Abstract
It appears that controversies about customs duties on articles of national produce have been of no great importance in the relations between the Netherlands and the United States. In general the respective interests have not conflicted in this matter. With both has been noticed a gradual increase of tariffs, which was the expression of a simultaneous call for protection on the part of their industries. In neither government, however, was the fixation of these tariff rates essential to the ultimate shaping of their mutual political intercourse. What needed joint regulation were navigation and commerce, which established the economic relations between the two countries. Here their interests were equal but opposite, each aiming to transact as much as possible by its own national enterprise. Whereas industry and agriculture may be regulated by internal measures, trade between two nations, inter-national trade, by its nature concerns both and consequently must be regulated by mutual agreement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See chapters II and XX.
From a published list of: Duties payable on goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States of America (New York 1810).
Spirits from grain, first proof, second proof etc., 42–75 cts., were charged heavier than other spirits, first proof, second proof etc., 38–70 cts. per gallon. According to Gallatin this discrimination was unjust: “We have laid a duty of 4 to 5 cents more per gallon on spirits distilled from grain, than on rum or brandy. This extra-duty.... falls exclusively on Holland gin.” (To Eustis, Oct. 9 1817, L. o. C. Eustis Papers.) The Dutch, he concludes, would find just reason for complaint if they knew this.
Act of April 27 1816, Section 1. Also: May 12 1816, Ten Cate to Van Nagell, No. 3 (R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724), and Aug. 28 1817, ’t Hoen and Westrik to Goldberg (encl. No. 18 with report of Oct. 27 1817, see p. 304).
At the end of the twenties only it was broached with some strength, consequent to a general revival of Dutch interest in the Americas, coincident with a heavy protectionist movement in the United States.
J. Q. Adams to Anderson, May 27 1823 (D. o. S. Instructions I1).
Paris, Oct. 13 1785. Van Hogendorp, Brieven en Ged. I p. 370. Memoirs, correspondence and private papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. by T. J. Randolph (London. 1829) I p. 342, (on the same subject: ibid. p. 263, to John Adams, July 31 1785).
Keiler p. 21 f., 26 f. Johnson et al. II p. 11 f., 16, 25, 296, 349.
By a discount on imports in American vessels at first; by an increase of the duties on goods in foreign ships, since 1794.
The treaties of 1778 and allied documents, edited by G. Chinard, p. XV, XVI, 2. 3) Journals of the Continental Congress (L. o. C. edition by W. C. Ford), V p. 576.
Articles 1 and 2. — A printed copy of this plan, published subsequently, making no mention of the names and places concerned and calling the parties A. and B., was not at my disposal.
Art. I and II (The treaties of 1778..., p. 3, 4).
Ibid. p. 14, 15.
Art. III and IV; ibid. p. 25, 26. 4) Chapter V, p. 85, 86.
Expounded by Setser in the Journal of modern history, Aug. 1933.
The treaties of 1778, p. 23.
May 27 1823, Adams to Anderson (D. o. S. Instructions I1).
“The doctrine of commercial reciprocity”, said a hyperbolical pronouncement of 1828, “is the most effectual barrier against the European principle of legitimacy”, (Th. Lyman Jr., The diplomacy of the United States, 1778–1828, Boston 1828 II, p. 495). Cf. J. B. Moore, The principles of American diplomacy (New York-London 1918), p. 159.
See chapter V, p. 89, footnote 3.
See p. 154.
“An Act to repeal so much of the several acts imposing duties on the tonnage of ships and vessels, and on goods, wares and merchandise, imported into the United States, as imposes a discriminating duty on tonnage, between foreign vessels and vessels of the United States, and between goods imported into the United States in foreign vessels and vessels of the United States” (United States Statutes at Large, III, 1846, p. 224).
Annual message of the President to Congress, Dec. 5 1821 (Am. State Papers, Foreign Relations IV p. 736).
Report to Congress, March 17 1818 (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV p. 172), see chapter XVI; and Instructions to the American minister to Columbia (D. o. S. Instructions I1), May 27 1823.
