ty and the extenfive information of thofe committees of merchants who have appeared before the Committee of Ways and Means. The teftimony reported has only made out one fide of the queftion. It would aftonifh those who are unacquainted with judicial proceedings, particularly in chancery, where individuals of the firft and equal refpectability contend for their rights, and each party, though equally zealous in his own behalf, make out very different and oppofite cafes. Here the judge leaves the ftatement of the parties and reforts to other teftimony, either verbal or written. Indeed fometimes the parties make statements contrary to the records of the courts which is the higheft fpecies of evidence.

A chancellor who had never adorned the bench of equity, would be still more astonished in cafes brought for his adjudication. He would take up the bill of the complainant and read it-he would look at the party making the statement-he would acknowledge his refpectability, his high ftanding, his unfufpected veracity-and without further inveftigation he would fuppofe no doubt could exift as to the juftice of the claim, and would feel a difpofition forthwith to enter a decree against the defendant. But when his duty compelled him to travel over the statement of the defendant, equally refpectable, equally creditable, equally honorable, he would immediately discover that he had only viewed one fide of the queftion. His mind would immediately be balanced, and he would call for other teftimony to make out the cafe-and what is ftill more wonderful, neither party in their statement would fo contradict each other as to injure the reputation of the other. So powerful is felf-intereft-fo blind to the rights of others-the mind feems to poffefs magical powers to deceive itself without being confcious of it. With thefe remarks, I turn to the report, 19th page, where the Committee of Merchants ftate, that the average of the impoft duties, as calculated at the Cuftom House, amount to 33 1-3 per cent. on the prime coft of goods-on crockery and glass ware, hard ware, plated ware, filks, milinery, &c. 50 per cent. Here we have the record as a guide as to duties and it was my duty to defcend to that record and confult its pages.

The duties are divided in denomination into specific and ad valorem duties. Few articles pay fpecific duties-the great fund of revenue arifes from ad valorem duties. These duties may be claffed according to thefe rates. Previous to a declaration of war, the peace duties were, 1ft. 12 1-2, 15, and 20 per cent; to these were added 21.2 per cent. the Mediterranean fund. Doubled fince war the ftand, 1ft clafs, 25 per cent. add Mediterranean duty, 2 1-2 27 1-2. 24 clafs, 30 per cent; add the Mediterranean duty, 2 1.2, 32 1.2. 3d clafs, 40 per cent; add, the Mediterranean duty, 2 1-2, 42 1-2.

The rates of ad valorem duties are fixed by law. The calcu- · lation is made by adding 20 per cent. upon the prime coft of all goods imported from the Cape of Good Hope or beyond. 10 per cent. upon the actual coft from any other place, including all charges which precede the fhipment, commiffions, outfide packages, and infurance excepted. The prime coft, we will take the round fum of 100%.

and make the calculated export duties from G. Britain and inland charges,

6 to be added to prime coft.

To this fum add 10 per cent.

106

10 12

The amount upon which duty 116 12 is calculated for every one hundred pounds prime coft.

This calculation is not an arbitrary one. It is confiftent with the law and the practice of the Treafury; only in most cafes the Treasury does not add as much as 6 per cent. to the prime coft, as I have done in this cafe. Indeed I have now 2 original invoices and a bill of lading, to prove that the ordinary charges which are added to the prime cost, and upon which the duty is calculated, does not amount to 6 per cent. Upon every 100% prime coft, therefore, the charges and the 10 per cent. will make it 1167.

1ft. The duty of 27 1-2 per cent. on 1167. would be 32 per cent. on 100%.

2d. The duty of 32 1-2 per cent. on 116%. would be 38 per cent. on 100%.

3d. The duty of 42 1-2 per cent. on 116% would be 49 1-2 per cent. on 100%.

It is neceffary to examine and find out the proportions of the importations on articles which pay these three rates of duty, of 27 1-2, 32 1-2, and 42 1-2 per cent. upon prime coft, and the addition of 67. to each 1007. according to the calculation at the Custom House; or in other words, the articles paying upon the prime cost 32 per cent. 38 per cent. and 49 1.2 per cent. Hollow glafs ware, carriages, and parts of carriages, alone pay 49 1-2 per cent. Hard ware, milinery, leather and manufactures of leather, china, crockery, &c. pay 38 per cent. All other goods, principally wool, filk, cotton, flax, hemp, &c. pay only 32 per cent. Although the bulk of thefe articles paying the laft eftimated rate of duties, are enumerated by the Committee of Merchants from New York as paying 50 per cent. making an average difference of about 17 per cent. which taken from the grofs amount of the charges which they stated amounted to 60 per cent. and upwards, will give them a profit of 17 per cent. more than was calculated. But I proceed with my calculation to find

out the average of the duty upon importations to the United States. This can be done only by reforting to the annual report made by the Secretary of the Treasury, which will give the amount of articles paying the 3 rates of ad valorum duty. But little time has been given, and I have commenced with the year 1804 up to the year 1810, both years inclufive.

The refult of 7 years gives us 264 millions worth of importations, by adding a fraction of a million in each cafe, for fake of round numbers.

Of that vafl amount of 264 millions, three millions has paid 49 1-2 per cent duty; 48 millions has paid 38 per cent; and 213 millions has paid the lowest per cent upon the prime cofl, 32 per cent. To get hold of the average duty we muft not take the duties alone, and add them together and then divide by three; we muft alfo take into the calculation the amount of articles paying the different rates of duty. The experiment has been made of the two laft years, and of the three last years. The average duty upon the whole importations would be lefs than 33 1-3 per cent. Therefore, the great bulk of the articles, and in fact all of the articles enumerated by the committee of New York, as paying 50 per cent. duty upon the prime coft, pay only 38 and 32, except hollow glafs ware, and the average duty as calculated at the Cuftom Houfe upon annual importations does not amount to 33 1 3 per cent. So much for the firft fact, which is proven varient from the understanding of the New York committee by the laws of the land, the Cuftom Houfe calculations, and mathematical demonftration. We will now pafs to another allegation in the reported statement. It feems as if one of the New York committee flated, that the greater part of the late importations of British manufactures

*

were purchased in the fall of 1810, and previous to 2d of Feb. 1811, the period when the non-importation commenced its operation. This ftatement was not made upon pofitive facts. It was a belief, an opinion expreffed, and as will appear unnec effarily and too ftrongly expreffed. Thefe were the cafes moft entitled to confideration--and the want of evidence to difcriminate, is a reafon additional why we fhould refer this fubject to fome tribunal for examination, and you must give it to the Secretary of the Treafury, or you must create a new tribunal. "The statement under confideration does not admit of arithmetical demonftration. We muft refort to circumftantial and. fuch pofitive evidence as we have on this point, and although it may not be fufficient to fay what amount of goods lately imported were purchased and on American account and rifque prior to the 2d of February, 1811, there is violent prefumptive evidence to overthrow the opinion of the member of the New York Committee, that the greater part was fo purchased.

The late importations admit of claffification as to the time of purchase, as to the time of fhipment, and as to the ownership of the property. As to the time of purchase. That which was purchased previous to 24 February, 1811; that which was purchased after 2d February and previous to the revocation of the British orders in Council of 23d of June, 1812, and purchafes made after a revocation of the Britifla orders in council. As to fhipments, veffels which left British ports for the United States before a knowledge of the declaration of war, and veffels which failed after that knowledge. As to the ownership, 1ft. That which was purchaf d either on credit or with prompt payment by American citizens, and shipped on American account. 2d. Goods fhipped by British merchants to order and on British rifque and British account until delivered to the American merchant in this country. I have already produced papers fhewing fuch a cafe, where the invoices, the bill of lading, and the mercantile letter enclosed to a friend, who was directed to deliver over the goods to a third perfon, upon the contingency of his being in folvent circumftances. 3d. British property-There is no evidence to determine precifely the quantity of goods purchafed at thofe different periods--but there are circumftances to eftabiifh the fact, that a very fmall portion indeed was purchafed prior to the 2d of February, 1811.

From an examination of Cuftom Houfe returns it will appear that from ten to fifteen million of dollars worth of British mer chandize was fhipped into the United States previous to the 2d of February, 1811, and which was admitted to entry and exempted from forfeiture in confequence of the provifions of the act of March, 1811, which was intended to embrace those very cafes. Independent of this, it was well known that application would be made to Congress for fuch a relaxation of the nonimportation act.

There were other weighty inducements to the merchant to get home his property. He had paid the ufual prices. The non-importation was to commence its operation on the 2d February, 1811; there was no profpect of a speedy termination of our differences with Great Britain; the exhaufted markets of the United States offered a certain pledge of profit. Under these circumstances is it likely that ten million dollars worth of the late importations were purchased, paid for, put into warehoules, and there remained until 23d June, 1812? The enterprizing and bold character of the merchant forbids fuch a fuppofition. Their conduct in general, I do not speak in particular, has not been timid, more efpecially when they have only come into contact with the commercial reftrictions of the United States. This is not the only circumftance. We have it from the statement of Mr. Ruffell, that the revocation of the British orders in council was not an act of juftice towards the United States, but as a relief to her numerous fuffering and ruined manufacturers who had ftated that they had conditional orders from American merchants for vaft quantities of goods as foon as the orders in council were revoked. Mr. Ruffell alfo ftates, that after the revocation of the orders in council, the agents of American merchants were extremely active in making investments in British manufactures. It is a fact acknowledged that the state of exchange was affected by it. It fell from upwards of 20 to 14 or 15 per cent. and that there was alfo a rife in the price of manufactures. Mr. Ruffell concludes with ftating it as his opinion, that a very small portion of the late importations was purchased prior to February, 1811. I have examined this fact, not as a judge or as an advocate, but with a view to convince the committee of the neceffity of a reference of this fubject. The next fact I fhall take up relates to the rate of profit, and here again we must have recourfe to the beft evidence in our power, and not the beft the nature of the cafe will admit. The petitioners admit that they will make a handfome profit if their bonds fhould not be forfeited. If they fhould efcape by a total remiffion of the forfeitures incurred, this handfome profit they allege will be from 5 to 10 per cent. above ordinary profit and not including the discount in the rate of exchange between the United States and Great Britain. It is alleged that the rate of exchange ought not to be calculated as an extra profit, becaufe within ten years it will balance itfelf. It is true that in ordinary times, the exchange will fometimes be above par, and fometimes below par, fo as not to make any material profit or lofs within ten or any given number of years. But previous to the year 1811, for 20 years the discount has never been greater than ten per cent.-during the year 1811 it was 20 per cent. and upwards. The petitioners fay from 10 to 23. Taking all the information I have read on this fubject, the difcount in fome cafes has been 28 per cent. If the petitioners