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

The underlying motive of this petition was "patriotic" in the highest degree; it was to encourage the fishermen to maintain a 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 ton 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.

The Act of March 3, 1819, changed this tonnage bounty on vessels of more than five and not exceeding thirty tons to $3.50 per ton.

These bounties were paid to the fishermen, although, according to a judicial decision (The Harriet, 1 Story, 251), they were "under no restrictions as to the length of their trips or the nature of their fisheries," nor as to the distance they should sail from the shores of the United States, "if they were without the limits of any port or harbor on the seacoast."3

On May 26, 1824, it was enacted that, if a returning fishing vessel, having complied with the terms of the law, were wrecked, her owner should "be entitled to the same bounty as would have been allowed, had such vessel returned to port."

The Act of July 13, 1832, reduced the salt tax to ten cents per bushel; the Act of March 2, 1833, provided for a further reduction; the Act of July 4, 1836, re­stored it to ten cents, where it remained till August 30. 1842. Then it was reduced to eight cents, where it re­mained till salt was placed on the free list by the Act of July 30, 1846. But the bounties and allowances were not reduced.

Here we have extravagant and unauthorized bounties for at least thirty-three years - from 1813 to 1846 - eating up the substance of the people without any compen­satory benefits to them. In 1840, according to Mr. Ben­ton (2, 197), it took nearly all the salt revenue to pay the bounties; the next year, he said, that revenue would fall short of paying them; and in 1842 it would not pay but half of them. And thus it went on from bad to worse till the Act of 1846 provided that no bounty should be allowed on pickled fish, and no allowance except a drawback equal to the tax on the imported salt used in curing them; but even then the tonnage bounty was not repealed.

How much the people were compelled by law to con­tribute as a free gift to the fishermen4 may never be known; but some estimate may be ventured from the figures given by Mr. Benton. "In 1831," he says, "a drawback of duty on the salt used in curing the fish ex­ported would have been about $160,000; but the bounty and allowance amounted to $313,894." This was when the tax was 20 cents per bushel. The next year it was reduced to 10 cents, and for fourteen years it varied be­tween eight and ten; so that instead of a drawback of less than $80,000, which was all they were entitled to each year, supposing no variation of the amount of their annual exports, they received nearly four times that sum. In fourteen years this unearned increment would amount to more than three million two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars.

Now add to this sum the result of a conservative esti­mate for the preceding nineteen years, and we have over six million two hundred and eighty thousand dollars as the amount the New England fishermen were permitted by unjust and unconstitutional Federal legislation to pull out of the pockets of the toilers of the Union from 1813 to 1846, not including sums obtained by fraud. On the question of constitutionality, the reader will be in­terested in the opinions of two distinguished statesmen, one of them having been a member of the Convention which framed the Constitution.

During the discussion of the bill (1792), which changed the bounty from barrels and quintals to the tonnage of fishing vessels, Hon. William B. Giles, of Virginia, ob­jected to "the present section of the bill," which, he said, "appears to contain a direct bounty on occupa­tions"; and he denied its constitutionality. This was on the 3d of February. On the 7th of that month Hon. Hugh Williamson, of North Carolina, addressed the House in opposition to this bounty. Among other things he said:

"Establish the general doctrine of bounties, and all the provisions (of the Constitution) I have mentioned become useless. They vanish into air.... The common defence and general welfare, in the hands of a good politician, may supersede every part of our Con­stitution, and leave us in the hands of time and chance....

"Manufactures in general are useful to the Nation; they prescribe the public good and 'general welfare.' How many of them are springing up in the Northern States! Let them be properly supported by bounties, and you will find no occasion for unequal taxes. The tax may be equal in the beginning; it will be suffi­ciently unequal in the end.

"The object of the bounty, and the amount of it, are equally to be disregarded in the present case. We are simply to consider whether bounties may safely be given under the present Constitution. For myself, I would rather begin with a bounty of one million per annum than one thousand. I wish that my constituents may know whether they are to put any confidence in that paper called the Constitution....

"Unless the Southern States are protected by the Constitution, their valuable staple and their visionary wealth, must occasion their destruction.

