the shipping interests, for the double purpose of insuring a powerful merchant marine which might render valuable service in case of war, and of pacifying the commercial class in New England who threatened to withdraw their States from the Union whenever their interests seemed to be losing the paternal care of the Government.

The other is that the farmers of the South, enjoying a satisfactory degree of prosperity, having no railroads or other means of rapid communication with the people of the Northern States, enjoying none of the modern facilities for informing themselves, and trusting all public matters to their political leaders, saw no reason why they should abandon their farms and enter into a competition with the experienced ship-builders and traders of the North. They did not realize the stealthy transfer of their wealth to the Northern States until it was too late to hope for an efficient remedy, and even then only a very small per cent of them could be made to understand the causes of their financial decadence. But even if Southern capital had been directed to this competition, the wealth of the farming class would have flowed from them as before, the channel alone being changed. So there was no hope of recovering his lost wealth or of securing the benefits of fair and honorable commercial competition; and the intelligent farmer began to doubt whether he was having his share of the blessings of liberty, to secure which his forefathers had carried his State into the Union.

And this injustice is still irremediable.

NOTE H.

The provision of the Constitution empowering a quorum to do business, thus enabling one-fourth plus one of the total membership to pass important acts, provided they are voted against by onefourth, has led to unforeseen evil results (unless we except Mason

and Randolph, of Virginia, who refused to approve and sign the Constitution because this "two-thirds" provision was stricken out). If a two thirds vote had been required on all bills laying taxes and making appropriations, the tranquillity of the Union might never have been disturbed.

The protective tariff of 1816 was passed in the House of Represen tatives by the affirmative votes of 88 out of a total membership of 183, or 48 per cent.

The "American System" of 1824 was passed by 107 out of 213, or 50 per cent.

The "bill of abominations" of 1828 was passed by 105 out of 213, or 49 per cent.

The tariff act of 1832 was passed by 132 out of 213, or 61 per cent. The tariff of 1842 was passed by 103 out of 243, or 42 per cent. Thus it is seen that the tariff acts up to 1861-those acts which caused, directly or indirectly, nearly all the excitement and antagonism in the Union-were imposed on the people by minority votes, with two exceptions; and that the act which laid the foundation for the threatened rupture in 1832 was passed by 49 per cent of the total membership.

But during all these years the people were flattered by the politicians with rhetorical flourishes about "American citizens," "democratic government," "the popular will," etc.

This minority government is going on yet, and will continue to do so as long as the people believe they are living under a “government of the people, and by the people, and for the people."

CHAPTER VII.

FISHING BOUNTIES.

The first tariff act, which became a law on July 4, 1789, imposed a duty of ten cents per bushel on all salt imported into the United States for consumption, and granted a bounty of five cents a barrel on pickled fish exported, and also on beef and pork exported, and five cents a quintal (100 pounds) on dried fish exported, "in lieu of a drawback of the duties" which had been paid on the salt.

The Act of August 10, 1790, raised the duty on salt to twelve cents--just after Hamilton's scheme of funding and assumption had been fastened on the taxpayers and the bounty on salt fish, beef and pork was raised to ten cents per barrel and quintal.

But this was not concession enough to the fishing interest; the Legislature of Massachusetts sent a petition to Congress asking for "a remission of duties on all the dutiable articles used in the fisheries," whether re-exported or not-salt, rum, tea, sugar, molasses, iron, coarse woolens, lines and hooks, sail-cloth, cordage and tonnage; "and also premiums and bounties." 1 This petition was referred to Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, for a report on it; and his report was that a drawback of duties on articles exported ought to be allowed, but that the fisheries ought not to draw support from the Treasury.2

'Two years before this John Jay had said in the Federalist (No. IV), that these fishermen could supply the markets of France and Britain "cheaper than they can themselves, notwithstanding any efforts to prevent it by bounties on their own, or duties on foreign fish."

2 See Benton's Thirty Years' View, Volume II, pages 194–98.

The underlying motive of this petition was "patriotic" in the highest degree; it was to encourage the fishermen to maintain a "nursery for seamen, nursery for seamen," who would be schooled to manage cruisers and privateers in case of a war. (See Maclay, p. 384). The Legislature forgot the superior advantages of whaling vessels for this service.

The Act of December 31, 1792, changed the bounty from barrels and quintals of fish to the tonnage of the vessels employed in the business, granting 30 cents per ton for each season, whether any fish were exported or not.

The Act of March 3, 1797, advanced the tax on imported salt to 20 cents per bushel, and a corresponding increase was made in the bounties both to exported provisions and pickled fish, and in the allowance to fishing vessels.

The Act of March 3, 1799, granted a bounty of 30 cents per barrel on exported pickled fish, and 25 cents per barrel on exported salted beef and pork.

Thus stood matters until 1807, when, on the recommendation of President Jefferson, the salt tax was abolished, and with it all bounties and allowances to fishing vessels, to pickled fish, and to salted beef and pork.

In 1813, however, the exigencies of war furnished an excuse for restoring the tax of 20 cents per bushel on imported salt; and the threats of secession in the New England States furnished an excuse for a considerable enlargement of the "bounty of the Nation."

The act of that year, July 29, left out the farmer's beef and pork; and granted 20 cents a barrel on all pickled fish exported, and an additional bounty per ten as follows: One dollar and sixty cents per ton if the vessel were under twenty tons; $2.40 per ton if under thirty tons and over twenty; and $4 per ton if over thirty tons.

which have been or may be adjudged to be forfeited for a breach of the laws of the United States, being wholly owned by a citizen or citizens thereof, and no other, may be registered as hereinafter directed," etc.

This act, which has never been repealed, compels every person, corporation, State, and even the United States, whenever a necessity arises, to purchase, lease or employ in any way any ship or vessel, to make the purchase, etc., in the "home market "; and it is not necessary to assure the reader that every advantage has been taken which the act permits.

More than a century has this monopoly been fleecing the people, either directly, whenever they have had occasion to purchase or hire a vessel, or indirectly, through the military branch of the Federal Government whenever it has needed to purchase or hire transports for troops or war material. The delay in transporting troops, etc., to Cuba, Manila, etc., during the present war with Spain is familiar to readers of newspapers. "Outrageous prices," as the Philadelphia Record calls them, have been charged by the ship-owners. On the 17th of September, 1898, a check for $1,475,000 was given in payment of the rental of four ocean steamers of the American line, which were in the Federal service "for an average period of nearly one hundred and twenty days." This is about $3,070 per day for each ship, or $820,550 per year; and the last sum is about five times the total cost ($165,868) of the fifteen iron and steel steamships built in Pennsylvania in 1889.-Census, 1890, Manf. Ind., Part 3, 564.

How large a stream of wealth this paternalism has caused to flow from the South to the North, and chiefly to New England, we may never know; but we may not err greatly if we draw inferences from the parallel paternalism complained of in the address to "the Inhabitants