Aug. 10 1818, Adams to A. H. Everett (D. o. S. Instructions); see chapter XVII.
American State Papers, For. Rel. IV p. 7 f.
Cf. J. B. Moore, The principles of American diplomacy, p. 172.
Cf. for instance Hovde p. 18, whose representation of American policy is however decidedly in error here.
Section 3 of this Act (April 27 1816), quoted below, p. 169 footnote 4.
Dec. 5 1821 (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV p. 736).
See chapter X.
Malloy p. 624. Ratifications were exchanged in Jan. 1816. The treaty was concluded for 4 years, but prolonged in 1818 for 10 years. 2) See chapter X.
Nov. 12 1816, Monroe to Eustis (L. o. C. Eustis Papers III).
July 25 1816, Ten Cate reports hereon to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. I. S. 1816 No. 3852).
March 20 1817, idem (ibid. 1817 No. 2712). A treaty was concluded, but not immediately ratified. See chapter XVIII.
“Sect. 3. And be it farther enacted. That an addition of ten per centum shall be made to the several rates of duties above specified and imposed, in respect to all goods, wares and merchandise, on the importation of which, in American or foreign vessels, a specific discrimination has not been herein already made, which, after the said 30th day of June, 1816, shall be imported in ships or vessels not of the United States: Provided, That this additional duty shall not apply to goods, wares and merchandise, imported in ships or vessels not of the United States, entitled by treaty, or by any Act or Acts of Congress, to be entered in the ports of the United States, on the payment of the same duties as are paid on goods, wares and merchandise imported in ships or vessels of the United States”.
The fact that this “light money” was levied on foreign vessels alone shows that the real object of its enforcement was an additional discrimination in favor of the national shipping. Keiler p. 39, Johnson et al. Il p. 16, 296.
July 8 and Oct. 12 1816, Ten Cate to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724). — Johnson et al., Il p. 296, 349.
Jan. 25 and March 10 1817, Ten Cate to Van Nagell, Nos. 22 and 27 (R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1817 Nos. 1950 and 2558). Cf. Sept. 7 1817, F. Smeer to J. C. van der Kemp (R. A. B.Z.Dossier724).—Vessels from ports from whichAmerican trade was being excluded or restricted remained subject to the higher rate of tonnage duties. By this countervailing element the Act was the first blow aimed at the British West Indian restrictions on foreign navigation (Keiler p. 49).
Aug. 28 1817, ’t Hoen and Westrik to Goldberg (end. with report of Oct. 27 1817, see p. 300).
Staatsblad No. 9. A list, published Dec. 9 1813 by the Department of the Finances, of import and export duties since 1725 with the alterations up to 1810, is to be found in R. A. B. Z. Inv. XXI No. 42. — Their validity was continued subsequently by laws of Dec. 2 1814 (Staatsblad No. 110), Febr. 14 1816 (idem No. 14) and June 24 1816 (idem No. 31) until the enforcement of the new tariff law of Oct. 3 1816 (idem No. 53).
Groot Placaatboek VI p. 1359 f., p. 1502, 1503.
Groeneveld Meyer I.e. p. 55. The tonnage duty was / 2,60 and 50 % at each arrival. 2) Published in Brieven en Ged. VI p. 455. A copy is to be found in R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210.
As Van Hogendorp himself ascertains, 11 years later (Brieven en Ged. VI p. 455).
R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210. Cf. p. 244.
„Het is onbetwistbaar, dat voor den handel de grootste voordeelen geboren worden uit de meest uitgestrekte vrijheid, voor welke dezelve vatbaar is; en gevolgelijk, dat ijdere beperking, hoe voordeelig dezelve ook voor het eigen land schijnen möge, eene belemmering is, welke niet dan nadeelen voortbrengt” („Adstructie van het project-tractaat”, R. A. Coll. Goldberg, Port. 210).
Adams’ clear exposition is to be found in his Writings I p. 238–240, Nov. 24 1794, Adams to the Secretary of State: “The merchants in our trade consider this as altogether inconsistent with the article of the treaty which places us upon the level of the most favored nation. I think so too, unless we have submitted to it by express agreement....” Cf. Van Winter II p. 78.
They amounted to about double the charges levied by the ordinary tariff of 1725. A calculation, to be found as appendix B to the Protocole of the conferences of the treaty negotiations in Sept. 1817 (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.), states that 5000 lbs. of coffee, after the tariff of 1725, paid / 500.—, but /1000.— when charged with recognition money; 7000 lbs. of sugar / 378.—and / 700.—. See the table of proportions on p. 179.
Febr. 28 1814, Bourne to the Secretary of State (D. o. S. Cons. Desp. A’dam II).
May 20 1814, idem (ibid.).
May 10 1814, The members of the Chamber (Severijn president) to the Secretary of State for Commerce and the Colonies (Archives Chamber of Commerce at Amsterdam, Letterbook 1811–1815).
This statement is based upon the situation of the French period.
May 17 1814, Falck to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. 1: bur. I. S. 1814 No. 520).
Staatsblad No. 75.
By Decree of March 2 1814 (Staatsblad No. 32) the recognition duties for East Indian produce were repealed.
Aug. 2 1814 (Archives Chamber of Commerce at Amsterdam, Letterbook 1811 – 1815).
In R. A. Coll. Goldberg, Port. 209. The publication of this Order is not to be found in the official papers.
By Decree dated Sept. 13 1814 No. 1, at Brugge.
Dec. 20 1814, addressed to the Prince Sovereign by Goldberg, presiding member of the Council (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210).
Jan. 11 1815 (Archives Chamber of Commerce at Amsterdam, Letterbook 1811– 1815).
Febr. 23 1815 (ibid.).
Febr. 13 1815, to the Cabinet of the King (R. A. “Kabinet”, under date of May 29 1815, No. 14).
No. 8 (R. A. coll. Goldberg, Port. No. 210).
„De handel van Amerika buiten onze West-Indien is derhalve reeds verbazend toegenomen, en kan nog oneindig toenemen. Dezen handel, zooals dezelve nu bestaat en zieh verder ontwikkelen zal, herwaarts te lokken, is een zaak welke de Raad van State voorkomt van het uiterste belang te zijn, en geen uitstel te lijden”.
May 12 1815 (R. A. “Kabinet”, under date of May 29 1815 No. 14).
Only by Royal Decree of Sept. 16 1815 he received the title of Director-General („Directeur-Generaal”) of this department.
May 3 1815 (Archives Chamber of Commerce at Amsterdam, Letterbook 1811 – 1815; enclosed also with May 22 1815, Goldberg to the King, in “Kabinet” under date of May 29 1815 No. 14). The petition mentioned the Act of Congress as a reason for abolishing the differential duties; unjustly, it appears, as the Act aimed at an equalization with the national and the petition at an equalization with European vessels, for American navigation. It contained furthermore a request for lower tariff duties on tobacco, lest the important Virginia and Maryland tobaccoes, in general demand with the common man, and in Germany, should leave the market of Amsterdam for Hamburg and Bremen.
See the table on p. 185, and the annex to this chapter.
May 22 1815 No. 168, „Voordragt tot vermindering der lasten voor den Amerikaan-schen en West Indischen Handel” (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 106, and “Kabinet” under date of May 29 1815 No. 14).
Mentioned already in the Chamber’s petition (p. 178, footnote 5). In accordance with this petition he also advised modifying the duties on tobacco, stating his intention of making a proposition in due tima.
This message is to be found in R. A. “Kabinet” sub: May 15 1815 No. 19.
No. 25, Staatsblad 1815 No. 37. Van den Brink p. 31, 32.
The following is a translation of articles 1 and 2, by Lechleitner (enclosed with Aug. 31 1815, Lechleitner to Monroe, D. o. S. Notes from Neth. Legation):“Art. 1. Henceforth all goods and merchandise coming from the islands and the continent of North and South America, imported into the Kingdom of the Netherlands or exported from those countries [i.e. that Kingdom] or traversing, coming from thence or going thither, the dominions of this State, will not be subject to more or other formalities or duties on import or export, or transit, than to those which have been stipulated with regard to the European navigation and commerce. Art. 2. Also, no higher or other tonnage duty will be demanded of the vessels trading from and to the continent of North and South America than are now paid by such as navigate from and to European ports.” Art. 3 maintained in force, however, all rights reserved to Dutch subjects for the trade with the West Indian colonies. Art. 4 gave the trade and navigation on the coast of Guinea in Africa entirely free.
May 29 1815, Royal Decree No. 14 (R. A. “Kabinet” sub dato), sub 4: „dat aan het Gouvernement der Vereenigde Staten van Noord Amerika door ons Gezantschap aldaar zal worden kennis gegeven van de Wet van 27 Mei 1815, en dezelve als een bewijs voorgesteld van onze vaste gezindheid om de handelsbetrekkingen tusschen de weder-zijdsche onderdanen voor de hoogstmogelijke uitbreiding vatbaar te maken, en te beantwoorden aan de gelijke gezindheid die men vertrouwen mag dat te dien opzichte bij het voornoemde Gouvernement bestaat en die bereids uit de acte van het Congres van den 3en Maart 1.1. kennelijk geworden is”.
June 4 1815, Bourne to the Secretary of the Treasury (D. o. S. Cons. Desp. A’dam).
June 4 1815, Bourne to Monroe (Ibid.).
May 23 1815, Sam Hazard to the Secretary of State (D. o. S. Consular letters, Antwerp).
See however p. 171 footnote 1.
April 14 1815, Dallas to Bourne (R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. I. S. 1815, end. with No. 1157).
June 8 1815, Bourne to Van Nagell (Ibid. No. 1080).
June 10 and 13 1815, Bourne to Vaillant (R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. I. S. 1815 end. with No. 1168).
June 16 1815, Bourne to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. I. S. 1815 No. 1157); June 16, Wichers, Director-general of the customs duties, to Van Nagell (Ibid. No. 1168), with enclosures; June 20, Van Nagell to Bourne (Ibid. U.S. 1815 No. 1005); June 22, Bourne to Van Nagell (Ibid. I. S. 1815 No. 1194); June 23, Van Nagell to Wichers (Ibid. U. S. 1815 No. 1024); and June 23, Van Nagell to Bourne (Ibid. No. 1025).
See preceding footnote.
12 guilders upon importation by foreign, 6 guilders upon importation by national vessels (Law of Jan. 14 1815 No. 15, Staatsblad No. 3).
The law of July 111814, No. 30 (Staatsblad No. 80), authorized the direction of the Levant trade, reestablished by this law on the conditions of before 1795, to levy:..... e 5 % of the value of merchandise imported from the Levant by foreign vessels. This duty was continued by law of Dec. 19 1817 (Staatsblad No. 34). It is evident, however, that this could never be injurious to an equalization of the direct trade between the U. S. and the Netherlands.
Aug. 31 1815, Lechleitner to Monroe (D. o. S. Notes from Neth. Legation). Jan. 17 1816, Monroe to Lechleitner (D. o. S. Notes to Neth. Legation; R. A. B. Z. B XXI No. 20). See p. 230, Ch. XII.
June 10 1816, Goldberg to the King (R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. I. S. 1816 end. with No. 2335).
The object was to aid the fisheries, not to favor national navigation.
Chapter III.
Calculated after the current values, from a „Staat van vergelijking....” in R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 209.
Groot Placaatboek VI p. 1365 f. Publication of Dec. 9 1813, by the Dept. of the Finances, reënforcing these rates (R. A. B. Z. Inv. XXI No, 42).
Staatsblad No. 53.
Staatsblad No. 29.
Staatsblad No. 39.
The Southern Netherlands had enforced a still more liberal tariff for most of these articles, in the second half of the 18th century, pot- and perl-ashes, hemp and cotton being entirely duty-free on importation, Virginia tobacco (in leaves) at special, moderate rates (Van Houtte, I.e. p. 309 f., 554, 555 f.).
