THE EVIL OF COMPULSORY PILOTAGE.

173

the gentleman complains of. If any State enacts laws which are injurious to another State, Congress may interfere, upon representations showing that fact, to prevent it. It is being done; that is what it did in the case of the States of New York and New Jersey; and I understand this to be a similar case. We have only to show that such is the fact; that the pilotage laws of one State are injurious to the citizens of another State, and you may get action by Congress. In fact, that language expresses the whole thing. It is not merely in relation to New York, but to all States which bound on the same navigable waters. Hell Gate, I think, is very near the boundaries of New York and Connecticut; and, I have no doubt, the gentleman can go to New York and get legislation that will accomplish all he desires.

Mr. Hort, of New York: For three, and perhaps four, successive years, this question has come before the Legislature of Connecticut, and it has sent petitions and remonstrances to the State of New York, and has been utterly unable to accomplish anything; and it is stated as a fact that there is a pilot ring in the city of New York, which is more powerful than what is termed the railroad ring; and up to this day nothing whatever has been accomplished. The men who are interested in shipping all along the shores of the Sound, feel that it is an outrage too griev ous to be borne; and they sent a petition on the subject, last winter, to Congress. There has, as yet, been no action taken in regard to it, and I do not know that there will be; but it seems to me that this resolution in its present form will accomplish no good.

Mr. BOYNTON, of New York: I am interested in the coal carrying trade of New England, and you all know how close that is, and you all know that enormous sums of money-several millions -have been expended to give us a passage through Hell Gate and through the Sound for the commerce of New England.

Now, by what right can New York levy onerous charges upon Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, or New Hampshire? Upon what right or equity, when the nation has been taxed millions to clear away dangerous rocks, and make it safe for our skilled captains on the waters of that Sound to reach the Atlantic by this highway of the nation? You leave it to a single city and a ring of pilots in it to tax them, and lead them to this long delay that has been spoken of by Mr. Horт.

I have personal knowledge of the serious annoyance it brings; and it seems to me that it is not for that that the National Government is established, that one State may interfere with the commerce of other States,-and it is clear that this has been done for three or four years; there is a great fact in voting on this question. Please not forget it, that the New York pilots have interfered with the commerce of the New England States, as known to me, and to any one who has any interest in steamers or shipping that passes through the Sound.

Therefore, I hope some action will be taken for reaching this evil intelligently. It is for such a purpose that a National Government is provided.

Mr. WINSOR, of Philadelphia: As the mover of the resolution, I am very willing to have it postponed. My purpose is answered in getting certain facts before the Board.

The motion to indefinitely postpone was agreed to.

Mr. YOUNG, of Baltimore: Would it be out of order now, to move that the consideration of this question be referred to a Committee from the different Boards interested in shipping, in order that they may give us the benefit of their deliberations, to be reported upon at a future meeting?

The PRESIDENT: You can make that as an independent motion, by leave of the Board.

Mr. YOUNG, of Baltimore: I take it for granted that no report has been made on it, and that the question as it appears before the Board is not the report of a Committee. There is an assertion made in one of the resolutions that it is impracticable for a general system to be devised.

The PRESIDENT: Mr. YOUNG has indicated a desire to introduce a resolution at this time, and if the Board acquiesce, the rules will be suspended.

The rules were suspended.

Mr. YOUNG, of Baltimore: I move that the consideration of this subject be referred to a Committee composed of one from each of the prominent Boards on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, who are members of this Board, in order that they may make report to the next meeting of this Board.·

FREQUENCY OF ELECTIONS. ·

175

I think we should have the benefit of any new light which can be thrown upon the subject; and probably in this way we shall be able to discuss the subject more intelligently than we have been able to discuss it today.

Mr. STRANAHAN, of New York: I second the motion. I happen to know that the Hell Gate pilotage is an abuse, and that the people of Connecticut and the other New England States have just cause for complaint. I regard this as a very appropriate question for a commercial body like this to take hold of, and if possible work in the interest of commerce generally.

The motion was agreed to unanimously.

At the suggestion of Mr. SNOW, the President was authorized to select and announce the Committee after adjournment, if he should see fit.*

XVIII. DISPUTED PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

New York Board of Trade and Transportation.

Resolved, That some definite constitutional or legal method .should be provided for the settlement of disputed Presidential Elections, thus relieving the nation from such complications and dangers as were encountered in 1876.

On motion of Mr. HoYT, the proposition was temporarily laid over.

XIX. FREQUENCY OF ELECTIONS.

New York Board of Trade and Transportation.

Resolved, That the frequent recurrence of Presidential Elections, with the excitement, turmoil, and great expense attending the same, together with the disturbance of the business of the country by actual or threatened changes in material matters of governmental policy consequent thereon, is objectionable, and the interests of the nation would be subserved by the extension of the presidential term to six years, and but one term for each incumbent.

Mr. THURBER, of New York: The reason why the New York Board of Trade and Transportation placed this proposition on the

*This Committee was constituted as follows: Messrs. WINSOR, of Philadelphia; HOYT, of New York; HARDY, of Boston; MIDDLETON, of Baltimore; HERSEY, of Portland; DAVIS, of San Francisco.

programme was, that a good many of its members felt that the effect of a presidential election was to the serious injury of business. The resolution in a measure explains itself. I can only say that in the business of our firm the sales in the month of October, in the last three presidential election years, were less than usual by from $200,000 to $300,000; involving, perhaps, a loss of from $7,000 to $10,000 to a single firm in those months; and we have never yet been able to see how it was made up to us in succeeding months. If the same cause produces like results to other firms, it would seem desirable to have the presidential term somewhat extended. This has been mooted more or less in Congress, and the Hon. Mr. SOUND, a member of Congress from the Milwaukee district, introduced a bill on the subject, which will be brought up again at the present session; and I am, personally, very much in favor of his view of the question. I believe that the frequent recurrence of presidential elections, with the changes in policy threatened, or which actually occur, are detrimental to the best interests of the country. I am, therefore, in favor of less frcquent elections.

I would state that my friend, Mr. STRANAHAN, called my attention to the fact that the question had something of a political bearing, and there may be some objection to it on that account; although it should be said that it is not partisan in its character. Very many of the questions discussed by the Board have a bearing, more or less, on politics. This perhaps is one reason why the National Board of Trade meets in Washington.

In looking at one of the older reports of the National Board (1875), I find a sentence in the front page, which seems to apply somewhat to this. It is an extract from a speech by JOHN BRIGHT, at an annual dinner of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Great Britain. He said:

"I believe it is objected by some persons that great questions are for the Legislature, and not for Chambers of Commerce. I should like to ask,-What would Parliament be, if it were not for that public opinion which not only instructs it, but impels it forward?"

It seems to me it is not only proper for this Board to make an expression of opinion upon all questions which have a bearing upon business interests, but that it would be delinquent in the performance of its duty if it did not do so. And it is the indica

THE POLITICAL DUTIES OF BUSINESS MEN.

177

tions which Congress gets of the demands of the country in regard to particular legislation which make the sessions of the National Board so valuable.

Mr. BUZBY, of Philadelphia: I think, sir, that a question of this kind comes very legitimately within our scope, and that we have a perfect right to express an opinion upon our political relations, because these affect us commercially and personally in every way. Gentlemen must remember that the price of their liberty is some service to be rendered by them. It might be said that the time spent in going to the polls is a loss to business; and that by that absence from my counting-room I might have lost some profitable negotiation. Am I, therefore, to argue that elections must be set aside in order that I may obtain this profit? If this were done would not there be a much greater loss in the one than in the other? I do not like the inference that may be drawn from a proposition of this kind. If it is convenient for us to extend the time to six years, it would be, perhaps, more convenient to extend it to ten, for then the policy of the country would be still longer maintained, and we should be less embarrassed by any possible action of the Government. In the meantime, sir, we should have subsided into a state which would make us more and more indifferent to the exercise of our political functions, by the long intervals elapsing between one election and the succeeding.

The great trouble, sir, with this people at the present time is, that we are too apathetic in the discharge of our political duties; and, if we were not so, we should not have to encounter so much bad local government. Therefore, I am not in favor of prolonging or increasing the interval between our elections, so as to render us more and more indifferent, though these may seem to interfere with our pecuniary advantage.

Mr. STRANAHAN, of New York: I rise merely to suggest that this is a political question, and if brought seriously before Congress it would very likely become a party question. More than that, it would very likely become, to some extent, a local question.

The alteration of the fundamental law of the land is a serious matter. It is always so regarded by the people of this country. We have an amendment to the Constitution that agitates the public mind at this time. This would also produce a like agitation. But, sir, it is an important question. It is one that after