Page:History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce (Volume 2).djvu/395

 would not be able to avail themselves of that neutral position which reflection and experience equally warranted them in calculating upon, as one of the "blessings" allied to their remote and secure geographical position.

The history of these struggles shows that however enlightened the members of Congress may have been, it was, even at that time, impossible to run counter to popular clamour, although this may have been instigated by perhaps an erroneous view of the self-interests of the parties primarily concerned. The consumer did not feel the same deep immediate interest in the controversy as the shipowner, whose voice was loudly heard in Congress through the representatives of the great ports and maritime towns.

Upon a consideration of all the circumstances, Congress was led to consider that any retaliatory legislation imposing heavier discriminating duties on foreign tonnage or goods would in its consequences materially tend to increase the commercial warfare, and render more serious the war of tariff between the United States and foreign nations. The reflecting, far-seeing members perceived that if the United States were to increase her differential duties, there was every probability that England and other foreign nations would also augment theirs in every instance, and that at every time the United States pursued their plan of increase, foreign nations would repeat the same process. But they were met at all points, as we have seen, by the almost universal opposition of the American shipowners, who were