| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
Journal of the Confederate Congress --THIRTY-SEVENTH DAY--WEDNESDAY, December 21, 1864.
OPEN SESSION.
The House met pursuant to adjournment, and was opened with prayer by Rev. Dr. Doggett.
The Chair laid before the House a message from the President; which is as follows, viz:
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith transmit the reports made by the heads of the Treasury and War Departments in response to your resolution of the 6th instant making various inquiries relative to the subjects embraced in the act of 6th February, 1864. entitled "A bill to impose regulations upon the foreign commerce of the Confederate States to provide for the public defense."
The importance of this subject induces me to present at some length my views upon the policy of the law, and upon its effects as developed by experience.
The first section of the law (which was passed at the fourth session of the First Congress, and was the expression of its matured judgment) prohibits the exportation of the principal products of the Confederate States except under uniform regulations; and the reason for this prohibition is expressed in the preamble to be this: "That the condition of the contest demands that the Confederate Slates should call into requisition whatever resources of men and money they have for the support of their cause."
The fifth section of the law indicated that the purpose of Congress in granting power to allow or refuse permission to export the produce of our country was to enforce a return, in whole or in part, of the value of the produce exported "in military or other supplies for the public service."
But a full understanding of the policy of your predecessors can be attained only by taking into consideration another act passed on the same day and entitled "An act to prohibit the importation of luxuries, or of articles not necessaries or of common use." This last-mentioned act absolutely prohibited, during the pending war, the importation of any articles not necessary for the defense and subsistence of the country: and among those excluded from importation were wines, spirits, jewelry, cigars, and all the finer fabrics of cotton, flax, wool, or silk, as well as all other merchandise serving only for the indulgence of luxurious habits.
In a word, the two acts were an exercise of the power to regulate commerce, so as to make it subservient to the success of our struggle, by prohibiting the importation or exportation of merchandise or produce for any other purpose than national defense and necessary subsistence until these vital objects should be placed beyond the reach of danger. The two laws form one common system, and they should be so regarded in discussing the ProPriety of the repeal or modification of either.
When signing my approval of these acts I considered them as measures eminently wise and proper and as well adapted to remedy existing evils. Complaints were rife through our country that its foreign commerce was almost exclusively in the hands of aliens; that our cotton, tobacco, and naval stores were being drained from the States. and that we were receiving in return cargoes of liquors, wines, and articles of luxury; that the imported goods, being held in few hands and in limited quantities, were sold at prices so exorbitant that the blockade runners, after purchasing fresh cargoes of cotton, still retained large sums in Confederate money, which they invested in gold for exportation and in foreign exchange; and that the whole course of the trade had a direct tendency to impoverish our country, demoralize our people, depreciate our currency, and enfeeble our defense. Congress believed these complaints well founded, and in that belief I fully concurred. None doubted that a remedy was desirable, and your present inquiries seek information in relation to the efficacy of the remedy provided by the legislation then devised, as developed by actual experience.
My conviction is decided that the effect of the legislation has been salutary; that the evils existing prior to its adoption have been materially diminished, and that the repeal of the legislation Or any modification impairing its efficiency would be calamitous. This opinion is shared by every Executive Department
Page 369 | Page image
that has been intrusted with the execution of these laws and regulations, and thus enabled to form a judgment based on observation and experience.
The propriety and justice of a claim on the part of the Government that a share of all vessels engaged in the blockade trade should be held subject to its use for the benefit of the whole people was so obvious that even before the legislation of Congress few owners of vessels refused to place at its disposal one-third of the tonnage, both outward and inward, for the importation of supplies and the exportation of the produce necessary to pay for them. On the passage of these laws it was deemed proper to increase the demand of the Government to one-half. This decision was based not only on the consideration that the Gov. eminent was burthened with the entire expense of defending the ports of entry, but on the further reason that the enormous gains of the commerce were monopolized by foreigners free to engage in commerce at their pleasure; while our citizens were engrossed in the sacred duty of defending their homes and liberties, and, therefore, unable to compete for the trade. It was foreseen that this increase would be resisted, and in a message on this subject, addressed by me to the House of Representatives on the 10th June last, it is stated that "for some weeks after the adoption of these regulations strenuous efforts were made by parties interested in the business to induce a relaxation of the regulations. Many of the vessels remained unemployed on the allegation of the owners that the terms imposed by the regulations were so onerous as to render impossible the continuance of the business. The regulations remained unchanged, for I was satisfied from an examination of the subject that this complaint was unfounded and that the withdrawal of the vessels was an experiment, by a combination among their owners, on the firmness of the Government. The result proved the correctness of this view; for, after various attempts to obtain increased advantages, the vessels resumed their voyages, their number has been largely increased, the ability to export produce and import supplies on Government account has been developed to a greater extent than had been anticipated, and the credit of the Government has been so improved in foreign markets that the quotations for its loan have rapidly advanced."
In the same message it was also stated that "among the efforts made to induce a change of the regulations was a warning given to officers of the Government that the owners of vessels could make better bargains with the governors of States than with the Confederate Government, and that, if the regulations were not relaxed in their favor, they would transfer their vessels to the executives of the several States, and thus withdraw them from the operation of the regulations."
Reverting now to the precise inquiries contained in your resolution, I answer:
Each State not only exports whatever it pleases, but the obligation imposed on private individuals to bring back into the country necessary supplies, equal in value to half of the produce exported, is not extended to the States. They are, in these respects, on a footing of absolute equality with the Confederate Government.
I am aware that complaints have been made of the effect of these regulations by the governors of some of the States; but their objections are, in my judgment, without just foundation.
It is not denied by any of them that when a State purchases a vessel it is left under the exclusive control of the State authorities, and that the Confederate Government claims no share of the outward or inward tonnage. It is also admitted that when the States purchase or charter any part of a vessel not exceeding one-half, the Confederate Government does not interfere with their enjoyment of the portion so purchased or chartered, and confines itself to exacting from the private owner the use of that half not conveyed to the State; but the complaint is that the Confederate Government will not further consent to yield, for the benefit of a single State, any part of that moiety of the tonnage of each vessel which it has secured under the regulations for the common use and benefit of all the States of which it is the agent.
By the regulations, as now existing, half the tonnage of all vessels in the trade has been conveyed to the use of the Confederacy. Why should a single State be allowed to take for its separate use, from the Confederacy, any part of this half?
Page 370 | Page image
Is it not enough that the remaining half is left open for purchase or charter by the State?
It is plain that a State and the owner of a vessel can have no motive for contracting in such manner as to diminish the tonnage claimed by the Confederacy, unless for a profit that is to be shared by both. Any concession, therefore, made on this point is, in effect, the loss of an interest which is the common property of all the States for the joint gain of a single State and of a private capitalist.
Again: The army in the field is the Army of the Confederacy, which is charged with the duty of supplying it with clothing, subsistence, and munitions of war. The performance of this duty demands the most strenuous exertions and the command of all the resources that can be reached. Any diminution of our command of those resources by a modification of the existing legislation might lead to disastrous consequences. Under our present arrangements we are barely able to supply to our brave defenders a moderate share of those comforts which are indispensable to their efficiency. As long as privations are endured by all alike, there is a noble and patriotic emulation in the display of cheerful fortitude in enduring them. But if the common supply now distributed among all is diminished for the purpose of enabling any one State to add to the supplies furnished her own troops, the effect will be pernicious to an extent that Can scarcely be appreciated in advance. I leave it to others to imagine the state of feeling which would ensue if the soldiers of the seaboard States were to be found amply supplied with all necessaries and comforts, standing side by side with the troops of interior States, who would be deprived of a part of what they now receive, in consequence of a diminution of our present means of providing for all alike. If to this it should be answered that the interior States could, enjoy the same advantages as the seaboard States by sending agents to the ports to represent them, thus placing all on an equal footing, the reply is obvious. The result would then be to bring all the States back to the same condition in which they now are; that is to say, each possessing its fair share of the advantages derived from the tonnage used by the Confederate Government.
It appears to me that any change in the present regulations so as to affect the rights of the Confederate Government must necessarily be either useless or mischievous--useless, if no advantage is to be gained by any one State over the other; mischievous in the extreme, if such an advantage is to be the effect of the change.
It has been suggested that there are many articles required by the people of the different States which can only be obtained through the aid of their governments, and that the efforts of the Confederate Government are confined exclusively to the supply of the needs of the Army. This is true. But one-half of all the tonnage of private owners remains open to employment by the States for the purpose suggested, though, perhaps, at somewhat greater cost than would be charged if they were permitted to use the portion reserved for the Confederacy. But I repeat that there is no justice apparent in the demand that all the States should sacrifice a common right for the profit of a single State, nor in diminishing the necessary comforts of the soldier for the benefit of those who, remain at home. It is also competent for each State to purchase vessels for its own use, or to purchase shares in common with one or more other States, for the introduction of supplies necessary for the people, without encroaching on the means used by the Confederacy for supplying the Army.
In addition to the statements made by him, derived from official returns, the Secretary War reports that ninny new steamers are understood to be on the way to engage in the trade, notwithstanding the impression which prevails that the stringency of the blockade is constantly increasing.
The number of vessels which arrived at two ports of the Confederacy between the 1st November and 6th December was forty-three, averaging more than one per day, and indicating no check in the trade. A further and conclusive proof that the profits of this commerce under present regulations are sufficiently tempting to secure its increase is afforded by the fact that the shares of the companies engaged in it have greatly advanced in value. The shares of one company; originally of $1,000 each, were selling, in July last, for $20,000 each, and now command $30,000. Those of another company have increased in the same period from $2,500 to $6,000; and all exhibit a large advance.
Page 371 | Page image
My opinion has already been indicated on this point, and the reports of the Secretaries are decided in the expression of their own convictions of the wisdom of the laws and the beneficial effects produced by them, in connection with the regulations established for giving them effect.
These laws and regulations have enabled the Government not only to provide supplies to a much greater extent than formerly and to furnish the means for meeting the installments on its foreign loan, but to put an end to a wasteful and ruinous contract system by which Supplies were obtained before Congress determined to exercise control over the imports and exports.
Instead of being compelled to give contractors a large profit on the cost of their supplies, and to make payment in cotton in our ports at 6 pence per pound, we now purchase supplies abroad by our agents at cost in the foreign market, and pay there in cotton, which sells at a net price of 24 pence per pound. When all the elements of the calculation are taken into consideration, it is by no means an exaggeration to say that 100 bales of cotton exported by the Government will purchase abroad the same amount and value of supplies that 600 bales would purchase delivered to contractors in the Confederacy. A reference to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury shows that of 11,796 bales of cotton shipped since 1st July last, but 1,272 were lost--not quite 11 per cent. If this be taken as a fair average, and it is believed to be so, out of 600 bales of cotton exported 534 would arrive abroad and yield, at £40 per bale, £21,360, while the same 600 bales delivered on payment at a home port, at 6 pence per pound, would yield less than £6,000.
There are other advantages derived from buying abroad rather than contracting with blockade runners, of no small magnitude; but the foregoing statement will shew the enormous profits that were made by them when the Government was forced to contract instead of purchasing for itself, and will suggest a motive for the strenuous efforts they have not ceased to make to get rid of the regulations and procure a change in the policy of the Government. It is to the law and regulations that the Government owes its ability to command freight room, and then buy and sell for itself, instead of being forced to make contracts so extravagant as those above described. It requires little sagacity to perceive that, with temptation so great, the owners of vessels would spare no pains to obtain contracts from the several States, if allowed to do so by law, with the view of again withdrawing from our use, as far as possible, the tonnage of their vessels, and thus compelling a return to the ruinous contract system.
The reports of the Secretaries will fully inform you of the quantity and nature of the supplies obtained by the Government under the present system, and their importance to the national defense will be perceived at a glance.
JEFFERSON DAVIS.
Richmond, Va., December 20, 1864.
The communication and accompanying documents were referred to the Committee on Commerce and ordered to be printed.
The Chair also laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury relative to public money captured by the enemy from the depositary at Tampa, Fla.; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Also, a Senate bill (S. 122) "regulating the compensation of postmasters, special agents, and route agents;" which was read a first and second time and referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads.
Also, a Senate bill (S. 146) "making an appropriation for the removal and erection of the naval ropewalk;" which was read a
Page 372 | Page image
first and second time and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Also, a bill of the House (H. R. 214) "to define and punish conspiracy against the Confederate States;" which had been returned from the Senate with the following amendment:
Strike out the proviso in the bill, which reads as follows, viz: "Provided, That for offenses under this law persons who belong to the Army or Navy, or persons connected with the military service, shall be tried by a military court or court-martial, and citizens shall be tried by indictment or presentment, giving them the right of a jury trial," and insert in lieu thereof the following, viz: "Provided, That any person charged with any offense mentioned in this act, if such person be in the military or naval service of the Confederate States, may be tried by a military court or court-martial, and if found guilty shall be punished by fine and imprisonment as hereinbefore provided, or such other punishment, not capital, as the court shall adjudge; and if the person charged be not in the military or naval service as aforesaid, such person shall be tried in the district court of the Confederate States for the proper district."
On motion of Mr. Russell, the rule was suspended requiring the bill and amendment to be referred to a committee.
Mr. Russell moved that the House concur in the amendment of the Senate, and called the question; which was not ordered.
Mr. Marshall moved to amend the amendment of the Senate by striking out all after the word "act," in line 4, down to word "shall," in line 7.
The amendment of Mr. Marshall was lost.
Mr. Chilton submitted the following amendment to the amendment of the Senate:
Strike out the whole of the same and insert in lieu thereof the following, viz: "Provided, That cases arising under this act in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war, shall be tried by a military court or court-martial, and all others by the district court of the Confederate States."
Mr. Baldwin submitted the following amendment to the amendment of Mr. Chilton:
Strike out the words "under this act."
Pending which,
The morning hour having expired,
Mr. Cluskey moved that the special order for Committee of the Whole be postponed to enable him to call up his motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution of the Senate in relation to a recess during the Christmas holidays was indefinitely postponed.
The motion prevailed.
Mr. Cluskey called up his motion to reconsider, and called the question; which was ordered.
Mr. Bell demanded the yeas and nays thereon;
Which were ordered,
Yeas: Anderson, Barksdale, Baylor, Boyce, Bradley, Burnett, Cluskey, Darden, Fuller, Gaither, Gilmer, Goode, Hanly, Hartridge, Johnston, Keeble, Lamkin, J. M. Leach, Marshall, McCallum, McMullin, Montague, Moore, Ramsay, Rogers, Russell, Simpson, J. M. Smith, Smith of Alabama, Smith of North Carolina, Staples, Triplett, Vest, Whitfield, Witherspoon, and Mr. Speaker.
Nays: Akin, Atkins, Ayer, Baldwin, Batson, Bell, Branch, Eli M.
Page 373 | Page image
Bruce, Horatio W. Bruce, Chilton, Chrisman, Clark, Clopton, Colyar, Conrad, Conrow, Cruikshank, Dickinson, Dupré, Echols, Ewing, Farrow, Foster, Funsten, Garland; Gholson, Hatcher, Hilton, Holder, Holliday, Kenner, Lester, Lyon, Machen, Miles, Orr, Perkins, Pugh, Read, Sexton, Shewmake, W. E. Smith, Snead, Villeré, Welsh, Wickham, and Wilkes.
So the motion to reconsider was lost.
On motion of Mr. Baldwin, the special order was again postponed to enable the Committee on Ways and Means to report back a bill.
Under a suspension of the rules, Mr. Lyon, from the Committee on Ways and Means, to whom had been referred a Senate bill (S. 136) "to provide funds to meet a deficiency in the appropriation to pay the officers and employees of the War Department," reported back the same with the recommendation that it do pass.
The question being on postponing the bill and placing it on the Calendar,
It was decided in the negative.
The bill was read a third time and passed, and the title was read and agreed to.
Mr. Foster moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
The motion to reconsider was lost.
On motion of Mr. Lyon, the special order was again postponed to enable the Committee on Ways and Means to report back a bill.
Under a suspension of the rules, Mr. Lyon, from the Committee on Ways and Means, to whom had been referred a Senate bill (S. 96) "to extend the time within which holders of Treasury notes of the old issue may exchange the same for notes of the new issue," reported back the same with the recommendation that it do pass.
The question being on postponing the bill and placing it on the Calendar,
It was decided in the negative.
The bill was read a third time and passed, and the title was read and agreed to.
Mr. Chilton moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
The motion was lost.
A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. Nash, their Secretary; which is as follows, viz:
Mr. Speaker: The Senate have passed bills of the following titles, viz:
In which I am directed to ask the concurrence of this House.
On motion of Mr. Machen, the special order was again postponed to enable him to offer a resolution.
Mr. Machen, under a suspension of the rules, offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That the discussion of the bill before the Committee of the Whole. entitled "An act to provide more effectually for the reduction and redemption of the currency," shall close to-morrow at fifteen minutes after one o'clock post-meridian, and the vote shall then be taken upon the various amendments before the committee or which may be offered, allowing five minutes for explanation to the mover, when he has not already been heard thereon, and five minutes to
Page 374 | Page image
any member of the committee who may obtain the floor first in opposition. The bill as amended shall then be reported to the House for its action without delay.
Mr. Miles moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words "to-morrow at fifteen minutes after one o'clock post-meridian" and insert in lieu thereof the words "two o'clock on Friday."
The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution as amended was adopted.
On motion of Mr. Holliday, leave of absence was granted Mr. J. T. Leach (called home by sickness in his family).
The House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Clopton in the chair, to consider the special order, viz:
The bill "to provide more effectually for the reduction and redemption of the currency;"
And having spent some time therein, the committee rose and reported, through their Chairman, that the committee had, according to order, had the subject referred to them under consideration and had come to no conclusion thereon.
A message was received from the President, by Mr. Harrison, his Private Secretary, informing the House that the President had on the 19th instant approved and signed the following acts, entitled
On motion of Mr. McMullin,
The House adjourned until 12 o'clock m. to-morrow.
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |