Author 
 
 Title 
 
 Glass 
 
 Book 
 
 3«I)fl.i3-Sl. Imprint 
 
 C 5 C .54 
 
 It*— WWO-l gpo 
 
SPEECH 
 
 C. C. CLAY, JR., OF ALABAMA, 
 
 THE BILL INTRODUCED BY HIM TO REPEAL TIIE 
 FISHING BOUNTIES. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAT 4, 185S. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the bill introduced by Hr. Clay, of 
 Alabama, for the repeal *©f the fishing bounties — Mr. CLAY said: 
 
 Mr. President : " The catching of cod is a very momentous concern," said Fisher 
 Ames in the first Congress of the Union, and, sir, this sentiment has been re- 
 peated so often, and so emphatically, that many persons, without au examination 
 of the subject, have taken it for granted that "the catching of cod is a very 
 momentous concei-n." Indeed, considering the peculiar, extraordinary, and 
 exclusive favor with which cod catching has been treated by the Congress of 
 the United States, any one might conclude that the catching of cod is a most 
 momentous concern. 
 
 It is my purpose to inquire into the reason why Mr. Ames said, in 1789, that 
 the catching of cod is a most momentous concern, for the purpose of vindicating 
 him from the suspicion of trifling with the truth, and of alleging what he did 
 not believe, for the sake of achieving some sectional advantage. The dignity, 
 purity, and elevation of his character, forbid the idea that he would have been 
 guilty of any such assertion if he had not really believed it true. A comparison 
 of the relations of cod fishing to the tonnage, commerce, revenue, and seamen 
 of the United States, at that day, will show that he did not speak without 
 warrant of reason, and authority of facts ; and a similar comparison of those 
 relations at this day, will show that, however truly it may have been uttered 
 by him, it would be simply ridiculous and absurd, at this time, to say that 
 " the catching of cod is a very momentous concern." 
 
 However, sir, before proceeding to exhibit this comparison, I must show the 
 peculiar and extraordinary favor with which this interest has been treated. 
 How much was paid to the fisheries, under the sj-stem of allowances, in lieu of 
 drawback to the shippers or exporters of fish, 1 am not prepared to say ; but 
 since 1792, when the system of tonnage allowances was adopted, there have 
 been paid to the cod fisheries the sum of $12,128,532. They have received, 
 annually, an average sum exceeding two hundred and five thousand dollars. 
 During the last ten years, they have received an annual average sum of 
 $323,046. This large sum has been divided among about fifteen thousand persons, 
 supposing that the fishermen have shared the bounty together with the owners 
 of the fishing vessels, or it has been divided among only about two or, at most, 
 three thousand owners of fishing vessels. Of this sum of $12,128,532, the States 
 of Maine and Massachusetts have received more than eleven-twelfths, or 
 $1 1,295,298, while the other States have received, in the aggregate, but $833,234. 
 
 Printed by Lemuel Towers. 
 
 ^ 
 
Of the two thousand and eighty-eight vessels in the trade last year, one thou- 
 sand nine hundred and twenty-eight were owned in the States of Maine and 
 Massachusetts; the remaining one hundred and sixty were divided between 
 three States — Connecticut owning one hundred and thirty four, New Hampshire 
 but twenty-five, and Rhode Island but one. Of the fourteen thousand six hun- 
 dred and sixteen fishermen reported to be employed in this trade, thirteen 
 thousand four hundred and ninety-six belong to Maine and Massachusetts, and 
 the remaining one thousand one hundred and twenty to three States — Connec- 
 ticut having nine hundred and thirty-eight, New Hampshire one hundred and 
 seventy-five, and Rhode Island but seven. 
 
 Tims, sir, it appears that this is a purely local interest, confined to a very 
 small section of the United States, and a small class of the citizens of the United 
 States, found, I may say, within but two States of the Union. Now, consider- 
 ing the small number of persons who have participated in this bounty of the 
 Government, and the large benefit which has been bestowed upon them, it is 
 matter of special wonder that it should have been tolerated so long, and might 
 justly induce tho opinion that it had been, in the consideration of Congress, of 
 most momentous concern. The inducements, or arguments, in favor of the 
 fishing allowances presented by Mr. Ames, Mr. Gerry, and other distinguished 
 advocates of that interest, in 1792, were that it would increase the commerce, 
 the revenue, and the seamen of the United States. Mr. Gerry said, " to support 
 the fisheries is to support the revenue," and he undertook to show "the dimi- 
 nution of revenue in consequence of the failure of the fisheries." Mr. Ames said, 
 "it is an immense fund of wealth." and "will enrich while it will protect the 
 nation." From the exhibition which I shall make of the relative importance of 
 this interest compared with the other interests of the United States at that 
 time, I repeat, these assertions were not without warrant of reason.. 
 
 The total tonnage of the United States in 1790, was but two hundred and 
 seventy-four thousand three hundred and seventy-seven tons, of which that 
 employed in the cod fisheries was thirty-one thousand eight hundred and forty- 
 two tons; the proportion of the cod fish tonnage to the other tonnage of the 
 United States being as one to seven, or in other words, the cod fish tonnage 
 constituting, at lhat time, one-eighth of the entire tonnage of the United States. 
 But how is it at this time? In 1857, the total tonnage of the United States, in 
 round numbers, was, say five millions — for it wanted only fifty-nine thousand 
 of that nun-ber — of which that employed in the cod fisheries was but one hun- 
 dred ard iour thousand five hundred and seventy-three tons, the proportion of 
 the c<_d l>ah tonnage to the other tonnage of the United States being as one to 
 forty-seven, or in other words, constituting but one forty-eighth part of the en- 
 tire tonnage of the United States. Since 1790 the cod fish tonnage has increased 
 but three-fold, while the other tonnage of the United States has been increased 
 about twenty-fold. 
 
 So in respect to commerce. Mr. Ames said, in 17S9, that, in 1774, previous 
 to the Revolution, the. value of exported cod was upwards of a million dollars. 
 If so, at that time it constituted one-sixth of the whole commerce of the United 
 States ; for the value of the aggregate domestic products of the United States, 
 at that time, was but $6,165,413. In 1804, the total domestic exports of the 
 United States were ;41,467,477; of which exported cod made $2,400,000. At 
 that time, the proportion was as one to seventeen and two-tenths, in 1857, 
 however, the total domestic exports of the United States were $338,985,065 ; 
 of which the value of the exported cod was but $570,348 ; the proportion being ' 
 about as one to six hundred. The decrease in the value of exported cod, since 
 1804, has been $1,829,652; while the increase in value of the other domestic 
 exports of the United States has been $297,517,5S8. 
 
 So in respect to revenue*. As I have shown before, at first the exports of c«d 
 amounted to about one-sixth of the total exports of the United States, ar>d, of 
 course, brought in foreign goods in exchange, which furnished, I may say, one- 
 sixth of the revenue of the United States. At this day, however, && I shall 
 show after a while, the cod fisheries, instead of adding to, are annually abstract- 
 ing from the revenue of the United States. Where they put one dollar into the 
 Treasury they draw more than twelve out 
 
 In Exchange 
 Duko University 
 AUG 1 » 193*3 
 

 Thus it appears that all the predictions of the value of the cod fisheries as an 
 immense source of wealth, made by their advocates in 1792, have proven false 
 and delusive. At this time they forth but a forty-eighth part of the tonnage of 
 the United states, but a six-hundredth part of the commerce of the United 
 States, and instead of adding to the revenue, they annually abstract from the 
 revenue nearly three hundred thousand dollars more than they put in. Who, 
 then, at this day, considering the cod fisheries in their relation to the commerce, 
 the tonnage, and the revenue of the United States, can say that they are of 
 very momentous concern ? 
 
 But, sir, it will be urged, as it was urged in that day, that the cod fisheries 
 are the nurseries of American seamen. This, too, was urged with some show 
 of reason in 1792, for at that time cod fishermen composed, perhaps, about one- 
 half of the American seamen. We had, at that time, no other fishery except 
 the whale fishery. We had no fisheries around the coast of Florida, or in the 
 Gulf of Mexico, or on the Pacific coast; no herring, no mackerel fishery, no 
 fishery in the great lakes in the Northwest. We had but little commerce, and 
 not sufficient vessels or seamen even to carry that. Then it was said, wi$jappa- 
 rent reason, that the cod fishery is the nursery of seamen ; but at this time, as 
 I have shown, the cod fishery bears an unimportant relation to the commerce 
 and tonnage of the United States. At this time, instead of composing nearly 
 half of all the seamen of the United States, it composes not exceeding one-thir- 
 teenth part, for we have over one hundred and sixty thousand seamen engaged 
 in the mackerel fishery, in the whale fishery, in the merchant service, and in the 
 military marine of the United States; while there are but thirteen thousand 
 employed in the cod fisheries. 
 
 These inducements, which were presented for fostering the cod fisheries, no 
 longer exist ; and if they were the only arguments in support of the bounty 
 now conferred on them, that bounty should be repealed. But, sir, I deny that 
 these were the inducements for the enactment of these laws. They were argu- 
 ments that were urged in favor of them ; but the true reason of each of these 
 laws was the salt duty. The salt duty was the source of all the allowances, 
 whether called drawbacks or bounties, which have been bestowed by any of 
 these laws upon the cod fisheries; and that I think I shall be able to show to 
 the satisfaction of the Senate. 
 
 The reason of the law, I have said, was the salt duty. The law was predi- 
 cated upon the idea that duties should be levied upon the consumption, and not 
 upon the production, of fhe country; upon the imports, and no* upon the ex- 
 ports. It was said, with a good deal of plausibilit}', that a man who exports 
 an article which he has imported, and on which he has paid the i .port duty, 
 should have that duty refunded ; because it would be exchanged for some for- 
 eign article which would be brought into the country, and would again pay 
 duty; and if you did not refund him the duty on the exported article, it would 
 be equivalent to taxing him with double duty. In each of these acts, I main- 
 tain that it was the purpose of Congress to give a drawback, and not a bounty. 
 
 The difference between a drawback and bounty is well understood by the 
 Senate, but may not be understood by the country; and I shall define what I 
 understand to be that difference, in order that the country may appreciate pro- 
 perly the wrong done them by the present bounties bestowed on the cod fishe- 
 ries. Drawback is a mere return of the duty paid by n importer of an arti- 
 cle, upon his exportation of that article. It is refunding him his own money. 
 It is, as said by Mr. Madison, in debate, in 1792, merely paying a debt — a debt 
 due from the Government to the exporter of an article for moneys advanced by 
 him to the Government upon importing that article. Bounty, on the other 
 hand, is a gratuity, a premium bestowed upon the producers, the exporters, or 
 the importers of certain articles, or upon those who engage ships in certain 
 trades. Drawback is founded upon a valuable- consideration — bounty upon 
 mere governmental favor. 
 
 Having explained this distinction, I repeat tnat the purpose of all these laws 
 was to give drawback and not bounty — that the fishermen themselves did not 
 ask bounty, but drawback — that they did not sue for favor, but demanded jus- 
 tice. They said, give us what you give the merchant on the exportation of an 
 
article imported by him ; return us our money — that is all we ask. Drawback, 
 and not bounty, was all that was advocated by the representatives of fisher- 
 men in either House of Congress. They repudiated the charge of seeking 
 bounty; they denied it, and protested that they only asked drawback, and no 
 bounty. Drawback, and not bounty, was all Congress intended to give. 
 
 A brief abstract of the several acts on the subject of fishing allowances, will 
 show that such was the intention of Congress as expressed in the acts them- 
 selves. .1 shall not weary the patience of the Senate by going over those acts, 
 but will present a brief summary of such phrases in each of the acts as will 
 establish the position I assume. In the first tariff act passed by the first Con- 
 gress of the United States, on the 4th of July, 1789, a duty of six cents per 
 bushel was laid on imported salt. The fourth section of the same act granted 
 five cents for every quintal of dried, and every barrel of pickled fish, or of 
 salted provisions, exported to foreign countries; and declared that this allowance 
 was made, to use the language of the act, "in lieu of drawback of the duties on 
 the importation of the salt employed and expended therein." Thus it appears 
 that the duty exceeded the allowance in lieu of drawback by one cent per bushel 
 of salt; and the fishermen afterwards complained that they did not really get 
 an equivalent for the drawback; that the Government was still their debtor for 
 something more than they had received. The reason of this assertion was, that 
 they said it required a bushel of salt for each quintal of dried or every barrel 
 of pickled fish; and that, as they had paid six cents a bushel on importing the 
 salt as duty, and received but five cents per quintal of dried, or barrel of 
 pickled fish in return, they did not receive the full amount of their drawback. 
 
 The act of August 4, 1790, made stringent provisions, requiring full proof 
 that the fish or provisions had been exported, and had been cured with foreign 
 salt that paid duty, before the drawback was paid. The act of August 10, 1790, 
 doubled the duty on salt, raising it from six to twelve cents; and doubled the 
 allowance on the fish or provisions exported, raising it to ten cents per quintal 
 and ten cents per barrel; and declared, to quote the language of the act, that 
 this was done " in lieu of a drawback of the duty on the salt expended there- 
 upon" 
 
 Up to this period of time there can be no dispute — there is no ground for dis- 
 puting the assertion that drawback, and not bounty, was all that was granted 
 by Congress; but then the system was changed on the petition of the fishermen 
 themselves. By the act of February 18, 1792, the allowance was shifted from 
 the shipper, or exporter of the fish, to the owner of the fishing vessel, and from 
 the exported fish to the tonnage of the vessel. This was done at the instance 
 of the fishermen themselves, and I will read a brief- extract from one of their 
 memorials in order to show what they expected to get, and what they asked. 
 They said "that the bounty granted to the 1 fishery by Congress" — they called 
 it bounty, and I am amazed to find that the term bounty is frequently used in 
 the law, although inappropriately, according to the strict import of the term — 
 " as a compensation for the duty on salt will not operate to that effect so effectu- 
 allv as if paid direct into the hands of the owners of the vessels, instead of the 
 shippers of the fish." 
 
 In pursuance of this and other memorials Congress shifted the allowance from 
 the shipper of th« fish to the owner of the fishing vessel, allowing so much per 
 ton for each ton of the vessel employed in the cod fishery. It did not give, or 
 propose to give, however, anything more than the drawback. 
 
 Mr. FESSENDEN. When was that? 
 
 Mr. CLAY. On the 18th of February, 1792. The amount of the allowance 
 on the tonnage was regulated by the quantity of salt consumed in curing the 
 fish. It was said that each quintal of fish required a bushel of salt, and it was 
 estimated that the average quantity of fish taken to each ton would be twelve; 
 and therefore the duty multiplied by twelve gave the allowance per ton to each 
 vessel employed in the cod fishery. Now, it will be remarked, and may be urged 
 in ar^imeut on the other side of this question, that this tonnage allowance 
 varied with the size of the vessel, and hence it may be maintained that really 
 more was given in the way of tonnage allowance than had been given in the 
 
5 
 
 way of drawback on the exported fish. But, in reply to that assertion, it will 
 be found that the tonnage allowance, although it may have exceeded somewhat 
 the drawback on the larger clas8 of vessels, fell below it on the smaller vessels 
 more than it exceeded it on the larger, and thus in the aggregate, as alleged 
 by the advocates of this law, the Government probably paid out, less in the 
 way of tonnage allowance than it did in the way of drawback. Besides, there 
 was a maximum aggregate allowance fixed by law, which could not be exceeded, 
 although falling short of the duty paid by the vessel on the salt it consumed. 
 
 The advocates of the act of 1792 maintained that the Government, as well 
 as the fishermen, would save money by the change proposed. I will read a 
 brief extract from the speech of every advocate of the fishing bounty in 1792, 
 made in Congress, in order to show what they intended, or professed to intend, 
 in the enactment of the law.. Mr. Goodhue, of Massachusetts, on the 3d of 
 February, 1792, speaking of the objections to the existing mode of paving the 
 allowance in lieu of drawback to the shipper or exporter of the fish, said : 
 
 "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 draw- 
 back, as Government will not lose a single dollar by the eliange. The gentle- 
 man from Virginia [Mr. Giles] talks of the unconstitutionality of granting 
 bounties; bub no bounty is required. 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 docuinents'from 
 the Treasury Office." 
 
 And then he read a statement and calculation, to prove his assertion, and to 
 show that the United States would probably save a thousand dollars per annum 
 by making the proposed change. Mr. Ames, of Massachusetts, said on the same 
 day: 
 
 "Though the whole is intended for the benefit of the fishery, about one-fourth 
 of what is paid is not so applied ; there is a heavy loss both to Government and 
 the fishery. Even what is paid on the export is nearly lost money; the bounty 
 is not paid till the exportation, nor then, till six months have elapsed; whereas, 
 the duty on salt is paid before the fish is taken — it is paid fcb the exporter, not • 
 to the fishermen. The bounty is so indirect that the poor fisherman loses sight 
 of it. It, is paid to such persons, in such places, and at such periods, as to dis- 
 appoint its good effects; passing through so many hands, and paying so many 
 profits to each, it is almost absorbed." * * « * 
 
 "Yet, instead of asking bounties, or a, remission of duties on the article con- 
 sumed, we ask nothing but to give us our money back, which you received un- 
 der an engagement to pay it back, in case the article should be' exported." * * 
 
 " The drawback falls near nine thousand dollars short of the salt duty received 
 by the Government." ***** 
 
 " We rely on the evidence before you, that the public will not sustain the 
 charge of a dollar." 
 
 Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, said on the same dav: 
 
 "It is now proposed to make a further commutation; e.-ntlemen call this a 
 bounty on occupation; but is there any proposition ihade Cor paying to the 
 fishermen, or other persons concerned in the fishery, any sums which we have 
 not previously received from them? If this were the case; it would indeed be 
 a bounty, but if we beforehand Receive from them as much as the allowance 
 amounts to, there is no bounty granted at all. 
 
 "The only question now is, whether this be a direct bounty, or simply a com- 
 mutation of the allowance already granted by Congress." 
 
 Mr. Livermore, of New Hamshire, said on the 6th of February; i7')2 : 
 
 "If gentlemen are disputing only because the word 'bounty' is in the bill, 
 they may be perfectly relieved from their uneasiness on that score ; for the bill 
 expressly says ' that the bounty now allowed upon the exportation of dried fish, 
 
6 
 
 of the fisheries of the United States, shall cease, and in lieu thereof,' a different 
 kind of encouragement to be given. Here is no reason to dispute about a word. 
 If gentlemen are disposed to consent to the principle of the bill, that the draw- 
 back of the duties on salt shall be commuted for a certain sum, to encourage 
 the fishermen, they will vote in favor of the bill ; if not, they will vote against 
 it But it is impossible for me to conceive why any gentleman under heaven 
 ahould be against it." * * * * * 
 
 " It does not lay a farthing of bounty or duty on any other persons than those 
 who are immediately concerned in it It will serve them, and will not injure 
 anybody." 
 
 Mr. Lawrence, of New York, said: 
 
 " From examining the section, he conceived it contemplated no more than 
 what the merchant ia entitled to under the existing laws. The merchant is now 
 entitled to the drawback, but it is found by experience that the effect has not 
 been to produce that encouragement of the fishermen it was expected ; and he 
 presumed the way was perfectly clear to give a new direction to the drawback ; 
 and this is all that is aimed at in the bill." 
 
 Mr. Madison, of Virginia, participated in the debate ; and I wish to call par- 
 ticular attention to his remarks, because, in the recent resolutions of the Legis- 
 lature of the State of Maine, he is spoken of as one of the fathers of this sys- 
 tem, and it is due to his memory to vindicate him from the reproach of being 
 the advocate of bounties. On the other hand, he combated, in an elaborate 
 and able argument, the doctrine of " the general welfare," then first put forth 
 by General Hamilton ; and he supported the bill expressly on the ground that 
 it was a mere commutation of drawback, but no bounty. Mr. Madison said : 
 
 " I think, however, that the term bounty is in every point of view improper, 
 as it is here applied, not only because it may be offensive to some, and, in the 
 opinion of others, carries a dangerous implication, but also because it does not 
 express the true intention of the bill, as avowed and advocated by its patrons 
 themselves. For if, in the allowance, nothing more is proposed than a mere re- 
 imbursement of the sum advanced, it is only paying a debt; and when we pay 
 a debt we ought not to claim the merit of granting a bounty." 
 
 Mr. Bourne, of Massachusetts, said: 
 
 "The object of the first section in this bill is intended for the relief of the 
 fishermen and their owners. They complain that the law now in force was 
 meant for their benefit, by granting a drawback on the fish exported; this they 
 find by experience is not the case, for they say that neither the fishermen who 
 catch the fish, nor the importer of the 6alt, receive the drawback; and I rather 
 suppose, sir, it is the case." 
 
 Thus I have quoted from ever}' speech in favor of this tonnage allowance in 
 1792, all of which corroborate my assertion that the purpose avowed by the 
 advocates of this system was to secure a drawback and not bounty ; that they 
 all repelled the charge of seeking bounty, and protested that they demanded 
 justice, but sued for no favor. In compliance with this understanding, this act 
 was passed, and every subsequent act which was passed upon the subject ex- 
 presses in itself the same purpose. Thus the act of May, 1792, increased the 
 duty by substituting for the measured bushel of eighty-four pounds the weighed 
 bushel of fifty-six pounds, and added twenty per cent, to the fishing allowance. 
 The act of July, 1797, increased the salt duty to twenty cents a bushel, and 
 added thirty-three and a third per cent to the allowance. The act of April, 
 1800, continued this allowance for ten years, which would have expired in 1800 
 by the limitation of the last act of 1797, but continued it on this express con- 
 dition : 
 
 "The said allowances shall not be understood to be continued for a longer 
 time than the correspondent duties respectively, for which such allowances were 
 granted, shall be payable." 
 
 The act of May, 1807, repealed the duty and the allowances. At the time 
 that act was passed, scarce a word was said in defense of the fisheries ; all the 
 
resistance was against the repeal of the duty, because the advocates of the 
 fisheries seemed to take it for granted that if the duty were repealed the allow - 
 aace would be repealed, as a matter of course. They all regarded it, as it really 
 was, but an incident of the salt duty, deriving its existence from the salt duty, 
 and necessarily dying with the salt duty. The act of July, 1813, revived the 
 duty of twenty cents a bushel on salt, and gave a drawback of twenty cents 
 on pickled fish, and a proportionate bounty on tonnage. The act of March, 
 1819, increased the boxinty. A change of the tonnage allowance always fol- 
 lowed every change in the salt duty. It originated with the salt duty, rose 
 with the salt duty, perished with the salt duty, was revived with the salt duty, 
 was increased with the salt duty, and has been continued with the salt duty ; 
 but has not been reduced with the duty. 
 
 Thus, sir, upon the face of the acts themselves, I think it is perfectly manifest 
 that the purpose of Congress was to grant a drawback, but no bounty. In re- 
 spect to these tonnage allowances, I find that iu 1816, when a resolution was 
 offered for their repeal, Mr. Reed maintained that the tonnage allowance was 
 not equal to the drawback. He stated ' hat though it might exceed it on some 
 vessels, iu the aggregate it fell short of the drawback. Such was perhaps the 
 fact. 
 
 The fishermen themselves always understood and construed the law as giv- 
 ing drawback, and not bounty. After the repeal of the salt duty, and the al- 
 lowances, in 180*7, many of them came to Congress with memorials praying to 
 be paid the allowance, on the ground that they had purchased the salt, and 
 paid duty on it before the repeal of the law; and iu some instances the vessel 
 had been east away, or the salt landed in a foreign country. In each and 
 every instance, it will be found that they treated the allowance as a mere 
 drawback, or commutation of the drawback, of the salt duty. For exam- 
 ple, here is the memorial of several persons residing in Portsmouth, iu which 
 they say: 
 
 "The salt employed by said vessels in said voyages had paid the highest duty 
 on that article, for they sailed with all their salt on board, nearly two months 
 before the duty was reduced at all. As the allowance was expressly granted 
 in consideration of the duty, the full allowance is due, as the full duty has been 
 paid. Justice would say that, having paid the duty without any diminution, 
 they ought to receive the allowance without any diminution." 
 
 Here is the petition of others, of the town of Killingworth, Connecticut, in 
 which they say : 
 
 " Your petitioners, however, believe that the circumstances herein related 
 bring them within the spirit of the law allowing a bounty; that the salt sent 
 in said vessel has, in fact, been exported. And your petitioners cannot persuade 
 themselves that it was the intention of Congress to allow the bounty only to 
 the fortunate. The revenue is no more injured in this case than in other 
 cases where a bounty is received; and the fishermen sent out in the vessel 
 have been employed in the fishery for the whole period required by law." 
 
 I might multiply these illustrations of the construction of the fishermen 
 themselves, but will rest with these. All of them show, however, that they 
 regarded this as an allowance in lieu of drawback, as nothing more than draw- 
 back, and no bounty. 
 
 Such has been the construction of the Treasury Department from the time of 
 Jfcr. Jtarwlton down to that of Mr. Woodbury; for in all their annual reports 
 You will find that they exhibit the proceeds of the salt duty in this manner: 
 ferst, they show the aggregate nunber of bushels imported, then the aggregate 
 number exported, then the allowances to the fishing vessels; then they convert 
 those allowances into bushels of salt at the existing rate of duty, and subtract 
 them fnom the gross number of bushels imported, and then give the result as 
 th« net amount of salt paying duty. 
 
 It appears, then, by the language of the acts themselves, by the arguments 
 of the advocates of those acts, by the memorials of the fishermen praying for 
 those acts, by the construction of those acts by the fishermen, and by the con- 
 struction of the Treasury Department, that Congress gave, or intended to give, 
 
8 
 
 and the fishermen asked, or professed to ask, nothing more than drawback, and 
 no bounty. 
 
 But, sir, -what is the fact this time? Instead of merely receiving drawback, 
 they now receive a large amount of bounty. This has resulted froifa the reduc- 
 tion of the salt duty, .without any correspondent reduction of the tonnage 
 allowance. Up to 1830, to which time the salt duty was twenty cents on the 
 weighed bushel of fifty-six pounds, which was equal to about thirty cents on 
 the measured bushel of eighty pounds — up to 1830, if they received anything 
 more than drawback, it was probably an inconsiderable amount; but, in that 
 year, the salt duty was reduced from twenty to fifteen cents per bushel ; in 
 1832, to ten cents; and, by the compromise act of 1833, a prospective scale of 
 reduction was made, under which it sank to six ninety-eight-one-hundredths in 
 1840 ; and at this day it amounts to only about two cents per bushel. The differ- 
 ence between the drawback which would be due, and the bounty which is re- 
 ceived ; may be estimated by multiplying the mimber of bushels of salt, allow- 
 ing twelve to the ton, by the duty and subtracting it from the amount paid 
 out. I have done that, and have ] epared a table exhibiting the tonnage of 
 the vessels engaged in the cod fisheries, the allowance paid them, the sums due 
 as drawback, and the excess of bounty over drawback for the period of ten 
 years past. I shall not trouble the Senate to hear it all, but will append it to 
 my remarks.* I will call the attention of the Senate to four periods-of time, 
 equi distant, to show what has been the operation and effect of these laws 
 within the last ten years. In 1848, the tonnage was eighty-two thousand six 
 hundred and fifty-two tons; the allowance paid to the fishing vessels, $243,434; 
 the sums due as drawback, at the rate of duty paid at that time, $22,811 ; the 
 excess of bounty over drawback, $220,622. In 1851, the allowance paid was 
 $328,267 ; the sum due as drawback, at the rate of duty then existing, $25,193 ; 
 and the excess of bounty over drawback, $303,074. In 1854, the tonnage was 
 one hundred and two thousand one hundred and ninety-four; the allowance, 
 $374,286; the sum due as drawback, $31,261 ; and the excess of bounty over 
 drawback, $343,000. In 1857, the tonnage reported was one hundred and four 
 thousand five hundred and seventy-three; the allowance paid, $601,453; the 
 sum due as drawback, at the existing rate of duties, $29,133; and the excess ot 
 bounty above drawback, $572,299. The average tonnage per year for ten 
 years past was ninety-three thousand seven hundred and eighty-two; the ave- 
 rage allowance to the fisheries, $323,046; the average sums due as drawback, 
 $26,612; the average annual excess of bounty over drawback, $292,433; and 
 the aggregate excess of bounty over drawback nearly $3,000,000 — $2,964,336. 
 Thus it appears that the effect of these laws has been widely different from 
 what was intended by Congress in passing them, and what was supposed or ex- 
 pected by the fishermen and their advocates. Thus it appears that the reason 
 of the law has ceased. 
 
 Mr. TOOMBS. What part of the whole salt duty did they absorb ? 
 
 Mr. CLAY. At this day, and during the last ten years, instead of realizing 
 simply a drawback of the duty on the salt consumed by them in the fisheries, 
 they have realized all the salt duty, and not only all the salt duty, but for 
 several years more than the salt duty. This, however, is not a full exhibit of 
 the tax of this system on the people of the United States, because I have esti- 
 mated the drawbacks due the fisheries upon the hypothesis that they imported 
 all their salt, whereas the manufacturers of salt in Massachusetts tell us that 
 they supply the larger part of what is used in the fisheries. It is predicated on 
 the further hypothesis that they consume twelve bushels of salt to the ton, or 
 in other words, that they catch twelve quintals of fish to the ton; whereas Mr. 
 Zeno Scudder, formerly a Representative in the other House from the Barnsta- 
 ble district, the largest fishing district in New England, which has received 
 more than two million dollars in the shape of allowance and bounty, said in 
 August, 1852, in the other branch of Congress, that they average but nine 
 quintals to the ton, instead of twelve. If he was correct, we should add 
 twenty-five per cent, to the excess of bounty as it has been estimated by me. 
 
 Nor, sir, does that exhibit fully the tax upon the Government of the United 
 
9 
 
 States in support of these fisheries. You must , take into consideration the cost 
 of collecting and disbursing this bounty — estimated, by all political economists, 
 at not less than two per cent. — and ranging from two to thirty; but, putting it 
 down to the lowest amount on the $600,000 paid last year, it is no inconsidera- 
 ble sum. Nor does this exhibit all the tax of this system ; for you must remem- 
 ber that there have been revenue boats employed for a series of years, partly 
 in order to watch these fishermen and prevent their committing frauds upon 
 the treasury, and their violation of the laws regulating the cod fisheries; and 
 that there have been four revenue cutters employed partly for the same pur- 
 pose, at an annual expense of about eleven thousand dollars each, stationed 
 upon the coast of New England alone ; while from New York to the mouth of 
 the Rio Grande inclusive, we have but nine employed. My attention was direct- 
 ed to this, and on inquiring at the Treasury Department the reason, I learned 
 that some of these supernumerary cutters and revenue boats had been employed 
 at the instance of the collectors in the fishing districts in New England to watch 
 the fishermen and prevent their violations of the law. I have the evidence at 
 hand to exhibit when this charge is controverted. Thus we pay the fishermen 
 bounty for catching cod, and pay officers and men of revenue cutters and boats 
 to see that they do their work honestly, and do not defraud the Government. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, why shall not these laws be repealed ? I show that the 
 inducements to the laws — if revenue, or commerce, or seamen were the induce- 
 ments — no longer exist. I show that the reason of the law has ceased to exist. 
 I show that the effect of the law is what was never intended, or expected, or 
 desired by the fishermen. I show that they realize a bounty, and it behooves 
 their advocate to show the authority of Congress to grant it. I deny that we 
 have any such power under the Constitution ; I challenge the citation of that 
 clause of the Constitution which warrants bounties, or the citation of any ex- 
 press grant of power to carry out which these bounties are indispensably neces- 
 sarv. On the contrary, I maintain that this power is plainly forbidden in sevo- 
 raldauses of the Constitution, as well as by the whole spirit of that instrument 
 and the theory of our Government. The Constitution declares that "direct 
 taxes shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective 
 numbers ; " that " no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in propor- 
 tion to the census ;" and that " all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform 
 throughout the United States." 
 
 The clear intent of all these clauses was to prevent Congress from imposing 
 greater burdens, or conferring greater benefits, upon some States or some classes 
 of citizens than upon others, and to secure justice, equity, and eqiiality in the 
 collection and the disbursement of the revenue of the Government. Now, sir, 
 suppose a bill for direct taxation was pending before this body, and a motion 
 was made to exempt the citizens of Maine and Massachusetts from its operation, 
 or from the imposition of a tax upon any single article, say their salt, proposed 
 to be collected in the other States of the Union: Senators of the other twenty- 
 nine States woidd revolt at the proposition; and even the Senators of those two 
 States would concede that it was grossly unjust, if not unconstitutional. Sup- 
 pose a tariff bill were now pending, and it was proposed to permit the people 
 of Maine and Massachusetts to import their goods free of duty, or merely to 
 import their salt free of duty, while exacting duty at the other ports of the 
 United States. This, too, all would concede, would be unequal, unjust, and un- 
 constitutional. 
 
 Wherein lies the difference, in principle or effect, between the two cases sup- 
 posed and that which exists. True, the people of Maine and Massachusetts pay 
 a duty on their salt, like other people, but then you refund them that duty, not 
 as drawback, but as bounty; not upon exported fish, cured with foreign salt, 
 but upon all the fish that they catch, whether consumed at home or exported 
 to foreign countries. Yea, you not only pay them all the duty received from 
 them, but you give them all the duty received from everybody else. You re- 
 fund them their sir,, nun paid as duty on salt, and superadd $292,000 collected 
 off other people as duty upon salt. You give them twelve hundred per cent. 
 more than they pay in. For every dollar which they put in the treasui \ a= a 
 duty upon salt, you return them twelve and a half dollars. 
 
10 
 
 Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to understand the argument of the Senator. 
 Will he allow me to ask him a question ? 
 
 Mr. CLAY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. FESSENDEN. Do I understand him to press his argument in reference 
 to the unconstitutionality of the bounty, or whatever it may be, as founded on 
 the unequal operation of it ? 
 
 Mr. CLAY. Yes, sir; partly. 
 
 Mr. FESSENDEN". Well, sir, I can only say that I do not understand that 
 argument as a legal one; that because an act operates unequally, ergo it is une- 
 qual in view of the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. It is either intended to operate unequally, or it necessarily does 
 operate unequally. 
 
 Mr. FESSENDEN. We must judge by its terms. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. Mr. President, to proceed with what I was saying, I ask wherein 
 lies the difference between exempting one State from the payment of taxes or 
 duties to the Government, and refunding it all its duties or taxes? Wherein 
 lies the difference between exempting the people of Maine and Massachusetts 
 from the payment of any salt duty, and refunding them all that they pay? 
 Why, sir, in principle it is the same thing. Can you say that taxes are appor- 
 tioned among the several States according to numbers, or that all duties, im- 
 posts, and excises are uniform throughout the United States, if you collect du- 
 ties or collect taxes from every State, and then give the duties or taxes thus col- 
 lected to one or two States? Is this imposing equal burdens and conferring 
 equal benefits on the several States, and the people who compose the States, as 
 clearly intended by those clauses of the Constitution which I have read ? It 
 would be far better for the interests of other tax-paj'ers, and of the other 
 twenty-nine States of this Union, if the people of Maine and Massachusetts 
 were permitted to import their salt free of duty; because then, instead of pay- 
 ing them $328,000 a year, we should remit them but $26,000; we should pay 
 th«m but a dollar where we now pay them twelve and a half. 
 
 Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator allow me to ask him another question 
 in reference to the legal point? 
 
 Mr. CLAY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. FESSENDEN. According to hi3 argument, if the people of one State 
 did not use as much of a particular imported article which paid a duty as the 
 people of another State proportionately, the law would be unconstitutional 
 because it operated unequally ? 
 
 Mr. CLAY. Not at alL 
 
 Mr. FESSENDEN. Certainly that would follow from the argument. It is 
 a necessary consequence of the argument. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. I think not. I further maintain that this is unconstitutional 
 because it is unjust. Nothing is proper or tolerable in legislation which is un- 
 just. " To establish justice" the Constitution was framed and the Union was 
 formed. Justice is the spirit of the Constitution and the bond of the Union, 
 without which the Constitution is valueless, and the Union a curse. Justice is 
 equality, is confering equal bounties and imposing equal burdens upon all the 
 States, and all classes of citizens within the States. 
 
 Now, sir, I ask what can be more unjust than this bounty paid to the cod fishe- 
 ries. Is it just to exact of the mackerel, and herring, and other fishermen, a pay- 
 ment of the duty upon their salt, and to exempt the cod fishermen from the pay- 
 ment of the same duty ? Is this uniform taxation? Wherein, 1 repeat, lies the dif- 
 ference between exempting cod fishermen from the duty and returning them the 
 duty ? Is it just to require of the beef and pork packers of the West, and of the 
 farmers of the entire Union, the payment of a duty on the salt which they con- 
 sume, and to relieve the fishermen of the same burden in support of the Govern- 
 ment? Is it just, or rather can anything be more unjust than not only to relieve 
 the cod fishermen from this burden imposed upon other citizens of the United 
 
11 
 
 States, but to give thorn the proceeds of th at. burden as a bounty? I should 
 like to know what excuse the representatives of the other twenty-nine States 
 of this Union can render to their constituents for sustaining a system which 
 taxes a common necessary of life, the salt which thej T use, in order to raise 
 bounties for a privileged class of two or three thousand, or afc most fifteen 
 thousand persons ? , 
 
 Since the doctrine of protection has been exploded, and is without a party 
 in the country, or even an advocate in Congress, upon what principle can this 
 bounty be maintained or defended? It is the extremest, greatest, and worst 
 kind of protection ; exceeding protecting duties, or prohibiting duties, or exemp- 
 tion from paying duties, or remission of duties. It is taking money derived from 
 taxing the many, and giving it to the favored few. Here arc twelve or fourteen 
 thousand men, if the fishermen get the bounty, or less than three thousand if 
 the owners get it, receiving $300,000 annually from the Treasury as a pure gra- 
 tuity ; not for what they have done, or are doing, or will do for the Treasury 
 or the Government, or the people of the United States ; but for what they are doing 
 for themselves, for pursuing their own business, for working for themselves, for 
 catching cod fish ! The consideration of this bounty is the catching and selling, or 
 cooking and eating, of cod fish ; the filling of their own purses, or stomachs! For 
 this they are made pensioners of the Government — the only civil, the only 
 honorary pensioners; for this they are preferred above all other fishermen, all 
 other men of all other occupations; for this they are made peevdiar, extraordi- 
 nary, and exclusive favorites ; for this they are honored and advanced above 
 all other classes of pensioners. All other pensions rest upon some past and 
 valuable consideration — upon public services, or losses sustained, or sufferings 
 endured for the Government in the army or navy ; but for this no such sup- 
 port can be found. The cod fishermen are not in the public service ; they 
 nave not been public servants ; they have not lost their limbs, or their health, 
 or suffered any injury, or incurred any peril, in the public service, at the call 
 of their country. They are pensioners, not by merit, but by mere favorl 
 
 No ; it is not what they are or have been, or do or have done, or must or 
 will do, for their country, that they are fostered and fed by Government; it is 
 for what they may do in the future ; it is upon the possibility of future service, 
 that they are thus made stipendariesof Government. We may need these men 
 to man our ships, say their advocates; therefore, we should cultivate their 
 patriotism, and encourage their piscatory pastimes or pursuits, by an annual 
 conciliatory bribe of $300,000. They are the nurselings of the sea ; the nas- 
 cent Neptunes whose hands may direct our navies, defend our commerce, and 
 decide the destiny of our country in war ! If war comes, where can you find 
 seamen, save in the cod-fisheries? Nowhere! Not among the four thousand 
 mackerel, nor the twenty thousand whale fishermen, nor the one hundred and 
 thirty thousand merchant sailors, nor the seven thousand navy seamen ; not 
 among these one hundred and sixty-one thousand men is there skill, courage, 
 and patriotism enough to fight our naval battles. No, younmst look to the cod 
 fishermen to dare the dangers of the deep, and defy the terrors of gunpowder, 
 and grapple with our foes! 
 
 Surely, if the destinies of our common country centre in the cod fisheries, then 
 we may exclaim with Fisher Ames, " the catching of cod is a very momentous 
 eonoern." 
 
 Let us examine this bold and startling proposition, and see how far it can be 
 sustained by facts or by arguments. No class of men can claim a monopoly of 
 patriotism or of courage ; and the cod fishermen cannot prove their title to a 
 larger share of these virtues than other fishermen or sailors. Neither can any 
 satisfactory or sufficient reason be assigned why they are or should become 
 better seamen. 
 
 Why should they excel the mackerel fishermen in skill, courage, or patriot- 
 ism ? They are of the same race, derived from the same origin, speak the same 
 language, worship the same God, live under the same government, and pursue 
 similar vocations. Mr. Scudder says the mackerel fishing is pursued in the 
 same or similar vessels, in the same waters, at the same season of the year, and 
 often by the same men, and is fraught with ecpual toil and danger. Wherein 
 
lies the difference of merit or value to the country between the catchers of 
 mackerel and the catchers of cod? Mr. Scudder said there was none, and that 
 they were equally entitled to Government favor. Certainly there can be no 
 difference, unless it be imparted by the food. If the opinion of some philoso- 
 phers or poets be true, that men partake of the nature of the animal on which 
 they feed, perhaps there may be greater virtue in catching cod than mackerel 
 or herring. • 
 
 Why should they be better seamen than whale fishermen ? A cod-fish voy- 
 age is of four months ; a whaling voyage of two to four years. Are four months' 
 tuition in cod fishing worth more than four years' whaling? A cod-fish ex- 
 cursion is of a few hundred miles ; a whaling cruise of twenty thousand miles. 
 Is more learned in a short trip to Newfoundland than a long one in doubling 
 Cape Horn ? Does casting the lines for cod require greater skill, dexterity, 
 strength, or courage, than harpooning the whale ? Is more learned in a fishing 
 smack or fore-and-aft schooner of five or forty tons than in a whaling ship of 
 one thousand or more tons ? The smack has no yards, but two masts, and three 
 sails — jib, foresail, and main-sail — all managed by halliards or ropes and pul- 
 leys, without getting off decks; the sails are unfurled or furled by pulling or 
 letting go a rope. But the great whale ship has its three masts, its twenty-odd 
 sails rising one above the'other to ihe top-gallants, and its sixteen or more yards 
 supporting the sails — the very names of which are unknown to the cod-fisher- 
 man, because never used by him. He has not to go aloft to furl or reef sails, 
 and could not if ordered. He never learns the duties or even the dialect of a 
 whaler, or merchantman, or war vessel ; and on board of them would have no 
 advantage over the land-lubber, except in walking the deck, and escaping sea- 
 sickness. The mere inspection of a smack and a square-rigged ship will show 
 that the former is no school on which to learn how to manage the latter. The 
 contrast is as great as between a log cabin and the labyrinth of Crete ; and the 
 cod fisherman would scarcely be more at fault in the labyrinth than in the 
 ship. 
 
 I do not utter these things without some authority. I understand from 
 naval offipers that all the advantage a cod fisherman has over a mere "land- 
 lubber " is in having learned to " rough it," to walk the deck, and escape sea- 
 sickness ; but they say that they would rather take a raw recruit who had 
 learned nothing, than to take a cod fisherman whom they would have to un- 
 learn before they could teach. I hold in my hand the Plymouth Rock, pub- 
 lished in one of the fishing districts of New England, in which I find this lan- 
 guage : 
 
 " The reasons why cod fishermen can never become proficient as 'ordinary 
 seamen ' are too familiar to every man upon the sea-coast to need to be repeat- 
 ed, but to others they may not be uninteresting. The cod fishing vessels are, 
 in the first place, all f fore-and-aft schooners," and admitting the crew of each 
 vessel to be permanent, or employed year by year in the same vessel, they ob- 
 tain no knowledge of square-rigged vessels; and experienced shipmasters aver 
 that to unlearn them of habits acquired on board the fishing vessels, requires 
 vastly more labor and patience than to take young men who have never been 
 to sea at all. But the men who are engaged as fishermen are almost entirely a 
 ' floating population,' a large proportion foreigners, who go a fishing for a 
 season, sometimes for relaxation from other employments, sometimes from 
 curiosity, but hardly ever with the idea of making seamanship a permanent 
 business." 
 
 Such is, also, the testimony of the Patriot, published at Barnstable, the largest 
 fishing district, which says: 
 
 ''"Whilst it affords to the foreigner ah opportunity to acquire seamanship, it 
 encourages our own young men into the fisheries, who would otherwise enter 
 immediately into the merchant service, where they would learn twice or thrice 
 as fast. Besides, the boy who once became a fisherman, is often led to embrace 
 it as a profession for life — a business the poorest, the hardest, the worst of almost 
 any under the light of the sun. Thus, the boy, who, if he had first entered 
 the merchant service, would have arisen to competency and respect, is, by en- 
 
13 
 
 tering upon this service, induced to continue in it, and is, in effect, induced to 
 adopt a business which he would never have adopted if this same bounty had 
 not encouraged the business.. 
 
 "The foreigner is advanced in his interests by fishing, because he learns ordi- 
 nary seamanship, and beyond this he generally aspires not. But the American 
 fails to learn that seamanship which is to advance him to his hoped for situa- 
 tion in a merchantman. The moment he seeks even a mate's berth in a merchant 
 vessel, because he has previously been one on a dozen fishing voyages, that 
 moment he finds himself mistaken. He is told that his past experience is worth 
 just nothing at all ! This is true to the very letter, and hundreds can testify to 
 this truth. If he goes into the merchant service, he has got to learn seaman- 
 ship all over again, and his past tuition counts him just nothing at all. lie has 
 merely lost his time by going a fishing, encouraged by a bounty." 
 
 Mr. HAMLIN. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. CLAY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. HAMLIN. I desire to ask him if he knows that the editors of each of 
 those papers are custom-house officers, who are ready to do the dirtiest work 
 of any Administration when they suppose any question may be an Administra- 
 tion measure ? 
 
 Mr. CLAY. I do not know it. 
 
 Mr. HAMLIN. I know they are, 
 
 Mr. CLAY. I do not think they are. Mr. Bates is the editor of the Plymouth 
 Rock, the paper from which I read. I think he is not a custom-house officer. 
 
 Mr. HAMLIN. Yes he is. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. Who is the editor of the Patriot ? I cannot say. 
 
 Mr. HAMLIN. Mr. Spinney — a custom-house officer. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. "Well, sir, the custom-house officers of New England are a very 
 corrupt and depraved set, if what the Senator says be true ; for it is the com- 
 mon testimony furnished by most of them, and not furnished for this occasion, 
 but through a series of years past; and I am not willing to think so badly of 
 his constituents as he himself seems to think. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I say, if it be true, as alleged, that the cod fishery is the 
 peculiar nursery of seamen, it imposes irpon the advocates of that opinion a 
 response to the question : how it happens that the merchantmen, or the whalers, 
 of a thousand or more tons, of more complex rigging, of twenty or more sails, 
 of sixteen or more yards, making voyages of twenty thousand miles or more, 
 spending years of "business in the great waters," are not as good schools for 
 seamen as the cod fishery, which employs schooners or fishing smacks of sixty- 
 five tons or less, which are engaged but four months a year in cruising around 
 the coast or islands of New England, or on the banks of New Foundland '( The 
 framers of these laws did not regard them as the peculiar nurseries of seamen, 
 neither did they design by the laws to make them the nurseries of seamen. 
 This is shown by the language of the acts from which I have read, but it is 
 further evidenced by these facts: all these allowances were contingent on the 
 salt duty which they always accompanied ; they are always found in the salt 
 acts, and not in the fishing code. We have a code regulating the fisheries 
 quite as old as the Government; and if 'they were intended to be fostered as 
 nurseries of seamen, there would be the proper place to find these bounties, but 
 you find them always annexed to the salt duty. The condition of the allow- 
 ance was the quantity of fish caught and exported which had been cured with 
 foreign salt. The same allowance, up to lal3, was made to the exporters of 
 salt provisions, of beef, and pork. Can it be supposed that Congress intended 
 to raise seamen out of the farmers of the West? Can it be believed that Con- 
 gress intended to nurture seamen of those who never went to'sea? This prop- 
 osition at once shows the absurdity of contending that these laws were intended 
 as the nursery of seamen. It imputes to their framers the folly of the fond 
 mother who advised her son not to go into the water until he learned how to 
 swim! Moreover, it will be found that all these laws were for brief periods — the 
 
u 
 
 longest of them extended only for ten years, the next for seven years, and several 
 of them for but two years. Did Congress expect to train a nursery of seamen 
 in two, seven, or even ten years? Lastly, all these laws applied to foreigners 
 as well as citizens of the United States up to 1817. For thirty-odd years this 
 bounty or drawback was paid to foreigners as well as natives or naturalized 
 citizens. No distinction was made. At this day, the law doe3 not exclude for- 
 eigners, for the word used is "persons," and not citizens; and at this day, as 
 testified by the collectors to whom I have referred, and by the papers from 
 which I have just read, and which I will not trouble the Senate with reading now, 
 many of those persons employed in these fisheries are foreigners. They repre- 
 sent that they can get foreign fishermen for the coast or banks of Newfoundland 
 for a much lower price than seamen at home, and they go out and employ them 
 there. 
 
 But, sir, we are told that the fisheries cannot live without this bounty. Sup- 
 pose that to be true, is it the duty of Congress to foster any occupation which 
 cannot support itself? "Whence do we derive the power to become almoners of 
 public charity, and to provide for those who cannot take care of themselves ? 
 But, sir, any one who has examined the table appended to the report which I 
 had the honor to submit some time ago, will see that, according to the reports 
 of the fishermen themselves, this, so far from being a languishing business, ought 
 to be very flourishing. In compliance with a law of Massachusetts, the asses- 
 sors of the several towns in past years have been required to return the capital 
 invested, the men employed, and gross proceeds of every occupation within the 
 State. I find that in 1837 they reported the vessels employed in the mackerel 
 and cod fisheries at one thousand two hundred and ninety, the tonnage at 
 seventy-six thousand and eighty-nine, the hands employed at eleven thousand 
 one hundred and forty-six, the capital invested at $2,683,176, the aggregate 
 value of the proceeds, $3,208,559, making one hundred and nineteen per cent. 
 of gross proceeds upon the capital invested ! In 1845, 1 find that the gross pro- 
 ceeds exceeded one hundred and nineteen per cent, upon the capital invested. 
 In 1855, I fir.d that the average per cent, of gross proceeds was nearly seventy- 
 six per cent. And after deducting fifty per cent, for expenses, yet it yielded 
 an average profit of thirty-eight per cent.; and after superadding to this de- 
 duction of fifty per cent., sixty-three dollars for each man employed, (which 
 Mr. Scudder says is all that they get,) still the average amounts to nearly 
 twenty-one per cent. ; and after allowing $100 per man in addition to the dis- 
 count of fiit} 7 per cent, of the gross proceeds, still the average exceeds eleven 
 per cent. Thus it appears that this business, far from being a losing or decay- 
 ing one, quite equals, if it does not exceed, in profits any other business in the 
 country. 
 
 But,' Mr. President, to whose benefit does this bouuty inure? Not to the 
 fishermen, but to the two or three thousand owners of fishing vessels. Such 
 is the common testimony of the collectors on this subject. Such is the testi- 
 mony of the special agent of the Treasury Department sent to look into the 
 fisheries, and to report their condition. Such is impliedly the admission of the 
 owners of the fishing vessels themselves; for they concede that they do not 
 observe the law which requires them to divide the proceeds of a cruise in pro- 
 portion to the fish taken by each man, and that, in violation of the law and 
 the express regulations of the Departmeat, some of the owners take half to 
 themselves, and divide the other half equally among the crew. If they will 
 violate the law in one particular, why will they not do so in every other? 
 To whom is this money paid ? To the owners of the fishing vessels. What 
 officer or agent of the Government supervises its division among the fishermen? 
 No one. It is left solely to the discretion and the conscience of the owner of 
 the fishing vessel. He is the arbiter of his own cause, in violation of every 
 principle of judicial justice. Are avarice and self-interest stronger than justice 
 and generosity?* Are men kinder to others than to themselves? Can any one 
 believe that Congress can make bargains for these men, and that they will ob- 
 serve them strictly, though it be to their own prejudice? Why may they not 
 stipulate that the fishermen shall have so much for the voyage, less the amount 
 of the bounty ? Is the bounty no inducement to the enterprise ? It is either 
 
15 
 
 nn inducement, or it is not If it be no inducement to the fishermen to engage 
 in the cruise, then there is no reason why it should be continued. If it be an 
 inducement, then the fishermen can afford to ask less from their employers, the 
 owners of the fishing vessels, and no doubt do take less, and thus it inures to 
 the benefit of the owners. 
 
 Another reason why I believe the two or three thousand owners of fishing 
 vessels generally enjoy all of this bounty is, that the fishermen are frequently 
 changed duriug a season. They go out one voyage, return, are discharged, and 
 other fishermen are taken. Such is the report of all the collectors; and, if 
 this be true, none of these fishermen are entitled, according to law, to any of 
 the bounty; and thus it may happen that the owners of the fishing vessels 
 may realize the entire bounty, as is charged. 
 
 Mr. President, according to the experience of England, of France, and of 
 Holland, such bounties are wholly inexpedient. They have endeavored, by a 
 system of bounties, to build up their herring and whale fisheries, and they have 
 signally failed. But I need not go abroad to prove the inexpediency of these 
 bounties. Let any Senator compare the increase of the whale and herring 
 fisheries with the cod fisheries, and he will say at once that these bounties have 
 not redounded to the advantage of the cod fisheries. Our whale fishermen, 
 without any bounty whatever from the Government, though competing with 
 the fishermen of the greatest commercial countries of Europe — though compe- 
 ting with the fishermen of England, of Holland, and of France, who were paid 
 large premrams and large bounties on this interest, have outstripped them all. 
 A few fishing towns in New England, without bounty, without Government 
 
 gatronage or aid, have more tonnage and seamen in the whale fishery than 
 ugland, with all the bounties, and premiums, and remissions of duties extended 
 to her whale fishermen through a series of years. 
 
 It is sufficient to condemn this bounty system to show that it is demoralizing. 
 The late Secretary of the Treasury says, substantially, that it is a premium 
 offered for frauds and perjuries; and he is sustained in this assertion by the 
 testimony of the collectors from one extreme to the other of the coast of New 
 England. They declare that the laws are not complied with; but that theso 
 bounties are realized in violation of the laws. Such is the admission, in effect, 
 of the fishermen themselves. In several of their memorials, which I have read, 
 they declare that they cannot comply with the requisitions of the Department 
 and realize any profit. For instance, the law inhibits them from taking other 
 fish than the cod fish during a cod fishing voyage, and from taking fresh fish to 
 market, and requires that they should confine themselves exclusively to the 
 catching and salting of cod fish. They declare, in their memorials, that they 
 had better give up the bounties than observe this regulation ; for that, if they 
 are required to throw their fresh fish overboard, they will sink more money 
 than they can realize from the bounty, as many of the fresh fish they take are 
 worth more than the cod, and the fresh cod will often realize a better price and 
 readier sale than the dried. Yet they claimed and got the bounty. Who can 
 doubt that they also saved and sold their fresh fish? 
 
 But, sir, it is demoralizing in another aspect. It encourages a sentiment 
 already too pervading in the country, of dependence on the Government for 
 support. Such a sentiment is baneful to individual as well as national pros- 
 perity. It paralyzes the industry, enervates the mind, and enfeebles the will 
 of man to teaeli him to look to Government as a natural or foster parent for 
 support and aid in every enterprise. It keeps him in his minority through life, 
 and he can never feel or exercise the freedom, independence, and self-reliance 
 of mature manhood. It reduces him to a state of pupilage, in which he cannot 
 think without instruction, or act without assistance. It discourages enterprise, 
 easlaves the spirit, suppresses noble aspirations, and prevents brave effort*. 
 Unsatisfied desire is the natural aliment of human exertion, whether it be men- 
 tal or physical, and without it man would cease to labor. Labor, by divine 
 decree, is the condition of success, and without it nothing great or valuable is 
 achieved. Poverty is the nurse of great souls, and necessity the parent of 
 heroic efforts ; and the fountain of the Muses, bursting from a barreu rock, is 
 an apt emblem of the hard source whence spring the noblest aspirations of the 
 
16 
 
 mind, and the most glorious achievements of the hand. "Whenever Govern- 
 ment undertakes to supply man's wants and relieve his labors', it violates a law 
 of nature which will sooner or later vindicate its own majesty. 
 
 Suppose it were possible for this Government to supply all the wants, and 
 satisfy all the desires of its citizens — to give lands to the landless, houses to the 
 shelterless, food to the hungry, aud clothing to the naked : how long would 
 science, art, literature, freedom, religion, anything that ennobles man, and 
 elevates him above the beast, survive such an experiment? How long would 
 we have a government worth preserving, or freemen to preserve it? Such a 
 government would prove a greater curse than that of Adam, and more intoler- 
 able than the vilest tyranny of barbaric autocrats. 
 
 Sir, I demand the repeal of these bounties, because they are unconstitutional, 
 they are unjust, they are inexpedient, they are demoralizing. I demand the 
 repeal of the laws under which they are drawn, because the inducements held 
 out for their enactment have ceased to exist ; because the reason of them has 
 ceased ; and because the effect ot them is far different from that which was 
 intended, or expected, or desired. 
 
 *Table exhibiting the tonnage of vessels engaged in the cod fisheries, the allowances 
 paid, &c.,from 1S48 to 1S57. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Tonnage of ves- 
 sels engaged in 
 cod fisheries. 
 
 Allowance paid to 
 fishing vessels. 
 
 Sums due as draw- 
 backs. 
 
 Exfess of bounty 
 over drawback. 
 
 184S 
 
 1849 
 
 82, 652 
 73,SS2 
 85,646 
 87,476 
 
 102, 659 
 99, 990 
 
 102, 194 
 
 102, 928 
 95,816 
 
 104,573 
 
 $243,484 
 287, 604 
 286, 796 
 828, 267 
 304,569 
 323, 199 
 874,286 
 346, 196 
 
 • 134, 659 
 601,453 
 
 $22,811 95 
 21,809 66 
 22, 807 76 
 25, 193 OS 
 26,855 59 
 24, 847 41 
 31,261 36 
 32,4S4 07 
 29,319 69 
 29,233 61 
 
 $220, 622 
 265, 794 
 
 1850 
 
 264,488 
 303, 074 
 
 1851 
 
 1852 
 
 277, 713 
 
 1858 
 
 298,351 
 
 1854 
 
 343, 024 
 
 1855 
 
 318, 712 
 
 1856 
 
 105, 339 
 
 1857 
 
 572, 219 
 
 
 
 Ten years 
 
 937, S26 
 
 $3,230,463 
 
 $266,124 IS 
 • 1 
 
 $2,964,336 
 
 Average tonnage per year, for ten years 
 
 Average allowance per year, for ten years ., 
 
 Average sum due as drawback, per year 
 
 Average excess of bounty over drawbacks, per year, for ten years. 
 Aggregate excess of bounty over drawback, in last ten years 
 
 . ... 93,782.6 
 
 $323, 046 30 
 
 26,612 40 
 
 292,433 60 
 
 2,964,336 00 
 
 '& 
 
LIBRARY OF 
 
 CONGRESS 
 
 
 002 876 828 a