The antagonism of the vessel-owners to reciprocity as applied to shipping was unable, however, to check the then. rising tide of opinion in favor of free trade and free commerce. Navigation in British ships actually increased between 18211822 and 1830-1831 thirty-six per cent. The amount of goods passing from country to country in British ships employed in the foreign trade increased forty-eight per cent., British tonnage engaged in the colonial trade increased twenty-seven per cent. and foreign tonnage employed in trade with Great Britain increased sixty-nine per cent. 8 With the growth of British manufacturing came the need of closer reliance on foreign countries for raw materials. Foreigners were, for a long time, large buyers of English manufactured goods. Everything conspired to make for free trade in shipping, and freedom of navigation tended to promote the idea of greater freedom in regard to customs duties. It was to be expected that the success thus experienced in consequence of the removal of trade restrictions would have been influential in removing the prejudice in favor of a high-tariff policy. All over the world, the tendency toward free trade was growing stronger.

The organization of the German Zollverein extended the notion of reciprocal concessions in regard to ships to the

William Huskisson in the House of Commons, May 12, 1826, on the present state of the shipping interest.-Edinburgh Review, Vol. 45, pp. 446-458. "Various gentlemen intimately connected with the shipping interest were examined by the committee and it was on their evidence, and in accordance with their suggestions, that Mr. Wallace founded his bills for modifying the navigation laws and for repealing the well-known regulations with respect to. the importation of enumerated commodities.

*

"And so satisfied were the gentlemen previously referred to of the propriety and beneficial tendency of these alterations that a deputation waited upon him [Mr. Wallace] and presented him an address subscribed by all the principal ship-owners and merchants of London thanking him for the many and great services he had rendered to commerce and navigation and particularly for the changes he had effected in the navigation laws."-p. 447.

*

The growth of the reciprocity policy for shipping may be traced in the treaties of the time. Reciprocity treaties had been signed between Great Britain and Portugal, and Great Britain and the United States, in 1810 and 1815 respectively. A reciprocity agreement was concluded between Great Britain and Prussia in 1824, between Great Britain and Denmark in the same year, between Great Britain and Sweden on March 18. 1826, between Great Britain and France on January 26, 1826, between Great Britain and Buenos Ayres February 2, 1825, between Great Britain and Colombia April 18, 1825.-A good review of the progress of the reciprocity idea may be found in the Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. IX., 1832. London. pp. 266 et seq.

movement of goods between states whose interests would be helped by mutual freedom of exchange. This tariff union, which was established in 1824, had the effect of greatly increasing the trade between the German States. It led directly to inquiry on the part of foreign countries as to whether it might not be possible to inaugurate customs unions of the same sort which would have an equally favorable influence in developing foreign trade. The movement thus begun gradually developed into the free trade era which continued to 1870. Great Britain repealed the corn laws during the years succeeding 1846, and in 1850 negotiated a treaty with France which contained liberal commercial concessions on exports and imports and removed all the prohibitions theretofore resting upon the commerce of the two countries. Following this treaty, scme twenty-seven other arrangements were negotiated between the European states, granting commercial concessions. By reason of the fact that they incorporated the so-called "most favored nation clause," of which more will presently be said, the concessions embodied in the treaties became generally accepted among the European states and created a strong movement toward an almost absolute freedom of exchange. It needs hardly to be said that, under these conditions, the prosperity of European trade increased enormously. The commerce of Austria, Belgium, France, Holland, Italy and Great Britain grew between 1860 and 1873, more than 100 per cent., while the trade of the same countries with nations not having reciprocity treaties with them increased, according to Mr. David A. Wells, only about sixty-six per cent.

In the United States, the movement toward free trade continued to move along somewhat the same lines as those pursued by the European countries. Clay's American system, which was enacted into the tariff of 1824 and modified by the act of 1828, had hardly become thoroughly established when it began

D. A. Wells, "Recent Economic Changes," New York, 1893, pp. 262 et seq.

to crumble. The movement toward more liberal customs legislation practically culminated in the less highly protective tariff of 1846, which was later completed in detail by that of 1857With the Civil War a new era began.

Throughout the whole of this antebellum period, the notion of reciprocity, as a policy, received considerable attention. It was vigorously advocated in certain quarters and as vigorously opposed in others. Webster was one of the principal opponents of the system, and he even antagonized the idea of reciprocity as applied to shipping. 10

Owing to the prevalence and growth of the free trade spirit, however, the reciprocity advocates had decidedly the upper hand. It was urged that reciprocity with the German Zollverein should somehow be introduced. Should such an arrangement be put into operation, said these advocates, it would be possible to sell American raw materials to much better advantage, as well as in larger quantities. On the other hand, reciprocity with Germany would open an opportunity for the purchase of manufactured articles cheaper than they could be had in Great Britain or France, while the nature of the German tariff was said to be such that the treaty would afford stronger guarantees of permanency than similar arrangements with either of the other countries referred to. Moreover, it was believed that a reciprocal treaty with the Zollverein should doubtless have the effect of forcing Great Britain to come to similar terms. As a result of this agitation, a treaty was actually negotiated in 1844 between the Zollverein and the United States, but like a later treaty with Mexico, was rejected by the Senate. This rejection was made on the ground that the President had exceeded his executive authority and that he had no right of his own motion to enter into such arrangements with