A law of Sept. 15 1816 (Staatsblad No. 36), regulating the duties on salt, had already done away with the differential treatment at the importation of unrefined salt. Southern votes and petitions had urged in vain a general system of differential import duties (Groeneveld Meyer I.e. p. 55, 111). This would, however, not have been in accordance with the interests of Northern commerce.
Cf. Groeneveld Meyer p. 55.
Compare Goldberg’s report to the King, June 10 1816 (R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. I. S. 1816, end. with No. 2335). — Goldberg himself had been in favor of a system of perfect equality, providing an authorization to the Executive Power, to charge more heavily by way of retaliation the vessels of such nations as would not reciprocate the equal treatment. — Wichers, the Director-general of the customs duties, who had taken into consideration the 10 % discrimination on importations as it was in force in the United States, had remarked that this would be too high a favor to shipping interests in comparison with other industries, and that for a country of the economic structure of the Netherlands, the importation of raw materials for industries should at least be excepted therefrom (Remarks to the American tariff, July 18 1816, in R. A. Coll. Goldberg, Port. 210).
Oct. 22 1816, Van Nagell to Ten Cate (R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. U.S. 1816 No. 2689; also in B XXI, Legation archives, Port. No. 1).
March 6 and 10 1817, Nos. 25 and 27 (R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1817 Nos. 1953 and 2558).
Royal Decree of Nov. 11 1816 (Staatsblad No. 59).
Jan. 2 1817, Wichers to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1817 No. 82): „een sedert onlangs bij de Vereenigde Staten geadopteerd systhema van reciprociteit, hetwelk men zelfs beweerde zieh niet slechts tot het vat- of tonne-geld te bepalen, maar zieh zelfs uit te strekken tot de regten op de goederen. — De reclames van den heer Americaan-schen consul Bourne op dit sujet, heeft mij hierin versterkt....”.
A Dutch copy in Dec. 4 1816, Wichers to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. I. S. 1816 No. 4663). The French copy quoted here (which bears the erroneous date of December 5 1817), is to be found as an enclosure to Eustis’ despatch of Oct. 20 1817 (D. o. S. Desp. Neth. V). It had been sent to him by Mr. Clibborn, American Consul at Antwerp, who obtained it from the customs office (Oct. 18 1817, „A. Duvivier, directeur des convois et licences, à Mr. J. Clibborn”).
Jan. 2 1817, to Van Nagell (see above, footnote 1).
„Daar ik ondertusschen.. gevoele dat het wenschelijk zoude zijn niet op de ten dezen gestelde orders te behoeven terug te komen, en overigens een klein verwijl niet schaden kan...”. Jan. 16 1817, to the King (R. A. B. Z. U. S. 1817 No. 160). Also Jan. 20 1817, Van Nagell to Wichers (Ibid. No. 205).
Jan. 17 1817, William to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1817 No. 262).
See Chapter XI.
Staatscourant of April 11 1817, No. 86.
D. o. S. Desp. Neth. V. It is uncertain which regulation is meant by this vague statement.
May 13 1817, J. Clibborn to Eustis (L. o. C. Eustis Papers III).
June 20 1817, Parker to Eustis (Ibid.). 4) D. o. S. Desp. Neth. V.
Upon Clibborn’s assertion that only pilotage and dock duties were different for American vessels in comparison to Dutch; June 14 1817, to Eustis (Archives of the Legation of the U. S. at The Hague, Miscellaneous 1806–1825).a) Translated from the French document in enclosure C to the official protocole of the treaty negotiations, 1817 (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.). Also in the Archives of the American Legation at The Hague, Miscellaneous 1806–1825. The amounts are calculated in florins, sous and deniers (1: 20: 16).
1 cask of Virginia is 1000–1500 lb.; 1 cask of Maryland is ± 800 lb. (Nemnich I.e. p. 131, footnote).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1935 Martinus Nyhoff, the Hague, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Westermann, J.C. (1935). Tariff Rates and Foreign Policy Concerning Trade Rights. The Reciprocity Act of March 3, 1815, and the Dutch Response. In: The Netherlands and the United States. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0397-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0999-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive