Bounty Payments for Cod Fisheries (1792)

Origins

The issue of bounty payments for cod fisheries emerged in the early 1790s as part of the young United States’ efforts to bolster its economy and national security. The cod fishing industry, centered in New England, was a vital economic sector, providing jobs, food, and export revenue. During the American Revolution, the industry suffered due to British blockades, and post-war, it faced competition from British and French fisheries. To encourage recovery, the federal government considered financial incentives. By 1792, Congress debated a bill to replace an existing drawback (a refund of import duties on salt used in fish preservation) with a tonnage-based bounty paid directly to owners of fishing vessels, aiming to stimulate the industry and ensure a steady supply of trained sailors for potential naval conflicts.

Key Issues

• Economic Support vs. Regional Favoritism: Proponents argued that the cod fisheries were essential for economic growth, particularly in New England, and served as a “nursery of seamen,” training sailors who could be mobilized in wartime. Critics, including James Madison, saw the bill as unfairly favoring one region (New England) over others, potentially at the expense of national equity.
• Constitutional Authority: The debate centered on whether Congress had the constitutional authority to grant such bounties. Supporters invoked the General Welfare Clause (Article I, Section 8), claiming it allowed Congress to promote industries for the national good. Critics, including Madison, argued that this interpretation expanded federal power beyond the Constitution’s enumerated powers, setting a dangerous precedent for federal overreach.
• Practical Implications: Critics also highlighted practical concerns, such as the potential for fraud in bounty payments and the economic burden on taxpayers, especially in regions not benefiting from the fisheries.

Constitutional Implications

The debate over cod fishery bounties raised significant questions about the scope of federal power under the Constitution. Madison and other strict constructionists argued that the Constitution’s enumerated powers did not explicitly authorize such subsidies, and that using the General Welfare Clause in this way undermined the limited government framework intended by the framers. Supporters’ broader interpretation suggested that Congress could act in areas not explicitly listed if it served the general welfare, a view that foreshadowed later expansions of federal authority. This debate highlighted an early tension between strict and loose interpretations of the Constitution, a conflict that would recur in issues like the National Bank and internal improvements.

Outcomes

• Legislative Outcome: Despite opposition, the Senate passed the bill, and the House of Representatives debated it extensively. On February 7, 1792, a motion to strike the bounty provision failed, and on February 8, the term “bounty” was replaced with “allowance” to soften the perception of direct subsidies. The House passed the amended bill on February 9, and President Washington signed it into law on February 16, 1792. The final law provided tonnage-based payments to fishing vessel owners, effectively supporting the cod fisheries.
• Long-Term Impact: The cod fisheries bill set a precedent for federal economic intervention, legitimizing the use of subsidies to promote specific industries. It also entrenched regional divisions, as New England benefited disproportionately, fueling Southern and Western resentment. Over time, this precedent contributed to broader federal economic policies, though it also reinforced debates over constitutional limits.

Persons Involved and Motivations

• James Madison (Opposition): As a Virginia congressman, Madison was a strict constructionist who opposed the bill on constitutional grounds, fearing it expanded federal power beyond enumerated limits. His motivation was to preserve a limited federal government, consistent with his vision of the Constitution as a compact among states, and to protect Southern interests against Northern favoritism.
• John Laurance (Support): A New York congressman, Laurance defended the bill, invoking the General Welfare Clause. His motivation was likely tied to supporting Northern economic interests and national security, as trained sailors were seen as vital for defense.
• Elbridge Gerry and Fisher Ames (Support): Massachusetts representatives, they strongly supported the bill due to its direct benefits to New England’s economy. Their motivation was regional economic growth and the strategic importance of the fisheries.
• Alexander Hamilton (Indirect Influence): Although not directly involved in the debate, Hamilton’s economic philosophy favored federal support for industries, influencing supporters of the bill. His motivation was to strengthen the national economy and centralize power, aligning with his vision of a strong federal government.

Critical Examination

The establishment narrative often frames this debate as a necessary step in nation-building, emphasizing the economic and strategic benefits of supporting the fisheries. However, this overlooks the valid concerns of Madison and others about regional favoritism and constitutional overreach. The decision to favor New England may have exacerbated sectional tensions, setting a precedent for future conflicts over federal economic policies. The use of the General Welfare Clause to justify the bounties also raises questions about whether this was a deliberate expansion of federal power, potentially at odds with the framers’ intent to limit government scope, highlighting an early example of interpretive flexibility that favored Northern industrial interests over Southern agrarians.

File Name: Bounty-Payments-for-Cod-Fisheries-V3.docx

Download File