Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tion of free-labor sugar by purchasing all sugars in the cheapest markets. All restriction on buying and selling is a despotic interference with industrious and enterprising liberty. Therefore, if we attempt to discourage slave-labor sugar by allowing only the importation of free-labor sugar, we should be liable to have our efforts thwarted by that principle. All interference with the general freedom of trade is to be apprehended, and it has always affected not only the morals but the prosperity of those countries. Even if we draw a distinction between free-labor and slave-labor sugar, it will never succeed; no commerce can flourish as it should if we choke up its natural channels."

On the subject of colonial coffee, it was stated by Mr. M'Gregor, that the effect of the high differential duty on coffee has been the legal evasion of the law, in principle, as to the way of bringing coffee to Great Britain. Cargoes of coffee have been sent from the United Kingdom, and from ports of the continent of Europe, to be landed at the Cape of Good Hope, which is considered to be within the limits of the East India Company's charter, and brought back to the United Kingdom for the purpose of supplying the necessary consumption there. From the 26th of April, 1838, to the 24th of March, 1840, it appears by the returns that eighty-one cargoes, import ing more than 21,000,000 pounds of foreign coffee, had arrived in the United Kingdom from the Cape of Good Hope; the duty being on that mode of carrying coffee nine pence a pound; that is, less than if imported direct from foreign countries. The duty, if imported from the country of the growth of the principal part of the coffee, would amount to £1,750,000; the duty saved by the indirect importation would be £750,000, supposing all to be entered for consumption. The expense of sending coffee to the Cape of Good Hope is about one penny, and consequently it arrives in Great Britain at about five pence less duty than if it came direct from the countries of its growth; but if these duties were reduced to an equitable fiscal principle, the article would be cheaper, and the consumption of coffee in that country would no doubt increase to a very great extent, and save a nominal loss to the revenue of about £250,000. The refusal on the part of England to take coffee from the Brazils, undoubtedly limits very much the introduction of British manufactures into that country. In proportion to the exclusion of British manufactures from Brazil, is the increased demand for the manufactures of Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland. Mr. M'Gregor was of the opinion that the differential duty upon foreign and colonial timber is exceedingly injurious to the manufacturing interests, and indirectly to British navigation, inasmuch as they are prevented from supplying in return those foreign nations with their manufactures, which they would take in about the same proportion as they took their timber, or their other productions which they may have to export to Great Britain. It was also his opinion that by lowering the duties on foreign and colonial timber, or equalizing them, the revenue derived from them would be increased-which, in 1839, was £1,603,194—to £2,500,000; that all classes would be benefited, timber being so extensively required in all kinds of buildings down to the poor man's cottage, and for so many implements and countless other uses. If the duty were to be levied ad valorem, even at the same rate, he thought it would in amount be higher, from its greater value, on foreign timber. It was his belief that the change would not be prejudicial to the colonies, if the useless restrictions with which they are shackled were taken away, and all British customhouses were removed

from them. He stated that he had resided in all the British North Ameri. can colonies, and it was his opinion that if the restraints upon the trade of those possessions were removed, they would not be long required to continue any protective duty whatever; but while the colonial restrictions are continued, they will be obliged to continue some of those protections. He also considered that removing those restrictions would be no disadvantage whatever to the mercantile navy, inasmuch as if the mercantile navy be increased the British navy will be increased also. As the British nation has, by their legislation, caused merchants and others to embark in undertakings with their capital, which it would be unjust to destroy by other legislation, except upon equitable principles, he would remunerate them for their losses. For example, the province of New Brunswick alone, from existing circumstances, from the labor and industry of the country having been directed so much more to saw-mills and timber-cutting than to agriculture, would experience inconvenience and loss which ought to be guarded against, on the principle of equity, for some time: but none of the other colonies would, to any serious extent, experience injury. Some individual houses would suffer, but it would be economy to the nation; and it would only be justice to remunerate them for their losses, provided they effected a change which would give them at least an additional million of revenue, with far greater advantages to their manufacturers, shipbuilders, and to their whole population.

Mr. M'Gregor felt confident that the colonists themselves would not only be in favor of those restrictions being withdrawn, but would consider it as one of the greatest boons that the home government could extend to them. As far back as 1834 the people of the Canadas expressed the opinion distinctly: Remove these restrictions and prohibitions," said they, "and you may legislate as you think wise and fit in regard to the timber duties."

