Mr. SPALDING. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the merits of this question are fairly understood by the House; and it will be my purpose in a very short s ace of time to put them in possession of the acts. Thisbill, entitled “An act further to regulate theregrstration of vessels, ” is one of 2 things: it is a bill either of pains and penalties, that is, a bill intended to punish American citizens who were ship owners, and who during the rebellion riskedt eir ships on the ocean under license derived from some foreign Power, or else it is a premium to that class of our count which has most to do with building ships. Ti is one of the 2, and gentlemen cannot evade it. They must either determine to punish these shipowners under foreign licenses to protect them from rebel cruisers, orelsethis is intended as a gratuity to the shipbuilding interest of our country. I object to it on either ground. It is unfair, unjust; it is not honest legislation for the whole country. Why, so far as regards the 1st proposition, it being designed to punish our citizens who ran their vessels under a license, I appeal to history to answer if we had a vessel on the ocean during the war of 1812 with GreatBritain unless that vessel had the license of the French or some other foreign Government and who in those days ever undertook to say that the vessel should be confiscated by the American Government, or its owners an nav igators punished because the tried that scheme of rescuing their property mm the depredations of the enemy? No ody, no man in the world. Well now, what is the pretense here? That disloyal citizens owned and run these vessels that were protected from the ravages of the enemy by some license under GreatBritain or France, or some other naval Power. Were they disloyal? The bill does not say it. For aught we know the most 10al citizens we have in the country resorted to this means of running their ships in safetyl across the perilous ocean. The question might arise whether that did afford them protection and those thatwere rescued from the perils which environed them, and are now ready to contribute to the benefit of American commerce are to be turned backward by the effect of this bill and told that they are no longer to be regarded as American ship s. That is it. They were built in America, they were owned in America, and they were registered in America; but because they ran on the ocean and escaped the perils of the rebel flag they are now to lie “ turned backward and to be told, You are not to have the privilege of an American register.” That is one phase of the question. The other phase of the question is, can we afford to exclude the vessels which now seek to be employed under their American registers on anyaccount like this, even if it be to favor the shipbuilding interest of the country? Why, Mr. Speaker, our U.S. tonna e at the breaking out of the rebellion was someting like 5 million tons. The SecyTreasury says that there have been transferred to foreign owners during the rebellion 800,000 tons; and there have been destroyed by the iratical flag 110,000 tons. ow, here is the sum of 910,000 tons of our cbmmercial marine which has gone out of our commercial list. We are in want, greatly in want, of vessels to do our carrying trade at this moment upon the ocean. We want to increase our marine; and instead of taking measures in Congress to increase it, as I had hoped would be done, we are excluding such as are already invested with American reisters, because they have saved themselves from danger of destruction on the ocean. Now, I wish to callattention to one other fact. By the census report of 1860 I find that the annual value of products of shipbuildingin the U.S. in that year was $11, 667, 661. On turning to the census report of Maine and Massachusetts I find the annual value of the prod ucts of shipbuilding of Maine in 1860 was $1, 137 814, and of Massachusetts $1, 678, 605. Thus the 2 States of Maine and Massachusetts have one 4th of the products of all the shipbuilding interest of the U.S. Now, those States have lost nothing of their interest since the year 1860. It is rather on the increase, and now they are in a condition to take advantage of a bill like this proffered by the Gentfrom Massachusetts. They have their ships in the course of construction if not already constructed, and they are readyto enter the market for the high rates which must necessarily follow the contraction of our commercial marine by the passage of a bill like this. Icon tend that it is e height of fell for an American. conas at this time, when we have a surplus o products to be sent abroad, to our; tail our American shiping. The effect of such abill as this will unoubtedly be to put upprices; and those of my associates from the Vest who are so strenuous in denouncing all these conspiracies or combinations to restrict us from the West to the East are interested in (Evpening this navigation from our seaboard to urope, and from one part of our coast to another.