328

1835-Michigan.

Enabling acts of Congress, 1836; act for admission, 1837. Later constitution, 1850.

1836- Arkansas. Enabling acts of Congress and ordinance of acceptance by Arkansas, 1836. Later constitutions, 1864, 1868 and 1874.

1838 — Florida.

1842

1845

1846

1848

1849

1855

Enabling act of Congress, 1845. Later constitutions, 1865, 1868 and 1885.

Rhode Island.

Texas. Joint resolution for admission, 1845. Later constitutions, 1866, 1868 and 1876.

Iowa. Enabling acts, 1845; Congressional act for admission, 1846. Later constitution, 1857.

Wisconsin. Enabling act of Congress, 1846; Congressional act for admission, 1848.

California. Congressional act for admission, 1850. Later constitution, 1879. Kansas. Congressional act for admission, 1861. Later constitutions, 1857, 1858 and 1859.

1857 - Minnesota. Enabling act of Congress, 1857; and act for admission, 1858. Congressional act for admission,

1800 to 1865: The framing of new constitutions by special conventions called for the purpose and their subsequent ratification by popular vote; universal manhood suffrage in most of the States, instead of the property qualifications formerly prescribed for voters; the election of governors by the people instead of the legislatures and, in most States, the election of the judiciary by the people; the veto power granted to the governors to a limited extent (commencing with the Massachusetts constitution of 1780, which gave the legislature power to overrule the vote by a two-thirds vote); and the introduction into the constitution of various provisions which formerly might have been enacted by the legislature as statute laws.*

*The text of the various constitutions mentioned above will be found in B. P. Poore, The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the United States (Washington, 1876); F. N. Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies, issued as House Doc. 397, 59th Congress, 2d session (7 vols., Washington, 1909).

329

Commerce and the Constitution

-

-

The need of a system for regulating commerce among the States themselves as well as with foreign countries was one of the prime causes of the formation of the original thirteen States upon a Federal basis in March of 1789. The first Confederation of 1781 was a loose federation of sovereign States, it had no control of commerce, no power to tax, and was wholly dependent on contributions from the States. The power to tax imports was possessed by the seaboard States alone.

Discriminating duties were levied by most of the colonies upon British imports, which varied from 5 to 100 per cent.; and as some of the States admitted such goods free of duty, British goods flooded the country through the free ports. To complicate matters, the States waged commercial war on each other. It became evident that the newly-formed United States could not long continue a nation without a power that should pervade the whole United States as effectually as the authority or State

governments extended over the several States.

The Constitution of 1789 gave Congress power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, the only restriction being that all duties, imposts and excises be uniform in all of them. The measure of centralized authority possessed by Congress was the measure of the loss of sovereign authority possessed by the States individually. Congress, in its own sphere, possesses all the powers possessed by the States before the adoption of the Constitution, which powers it may exercise without any restrictions save those prescribed by the Constitution.

The population of the United States in 1789 was under 4,000,000 and the settled area was a strip along the Atlantic coast. There were few manufactures, the most important interests being shipping in New England and agriculture in the Middle and Southern States. Unable to supply the needs of civilization by wares of our own manufacture, an active commerce

330

with England sprang up, which country was but too glad to find a growing market for her goods in the United States.

Early protection was concerned more with navigation than with industry. The Navigation Act of 1789 gave preference in the United States ports to vessels built or owned by American citizens. Such ships were to pay 6 cents per ton, but vessels. built in the United States and owned, wholly or in part, by foreigners paid 30 cents a ton, while vessels built and owned abroad paid 50 cents a ton. In 1790 a discriminating duty of 10 per cent. was levied on importations in foreign vessels. In the coasting trade American vessels were to pay tonnage tax once a year, while foreign vessels were to pay it on every entrance into an American port. Finally, foreign vessels were absolutely interdicted from engaging in the coasting trade. In 1790 an Act was passed for the government of American seamen, and a special tax of 50 cents a ton was levied on vessels as lighthouse

per cent. of its commerce to-day. In 1828 the first of a series of unpatriotic and supremely foolish navigation acts was passed by Congress by which we threw open our foreign trade to ships not under the American flag. This was caused by the fear that foreigners would retaliate against discrimination in favor of ocean-going American vessels by taxing goods sent them in such bottoms. Immunity from an international trade war with the possible loss of foreign markets is purchased at the cost of an American merchant marine and an annual gift to foreign countries of $1,000,000,000 which is thus accounted for: In freight and passenger rates we pay foreign shipping $300,000,000; we donate a permanent gift of the $500,000,000 expended in the last hundred years in improving our harbors, dredging channels, erecting lighthouses and establishing a coast guard for shipping that is nine-tenths foreign and one-tenth American; and the $300,000,000 in tolls to be paid the Panama Canal by foreign ships on goods landed on American soil, for which the American people will be promptly charged in the cost of the goods. This loss of $1,000,000,000 a year affects the most secluded farmer as well as every city resident.

Our commercial position in the early days of the Republic was not strong enough to permit of the tariff being used as a weapon of retaliation against high foreign tariffs. On the other hand, in articles requiring a

high degree of technical skill and complex organization, the United States was at a distinct disadvantage. Hence the prime necessity of protecting our infant industries from the ruinous competition of foreign goods. The first tariff act of 1789 was framed solely to secure revenue for the Government. The general scale of duties was lower than in foreign countries, and an assorted cargo paid an average tariff of 7.5 per cent. The tariff was not seriously affected by protectionist ideas until 1815, as the distance from Europe and the high freight rates were in themselves additional protection."

*

The expansion of American commerce received a serious setback by the English Orders in Council in 1804 and 1806 declaring the European ports from the Elbe to Brest to be in a state of blockade and neutral vessels trading with such ports liable to capture. Napoleon retorted with the Berlin Decree of 1806, declaring the British Islands in a state of blockade and forbidding all to trade with them. This was followed by other British Orders in Council in 1807, which declared all ports belonging to France and her colonies or allies to be in a state of blockade also. In answer to this, Napoleon issued the Milan Decree in 1807, which declared every ship sailing to or from Great Britain

* The legislative history of these tariff acts is given in previous pages of this History. For references see the Index under Tariff, Commerce, etc.

331 The

or her colonies a good prize. United States, as the only neutral carrier of importance, felt the full force of these decrees. In a few years 1600 American vessels were captured by British, French, Spanish, Danish, and Neapolitan war vessels and privateers, causing a loss of $60,000,000.

The United States retaliated with the Embargo Act of 1807, which prohibited American vessels from sailing to any foreign port. They could engage only in the coasting trade. The effect of this measure was disastrous upon. our foreign trade. In a single year exports fell from $108,300,000 to $22,000,000, while 100,000 men were thrown out of employment and merchants and farmers were forced into bankruptcy. So strong was the opposition that Congress was compelled to repeal the noxious measure and the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809 was substituted therefor, which removed restriction from all countries except England and France.*

American commerce, suffering from the attacks of enemies abroad and the restrictions of friends at home, could not recover the position reached. before the Embargo Act, and declined still further after the declaration of the War of 1812. During the war, intercourse with England was prohibited and all import duties duties were doubled. But, as foreign trade had practically ceased to exist, this did not increase the revenue.

332

The war tariff of 1812 doubled and trebled the duties on imported commodities. Imports and exports rapidly declined. During the three years of the war, 513 privateers commanded by United States citizens captured 1300 British vessels. Congress allowed a rebate of one-third import duty on captured goods. The first two years of peace were very prosperous for the shipping interests, the total volume of trade in 1816 being ten times that of 1814. But the protective tariff discouraged importations, and by 1821 foreign commerce shrunk to the volume of 1816.

The American industries that had sprung up during the period of the Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts and the War of 1812, were protected by the tariff of 1816 and later tariffs, on the ground that they were infant industries and needed the fostering care of the Government. The fundamental principles of American tariff legislation include, in addition to the protection of industry, the rights of vested interests, the development of the home market, the undesirability of pauper labor, as well as making the tariff of revenue. The Northern manufacturers, having tasted the fruits of protection did not long remain satisfied with the tariff of 1816. They clamored for more protection and successive acts extended the protective policy.

The business crisis of 1819 greatly curtailed business, but, worst of all, Congress substituted reciprocity for

the discriminating duties that had hitherto protected American vessels against English competition. The first phase of American reciprocity characterized the treaty of 1785 between Prussia and the United States, having "the most perfect equality and reciprocity" in all matters of commerce for its basis. In 1815 a reciprocity treaty between the United States and Great Britain modified the provisions of the Navigation Act of 1789, enacting that "no higher tariff or other duties, or charges, shall be imposed in any of the ports of the United States on British vessels, or their cargoes, than those payable in the same ports by vessels, including their cargoes, of the United States, nor in the ports of any of His Britannic Majesty's territories in Europe on the vessels and cargoes of the United States than shall be payable in the same ports on British vessels or their cargoes." This phase of reciprocity. applied only to the direct trade between the contracting parties, while discriminating duties still governed the trade relations of the United States with the British possessions in the West Indies and North America.

Another phase of American reciprocity was exhibited in the law of 1828, in which reciprocity in tonnage duties was extended to include the indirect, or West Indian, trade between the United States and Great Britain. This principle of reciprocity in indirect as well as direct trade was extended by proclamation to other coun