10 In a speech at Baltimore, Webster made use of the following expressions: "I do, gentlemen, entertain the strongest belief that the principle of reciprocity acted upon by the government is wrong, a mistake from the beginning, and injurious to the great interests of the country. In my opinion, the true principle, the philosophy of politics on the subject, is exhibited in the old navigation law of England."-Hunt's Merchant's Magazine, New York, 1845, Vol. XII., pp. 262-266.

foreign countries, 11 the legislature being the department of government by which revenue laws should be passed. Thus precisely the same criticism was offered upon the action of the executive in negotiating the Zollverein treaty which has been so frequently urged within the last year or two by members of the House of Representatives. They doubt the right of the treaty-making power to enter into agreements with foreign powers that may conceivably result in infringing upon the authority of the lower house to pass revenue measures.

For the sake of our foreign trade it was greatly to be regretted that the Zollverein treaty was not put into operation. By the terms of that treaty, 12 articles imported to the United States were divided into three classes, one of which was to be taxed at a rate not exceeding twenty per cent. ad valorem, while a second was dutiable at fifteen per cent., and a third at

11 For a discussion of the demand for reciprocity with Germany, see Hunt's Merchant's Magazine, New York, 1846, Vol. XIV., article entitled "Commercial Treaties Based on Reciprocity," pp. 51-56.

12 The details concerning the unratified treaty of 1844 with the German Zollverein may be learned from the journal of the executive proceedings of the Senate 28th Congress, first and second sessions, Vol. VI., pp. 333-336 and 406-410. Senator Rufus Choate on June 14, 1844, made a report from the Committee on Foreign Relations to which had been submitted on the first of June the proposed reciprocity treaty with the Zollverein. The concessions made to the United States by this treaty were substantially as follows: The duty on lard was reduced by $1.37 per centner of 113 pounds; the duty on leaf tobacco was reduced about one cent a pound; the duty on stems of tobacco was reduced about one and one-third cents per pound. On the other hand, we granted to Germany a reduction of duty to twenty per cent. ad valorem on the importation of "all woolen, worsted, and cotton mitts, caps, and bindings, and woolen, worsted and cotton hosiery; also musical instruments, excepting piano fortes." We further reduced to 15 per cent. ad valorem the duties on all manufactured articles of flax or hemp or of which flax and hemp shall be the component part of chief value, excepting cotton bagging and substitutes therefor. The same reduction was made in the case of all manufactures of silk or substitutes containing silk as a component part of chief value; and also of "Thibet merinos and articles manufactured therefrom, plate glass, looking glasses, toys, lead pencils, lithographic stones, and wooden clocks, leather goods. cologne water, gold, silver and copper wire and bronze ware.' We further reduced to ten per cent. ad valorem the duty on all thread-laces and insertings, tassels, knots, gold and silver stars, and mineral waters. Mr. Choate reported that there were two reasons for the non-ratification of this treaty. First, the executive was transcending his powers in negotiating an agreement for the regulation of duties -a power which belonged to Congress. Secondly, he considered the advantages arising to the United States from the treaty to be of small importance. The treaty was again referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations in December, 1844, in connection with the Presidential message on the subject. February 26, 1845, Mr. Archer reported in behalf of that committee that the treaty, viewed simply as a commercial measure, was a desirable step in advance, but nevertheless took the ground that it should not be ratified for the reason that the function performed by it was one which in nowise belonged to the President. It was on this ground that the treaty was defeated in the Senate. (Compare Schuyler, "American Diplomacy," New York, 1886, p. 434.)

ten per cent. Dutics on wines imported from Germany were not to be raised above the level existing in 1844. In return for this concession, the Zollverein agreed to reduce the duties on American tobacco and lard and to maintain the tariff on. rice at a point no higher than it then had reached. Unmanufactured cotton was to be free. A reminiscence of the earlier restrictions on shipping was found in the provision that the tariff reductions were to apply only to goods laden on vessels of one of the contracting parties, or on vessels which had by treaty been placed upon the same footing as national vessels, and in any event the goods must come directly from the ports of one party to those of the other. 13 Just how far the rejection of this treaty was actually due to the constitutional reason assigned in the Senate debates it would perhaps be difficult to say. The probability, judging from all contemporary evidence, is, however, that the reciprocity treaty with the Zollverein came too early in our free-trade movement and met the usual fate of pioneers in such fields. Its defeat was doubtless due in large measure to precisely the same causes which, during the past three years, have prevented the acceptance of any of the reciprocity treaties negotiated by Mr. Kasson, the Special Commissioner appointed by our government not long ago to negotiate for commercial advantages. Then, as now, the constitutional argument was a plausible and soothing apology for a refusal largely dictated by the wishes of interests which feared to find their profits reduced by foreign competition.

Reciprocity agitation very shortly assumed a new form. The idea came into existence that there might be developed on this side of the ocean a commercial union which should include the whole North American continent. In order successfully to work out such a union, it was necessary to make suitable reciprocity arrangements with Canada on the North and with

13 Schuyler, "American Diplomacy," New York, 1886, pp. 433 et seq.