"There is a proposition in it for the virtual repeal of the warehousing law – that law under which New York has prospered so largely – that law to which England owes so much of that centralization of commerce which she has enjoyed in her cities and in her docks for years past. It was said that their warehousing system was originated by Sir Robert Walpole, who, for commercial intelligence, seemed, in this and other respects, to have been far, far ahead of his time. According to the history that is given to us, the men that had made so much money out of the frauds which had been perpetrated through the system of drawbacks and debentures, got up a mob and instigated commotions against him. They beset him as he went to the House of Commons, and made it so disagreeable that he had to abandon the bill. But finally reason conquered prejudice; truth triumphed. The British Government introduced the system, and they allow goods to be warehoused not merely three years, but five years; and then, after five years, the importer may come in and take an account of his goods, pay the duties on those which have been taken and lost or consumed, and re-house the residue again for another five years. I venture to say that there is not a man in the whole United Kingdom who has any character for financial ability or commercial intelligence, who would think of proposing a repeal of that system.
Why should we do it here? Has it not been eminently beneficial since we extended the system to three years? Why, sir, let us look to the history of its operation. I have had a statement made of the goods that were imported and re-exported from this country from the years 1833 to 1846, before the system was established, and for a corresponding period of years from 1848 to 1860. In the first period of thirteen years, the entire re-exportation of merchandize was $79,767,000; and from 1848 to 1860, the re-exportation of goods imported was $146,095,073, nearly double. Of this latter amount of goods re-exported, $92,200,000 worth were re-exported from the warehouses. Thus our ship-owners have derived the profit of freights on this increased trade which we have given to New York. Thus our merchants have derived the profits on these exchanges. Thus the owners of real estate have derived the profits upon storages. Thus New York has been able to become rapidly – and it is since the passage of the warehouse bill that her progress has been most, most rapid – a great emporium and center of commerce. Why is it? It is because, owing to the warehousing system, a great amount of the goods of the world are stored there, and a merchant or a ship-owner can go there and make out an assorted cargo for any part of the globe. If the merchants have not the goods in their stores, they have them in the warehouses. When a man carries a bill to New York, he is sure that he can not only convert it into money, but into any species of commodity or merchandize which he may desire; and that is one reason why the banks have been enabled to stand there, when they were breaking and falling everywhere else. That is the reason that a bill upon New York is worth more than a bill upon other places. That is one thing which has served to make her a great center of commerce.
Nor is that all, sir. Owing to this system, the small dealer, the man of small capital, is able to deal in imported goods. He does not have to pay his duties of forty, fifty, or sixty per cent., or whatever they are, and lie out of the interest of his money, and borrow it a long time before it can be returned to him; but, when he finds he can sell his goods, he goes to the warehouse, pays the duties, disposes of his merchandize, and obtains so speedy a return that he, too, is enabled to deal in imported goods. Thus, the business is not confined to those immense capitalists who are able to advance the money, and wait for the interest and the duty to be returned to them for months, or perhaps years." - Congressional Globe, 36th congress, 2nd session (speech starts on p. 898)
You will note that I bolded the last paragraph as well, which describes in detail the very same result of the warehousing act that non-seq seems to deny as a possibility. As I have stated in full accuracy, the warehousing act boosted NYC because (a) it permitted merchants to import goods without a cash advance to pay the tariffs upon docking and (b) it facilitated wider reexportation among warehoused goods in trade with the rest of the world. The act's advocates and defenders, among them Hunter, openly advocated it upon these two grounds and the speech above is conclusive testimony to that fact.
So all this time when you were squacking about the Warehousing Act you really didn't know what you were talking about? Gee, what a surprise. Well, when was this 3 year provision added? 1847? 1855? For all you know it could have been 1859.
Feb 17, 1834 debate on Warehousing System (H of R)
Pages 2713-2714
Mr. CAMBRELENG:By the act of 1832, all wool and woolens, and all goods of which wool was a component part, if the duties on them were not paid within three months after their arrival, must be sold at auction, at whatever sacrifice. On the first day of this month there had been six hundred and thirty packages of goods in this situation, which must be sacrificed, because the importing merchants had not the means to pay the duty.
Mr. C. said that he had voted for the act of 1832, not because he approved of the law, but with a view to prevent the shedding of blood.
* * *
Mr. HUNTINGTON, of Connecticut:
* * *
But now he asked for a warehousing system, under which the duties might remain unpaid for three years.
The Warehouse Bill -- Mr. Dix
June 19, 1846
Senate 39C, 1S
At page 791, Mr. Dix states:
1. As to the extension of time. -- The Senate will perceive that the number of years during which the bill proposes to allow goods to remain in store is left in blank. I will, at a proper time, move to fill the blank with three years, though I am not authorized to say that I shall be sustained in this motion by the judgment of the committee.
Committee: Committee on Commerce
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
January 6, 1854 ~ February 16, 1854
Reported from the committee with amendments, viz: Strike out the parts in [brackets] and insert those in italics, and committed to the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union.
At Page 4-5, Section 4 of this Act states:
[Page 4]Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That all goods, wares, and merchandise, which may be hereafter duly entered for warehousing under bond, and likewise all merchandise [not] now remaining in warehouse under bond, may continue in warehouse, without payment of duties thereupon, for a period of three years from the date of original importation, and my be withdrawn for consumption on due entry and payment of duties and charges, or upon entry for exportation, withoutt the payment of duties, at any time within the period aforesaid; in the latter case, the goods to be subject only to the payment
[Page 5]
of such storage and charges as may be due thereon: Provided, however, that where the duties shall have been paid upon any goods, wares, or merchandies entered for consumption, said duties shall not be refunded on exportation of any such goods, wares, or merchandies, without the limites of the United States: and provided further, That there shall be no abatement of the duties, or allowance made for any injury, damage, deterioration, loss or leakage sustained by any goods, wares, or merchandise, whilst deposited in any public or private bonded warehouse established or recognized by this act.
The Warehousing Act of 1854 was signed into law on February 28, 1854
March 31, 1854 CG Page 585
"And that he [the President] did, on the 28th instant, approve and sign bills of the following titles, viz:S. 39. An act to extend the warehousing system by establishing private bonded warehouses, and for other purposes;