Mr. THAYER. But, Mr. Speaker there is, I suppose, no gentleman upon this door who will attempt to deny that it is of the 1st mag nitude with regard to the interests of this country that we should haveagreat and flourishing commercial marine. Where, sir, did you et your Navy during the late war except from 510 American marine? What would on have done for a Navy if on had not had at marine at your comman, and ifyou had not. impressed into the service of the country the ships belonging to American merchants? Nay, more, will any gentleman contend that it is for the advantage of this country that its mercantile interests should depen upon the shipping of a foreign nation, or that the merchants ofAmerica should have their interests subjected to the fluctuations and uncertainties of a marine that disappears from the ocean whenever there is a European war, or the agitation of such a war, and reappears only when peaceful times return? Viewmg the subject in this light, regarding it as material to the best and ihest interests of this country that we should have a great and flouriship mercantile marine, how can any man, upon sue grounds as are presented here, vote for such a measure as this, which will expunge so greats. proportion of our bow, air, shiglping? it is said that we should inflict this punishment, not only upon the owners of these vessels, but upon the interests of the country, for an imaginary offense of these shiowners. The Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Bums] has spoken of the owners of these vessels as “deserters.” Sir I cannot consider them in any such light. I do not know that the citizens of the U.S. had any interest in having their ships burned upon the high seas by rebel pirates. I do not know what interest of this country would have been subserved by flinging in the wa of the enemies of this country the ships of cse owners and if, at an time, when the Government of the U.S. was unable to protect the shippin of our country, the owners of that ship ping c ose to resort to a foreign registry for e purpose of preventing the destruction of their property, I see no reason why, not only their interest, but the common interests of the count, which are involvedin this question, should rge over ridden and crushed because of an act of that kindan act not nefarious in itself. I think that there are higher interests involved than the interests of these owners, and that those higher interests demand that this measure should not become a law.