The prohibitions and duties which have been imposed to protect British agriculture and grazing, Mr. M'Gregor considered to have a two-fold effect the one exclusive, in regard to bread and salted provisions, except when the prices rise to what may be called great scarcity prices; and the other, to keep up the prices generally of the same articles in England. In so doing, they impose upon all the consumers of the United Kingdom the greatest tax to which they are subjected; and whatever adds to the cost of living, takes from the wealth of the country. The higher the tax upon food and articles of necessary consumption, the less must be the means of the people of paying their revenue tax. One great extra taxation occasioned by the price of food is that of throwing people out of employment, preventing them from earning any thing, and by leaving no resources but the poor rates for their maintenance. It diminishes the fund for the employment of labor. Although it seems a contra. diction; but still it is a fact borne out by inquiry, that whenever the price of food is high in England, it is found that there are a greater number of the laboring people unemployed; and not only that, but the wages of those employed, in consequence of so many being thrown out of employment, is less than when food is plentiful. The abundance of employment is generally observed to be greatest where food is cheap, which has invariably been the case in France and throughout the Austrian dominions. It has been the result of producing economy in production, and enabling the public to consume the article cheaper, that the wealth of the country is in

creased, as well as an increased demand for labor; and with reference to cheap food, it is one of the greatest principles of public and domestic consideration in countries where the people have been always most employed. Belgium and Holland are cited as familiar examples.

Mr. M'Gregor contended that the protective duties of the United Kingdom produce great fluctuations in the demand for labor, and consequently, the distress which occurs among the working classes from time to time. "Those fluctuations," said he, "have been principally the consequence of short crops; and from there not being a steady demand in England for the agricultural produce of other countries, other countries have not been prepared at all times to supply us; because, in consequence of our system of averages and fixed duties, a degree of uncertainty has always prevailed on the continent relative to the British market. The consequent shortness of supply, causing high prices for bread and other articles of food, diminishes the means of purchasing and paying for other articles for home consumption, while the increased price of food, at the same time, diminishes employment in manufacturing labor for exportation to other countries; and the demand for labor is also decreased by the diminished quantity for home consumption, leaving a great surplus to be exported, and which surplus supplies the place of the manufactures that were previously produced when the prices of provisions were low. The steady moderate price of food, the dependent steady demand for labor, the equally dependent demand for manufactures, and the increased or decreased application for parish relief, by those employed, or thrown out of employment, being made in fact by our legislation, not on any measure of certainty, but on the changes of the wind, or the rise and fall of the barometer."

If there was a fixed duty on corn, however objectionable that duty might be, it was his belief that there would be something like certainty as to the trade in that article between foreign countries and England. In that case the trade would be like most other trades not placed under variable and uncertain restrictions; it would lead to a more natural exchange of commodities between England and other countries, and a large amount of revenue would be collected thereby; for it is evident that the greatest revenue that can be collected is from those articles which are most consumed, and certainly of corn the people would consume the most. If there was a low fixed duty on corn and other provisions, it would relieve the people from taxes levied on other articles, and bring wines and other luxuries more within their reach; and not only that, continued he, "but I am convinced that, with the present corn laws, it will be impossible to maintain the present rents of land, inasmuch as if the present corn laws are continued, the inevitable consequence will be that persons of capital in this country, and men of ingenuity, will do what the landlords cannot do; that is, they will remove with their capital and their industry to other countries, whereas the lands cannot be removed; and if you remove the manufacturing industry from the neighborhood of agricultural lands, you reduce the rents of those lands, as has taken place under similar circumstances in every country in the world. In the neighborhood of many commercial towns, Liverpool and Manchester for example, lands which pay a rent of from £3 to £6 per acre, would scarcely be considered fit for any sort of cultivation in places distant from the seats of trade and industry. These lands would become what they were formerly, only fit for rabbit warrens. In various parts of Germany the rents are not one

tenth part what they were one hundred years ago, occasioned entirely by the removal of the manufactures; for example, in the neighborhood of Ausbury, which was once a flourishing imperial city, the rents at that period were immense; the landlords were, during the prosperity of trade and manufactures, led to build some of the finest palaces in Europe : those palaces are now deserted, or turned into post-houses, or inns, or barracks, or hospitals; nobody is living in them of the name or family of those who constructed them. The same may be said of every town where manufactures once flourished, and which bad laws and bad government have been instrumental in destroying. Desolation has been the conse. quence of the withdrawal of that flourishing industry, and the same is to be found in every other country in every period of the history of mankind, under similar circumstances."

ART. IV.-GENERAL AVERAGE.*

ITS APPLICATION TO LIGHTERAGE AND FREIGHT.

