossible to keep together our armies, who were frequently, in the hour of need, supplied by the privateers with ammunition and clothing, of which they were wholly destitute. All that we wish to obtain by this bill is that we may not be burdened with duties. An opinion has been entertained, that no drawbacks ought to be allowed on the reëxportation of articles imported from foreign countries; but if this opinion were to obtain in practice, and no drawbacks were to be admitted, we must confine our importation to articles for our own consumption. The drawback, allowed by the existing law, on the exportation of salt fish, was calculated to be only equal to the duty beforehand paid on the quantity of salt used in curing the fish; but the fishermen complain that, as the act now stands, they are wholly excluded from any participation in the benefit, which centres entirely in the coffers of the merchants. The object of the present bill is only to repay the same money into the hands of those persons who are immediately concerned in catching the fish; and there can no reasonable objection be made to such a transfer of the drawback, as Government will not lose a single dollar by the change. The gentleman from Virginia talks of the unconstitutionality of granting bounties; BUT NO BOUNTY IS REQUIRED.”

New Mode of Calculating Drawback. "We only ask in another mode the usual drawback for the salt used on the fish. If we can make it appear that the bill does not contemplate any greater sums to be drawn from the Treasury than are already allowed, it is to be hoped that no further opposition will be made to the measure: and that this is really the case can be proved by documents from the Treasury office."

He read a statement and calculation to prove his assertion; and to show that the United States will probably pay $1000 per annum less in the proposed "bounties" on the tonnage of the fishing vessels, than they would in the drawbacks on the exportation of the fish.

"The fishermen are now under no control; and in consequence of this want of a proper restraint they often take whims into their heads and quit the vessels during the fishing season. To prevent the inconveniences of this practice, the bill contem