"Three short years has this Government existed; it is not three years; but we have already given serious alarm to many of our fellow-citizens. Establish the doctrine of bounties; set aside that part of the Consti­tution which requires equal taxes, and demands similar distributions; destroy this barrier; and it is not a few fishermen that will enter, claiming ten or twelve thou­sand dollars, but all manner of persons; people of every trade and occupation may enter in at the breach until they have eaten up the bread of our children."⁵

Here were honorable men pleading for honest observ­ance of that Constitution which they and their fellow-members were solemnly sworn to support, but their pleading was vain; the "breach" was made, and "the bread of our children" has been eaten up!

Thus far we have considered the bounty system up to 1846. Since that year it has lost none of its vicious­ness; but the purpose of this presentation of the subject would not warrant the search necessary to bring it up to date.

But the bounties and allowances do not constitute the only burden placed on the people for the benefit of the Northeastern fishermen; international troubles have added a considerable amount.

By the treaty of peace, 1783, United States citizens were permitted to fish on the Bank of New Foundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and elsewhere, as formerly; and to take fish "on the coasts, bays, and creeks" of the British dominion in general, and to dry and cure them in any unsettled bays, harbors, etc., but otherwise only with the consent of inhabitants or owners of the land.

The treaty of Ghent, 1814, ignored the subject; and the United States claimed, and Great Britain denied, that the old treaty was still in force.

In 1818 a convention at London granted to United States citizens the right to ash on certain parts of the west and southwest coast of Newfoundland, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and on the coast of Labrador, east and north of Mount Toby; to dry and cure fish on Labrador and the south coast of Newfound­land while unsettled, or, otherwise, with local consent as before; and to enter bays and harbors for wood, water, shelter, and the repair of damages.

In 1854 the "Reciprocity Treaty" confirmed the rights granted in 1818, and conferred further the rights of taking all fish, except shellfish, salmon, and shad, on the coasts, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks (but not in the mouths of rivers) of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and the neighbor­ing islands, and of curing and drying fish on all these shores.

In 1866, previous notice having been given by the United States authorities, according to its terms. the treaty of 1854 was abrogated, which left the treaty of 1818 in force. The British-American authorities then for five years made many complaints of aggressions on the part of the New England fishermen; and a state of tension and unpleasantness existed until the treaty of Washington, 1871, was negotiated. By this most of the provisions of the treaty of 1854 were revived. Accord­ing to article 25 of this treaty Commissioners met at Halifax to determine the justice of the complaints of the Canadian authorities; and this Commission awarded, 1877, damages to Great Britain in the sum of $5, 500, 000.

The fishing articles of the last treaty expired July 1, 1885; but a temporary arrangement was made whereby the New Englanders had the privileges of the treaty ex­tended through that season. Afterwards the business was conducted under the treaty of 1818; but a failure to arrive at an interpretation of Article I, satisfactory to both sides, resulted in numerous vexations, annoy­ances, and seizures of New England fishing vessels. In 1886 serious difficulties arose because of such seizures. Retaliatory measures were threatened and in some in­stances attempted, and public excitement over the situ­ation became alarmingly inflamed.

In 1887 Mr. Cleveland sought a conference with the British authorities for the purpose of reaching a satis­factory interpretation of the treaty of 1818; each side appointed three Commissioners, who sat in Washing­ton, formulated and signed a treaty on the 15th of Feb­ruary, 1888. But the Senate refused to ratify it, where­upon the President asked for power to institute retalia­tory measures against Canada.

After that the whole subject remained in the condi­tion established by the disputed treaty of 1818, except some temporary or conditional arrangements.

All the expenses of these negotiations, together with the award to Great Britain, were paid by people who, a few hundred excepted, received nothing in return, except the pleasure of having conferred further benefits on a class which had been quartered on them for nearly a century.

1. 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.

3. See Brightley's Digest, Volume I, page 284, foot notes.

4. They were not contented with the "free gift"; they perpetrated frauds on the people's treasury, as is evident from the following pas­sage in President Jackson's annual message of December 7, 1880:

"Abuses in the allowances for fishing bounties have also been cor­rected, and a material saving in that branch of the service thereby effected." - (See Statesman's Manual, Vol. II, p. 750.)

5. Elliot's Debates, Volume IV, pages 426-27.

We are interested in comments that generate more light than heat. Please avoid grandstanding: