Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:29:10.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-Importation, 1806–1812

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Herbert Heaton
Herbert Heaton
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Peter A. Schenck, Surveyor of Customs and Inspector of Revenue for the Port of New York, must have felt slightly exhilarated when he left his office on the evening of December 30, 1807. He had that day wielded for the first time the two-edged sword placed in his hands by Congress for the destruction of British maritime arrogance. Nay more, he had struck at least seven times, by seizing that number of shipments of British goods which had arrived in two vessels ten days before. In a few days Nathan Sanford, the District Attorney, would file seven separate libels in the Federal District Court on behalf of the United States vs. twenty-two bales of woolen cloth, two cases of hats, eight boxes linen cloth, sixteen boxes of linens, one case of woolen hosiery, two cases of plated ware, and two boxes of woolen hosiery. The goods would doubtless be condemned, for Sanford was a clever lawyer and the district judge was not, like the fellow up in Massachusetts, unfriendly to Jeffersonian policies. Later the United States marshal, Peter Curtenius, would have them sold by auction outside the Tontine Coffee House; the court and marshal's costs—totaling about $120 in each case—would be paid, and the balance, where there was any, would be shared equally between the customs staff and the Treasury. If this process could be repeated often enough, John Bull might soon be willing to come to terms.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , November 1941 , pp. 178 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schenck was appointed surveyor in March 1806, and held this post till mid-1813. David Gelston had been collector since 1801; and these men virtually ruled the port.

2 The records, of these and most other cases mentioned in this article have been found in the manuscripts of the Federal District Court of New York. For access to this mountain of documents I am indebted to the officers in charge of them, and to the Work Projects Administration workers who cleaned them and reduced them to some sort of order. For funds which made possible their thorough examination I am indebted to the Rockefeller Foundation. Advertisements bearing on the suits have been traced through the files of the American Citizen, of New York City.

3 Since four consignments were small, the proceeds would scarcely pay the costs of the case.

4 Jennings, W. W., The American Embargo, 1807–1809 (1921)Google Scholar and Sears, L. M., Jefferson and the Embargo (1927)Google Scholar do not mention it in either text or index.

5 Ninth Congress, Session I, Chap. 29.

6 The penalties for infraction were loss of goods and a fine of thrice their value; also loss of the vessel and treble damages if the owner or master knowingly permitted banned goods to be loaded with intent to import.

7 See American State Papers, Commerce and Navigation, I, 640–666, for Gallatin's analysis of Anglo-American commerce, 1802–1804; also the later tables in the same volume analyzing the source of American imports. About 400,000 bushels of coal and 40,000,000–60,000,000 lbs. of salt came as ballast from British ports each year. The quantity of red and white lead seems enough to give all the buildings from Charleston to Maine a coat of paint each year.

8 Henry Adams, History of the United States during the Administrations of Jefferson and Madison, Book III, 175.

9 Maury to Monroe, November 26, 1806 (Liverpool consular records, National Archives).

10 The quotations from letters written by Gallatin to customs collectors or by them to him are taken from correspondence housed in the Treasury Archives, the National Archives, and the Custom Houses of Boston and Philadelphia. Since the documents are scattered and are not, in most instances, catalogued, it does not seem worth while to give detailed references.

11 Ninth Congress, Session II, Chap. 1.

12 Proclamation of March 24, 1807.

13 Gallatin's report to House Committee on Commerce and Manufactures, December 5, 1807, American State Papers, Commerce and Navigation, I, No. 120.

14 Letter, May 7, 1807, in manuscripts of Lupton firm, Leeds, England.

15 Printed in the New York Evening Post, September 24, 1807. Professor R. G. Albion kindly allowed me to examine a microfilm of the minutes of the Chamber. For the best recent analysis of the diplomatic tangle and wrangle of these years, see Burt, A. L., The United States, Great Britain, and British North America (1940)Google Scholar, Chaps. 11–13.

16 See reports of meetings, in American Citisen, November-December, 1807.

17 Gallatin's report to the House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce and Manufactures, December 5, 1807. (American State Papers, Commerce and Navigation, I, No. 120.) In District, Circuit, and Supreme Court cases, the judges frequently scolded Congress for bad grammar, composition, and phraseology.

18 Tenth Congress, Session I, Chap. 25.

19 Letters, Gallatin-Philadelphia collector, July 18, 1808; Philadelphia collector-Gallatin, May 4, 1809.

20 By the Acts of January 9, March 12, and April 25, 1808.

21 Clauder, A. C., American Commerce as affected by the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon, 1793–1812 (1932), 136Google Scholar.

22 American State Papers, Finance, II, 393–395.

23 American State Papers, Finance, II, 154.

24 Compiled from photostat copy of arrivals at Philadelphia, 1789–1817, in Pennsylvania Historical Society Library, and New York Register of Arrivals.

25 Of eighty-three embargo-breakers seized by Schenck in 1808 and 1809, at least fifty were condemned and sold.

26 List compiled from records in District Court, Philadelphia.

27 The Charleston Admiralty and Federal District Court records and journals do not always state the nature of the offense.

28 Gallatin-Lincoln, April 22, 1808.

29 McCulloch-Gallatin, August 15, 1808.

30 Printed circular to all collectors, October 1, 1808.

31 Arrivals in 1807 were fifty-nine; the average for 1798–1807 was forty-six.

32 Graff-Gallatin, July 6, 1808; Steele-Gallatin, September 9, 1808; Gallatin-Steele, October 27, 1808.

33 American State Papers, Finance, II, 309.

34 Official value of British produce exported to Canada and the Maritimes was £614,000 in 1807, £776,000 in 1808, and £1,285,000 in 1809 (Parliamentary Papers, 1816, No. 417; also House oi Commons paper, May 24, 1819; copy in Canadian Archives).

35 Gallatin to collectors at Presque Isle, and Michilimackinac, July 28, 1808 (Letters to small ports, vol. II, National Archives).

36 From January 6 to the following January 5.

37 Parliamentary Papers, 1812, No. 63.

38 In 1806–1807, for example, $38,000,000 of British goods paying ad valorem duties were imported in American ships, and only $144,000 in British holds. See annual analyses in American State Papers, Commerce and Navigation, I.

39 In 1807 a t least nine vessels made two round trips between Philadelphia and England.

40 At least twenty to Philadelphia, and a t least the same number to New York.

41 This provision was in the Embargo Act.

42 For instance, the United States imports of British ad valorem goods in “foreign” ships crawled from $142,000 in 1806–1807 to $143,000 in 1807–1808, and jumped to $6,600,000 in 1808–1809. The carriage of iron, lead, and salt also increased. (American State Papers, Commerce and Navigation, I.)

43 Maury's letters from November 26, 1808, to May 2, 1809, deal with the arrival of embargo-breakers, and with the embarrassment of the commission merchants to whom their cargoes were consigned.

44 L. M. Sears, op. cit., 29.

45 Tenth Congress, Session II, Chap. 24. Signed March 1, 1809.

46 Maury to Pinckney, May 25, 1809.

47 Eleventh Congress, Session I, Chap. 9. Signed June 28, 1809.

48 Eleventh Congress, Session II, Chap. 39. Signed May 1, 1810.

49 Evening Post, September 22, 1810.

50 Sections 3–10 and 18.

51 This phase of the story is revealed in a mass of business letters, invoices, petitions, etc., submitted as evidence in trials of cases arising from the seizure of goods after war was declared. They are in the New York District Court records.

52 Stephen Girard claimed that in 1809–1811 about £280,000 was sent for him by the Hopes of Amsterdam to Barings in London. (American State Papers, Finance, II, 640–642.)

53 Gallatin to Boston collector, January 16, 1811.

54 Steele to Gallatin, July 10, 1811.

55 Niles' Weekly Register, October 26, 1811.

56 American State Papers, Commerce and Navigation, I, No. 164.

57 Seventy arrived in Liverpool during May. Hence there was a large fleet there when the Orders-in-Council were revoked in June.