A VESSEL, on a voyage from Europe to New York, was stranded sixty or seventy miles from New York. The underwriters sent an agent to preserve the cargo in the first place, and if practicable, also the shipthough there was very slight expectation of saving her, as there had been no instance of getting off a ship that had been stranded on the same coast. A greater part of the cargo was landed; but a small part, consisting of iron and a few packages of goods, could not be got out, there being a great deal of water in the hold. The cargo thus landed, was brought on to the port of destination by other conveyance.

The vessel, by help of empty casks and lightwood to buoy her up, was got off, and was towed to New York by a steamboat.

On these facts the following questions are proposed:

1. Are the expenses of getting off the vessel with the small quantity of the cargo left on board, general average?

2. Are the charges of bringing the cargo from the place of stranding to the port of destination general average, or are they to be paid by freight? 1. The expenses of floating the ship is doubtless to be adjusted by an average on the ship and the part of the cargo remaining on board at the time of floating her, and which could not before be got at to be landed.

Upon the same principle, the expense of landing the rest of the cargo would have been adjusted as an average on the ship and cargo, if it had been landed for the purpose of lightening the ship and floating her. But as it was landed for the purpose of saving the cargo itself merely, and not that of floating the ship, I do not see that the ship is liable for any part of that expense, since the proceedings for floating the ship appear to have been subsequent, and entirely independent of the discharging of the cargo.

But the expense of getting off the vessel certainly cannot be a general average upon the whole cargo saved. In the case of Heyliger vs. N. Y.

Furnished for publication in the Merchants' Magazine, by ZEBEDEE COOK, JR. Esq., President of the Mutual Safety Insurance Company.

Firemen's Insurance Co., 11 Johnson's Rep. 85, the expense of saving the cargo and materials of the wrecked ship were adjusted in general average. In that case the court say, "the expense of conveyance in another vessel or boat, strictly so considered, ought to fall on the shipowner, and not on the shipper of the goods." They distinguished between the expense of saving the property, that is, rescuing it from the situation in which it was liable to be destroyed, and the transportation of the cargo from the place of the wreck to the port of destination. As far as labor and expense are bestowed indiscriminately for the benefit of different interests, those interests contribute proportionally, and whether this is called general or particular average will make no difference in the amount of the loss on each interest. But the moment the vessel and cargo become separated-and what is done for saving either has no effect in regard to saving the other-the principle of general average ceases. This is the doctrine of the case above cited. The transportation of the cargo is held to be a charge upon freight—that is, if the freight exceeds the expense; for it cannot be supposed that the shipowner will pay a greater amount than the freight for the purpose of earning freight. He must hire another ship, if it is reasonable that he should; but it is not reasonable that he should be required to hire another ship at an expense greater than the whole amount of freight. Suppose vessels to go sixty or seventy miles from New York to take out the cargo of a wrecked vessel and bring it on to New York, and the cargo is taken directly from the wrecked vessel on board of the lighters; this mixes up the expense of saving and that of forwarding the cargo. It is not easy to say what expense is incurred for salvage, and what for transportation. But suppose the cargo to be fished out of the wreck, landed and stored in a safe place, and that it is then reshipped and forwarded, the expense of salvage and that of transportation are distinct. Here the shipowner has a right, if he so elects, to re-ship the cargo and forward it, and entitle himself to freight. The case admits of an easy and plain adjustment upon this principle. But in the case first supposed, as it is not obvious what was the expense of salvage, and what that of transportation, there is not the same facility in making the adjustment; still this can make no difference in the principle by which the case is governed. Though it is a matter of some difficulty to distinguish the expense of salvage from that of transportation, yet this is a difficulty of settling the facts, and not one of determining the principles applicable to the case. When it is once determined what expense belongs to each description, the case is determined; and in such case, if the forwarding of the goods is impracticable, or if the expense of the forwarding exceeds the whole freight for the voyage, so that the owner elects not to forward them for the sake of earning freight, the question becomes one of total or partial loss on the cargo.

I think, then, that the expense of getting off the vessel is not a subject of contribution by the part of the cargo landed before the vessel was floated. The shipper of those goods had no interest whatever in the floating of the vessel. And the fact of the vessel's afterward proceeding to the port of destination was entirely indifferent to him; so long as she did not take his goods, it was immaterial to him what port she next made, or whether she made any. This shows conclusively that he is not liable to contribute to the subsequent expense of floating the vessel.

The only question in this respect is, whether the vessel, if she is event

« AnteriorContinuar »