The history of these struggles shows that however enlightened the members of Congress may have been, it was, even at that time, impossible to run counter to popular clamour, although this may have been instigated by perhaps an erroneous view of the self-interests of the parties primarily concerned. The consumer did not feel the same deep immediate interest in the controversy as the shipowner, whose voice was loudly heard in Congress through the representatives of the great ports and maritime towns. [Sidenote: Opinions in Congress.] Upon a consideration of all the circumstances, Congress was led to consider that any retaliatory legislation imposing heavier discriminating duties on foreign tonnage or goods would in its consequences materially tend to increase the commercial warfare, and render more serious the war of tariff between the United States and foreign nations. The reflecting, far-seeing members perceived that if the United States were to increase her differential duties, there was every probability that England and other foreign nations would also augment theirs in every instance, and that at every time the United States pursued their plan of increase, foreign nations would repeat the same process. But they were met at all points, as we have seen, by the almost universal opposition of the American shipowners, who were as eager to maintain a protectionist policy in shipping as any of their rivals in the same business on this side the Atlantic. [Sidenote: Great influence of the shipowners.] Though the shipowners of the Northern States exercised for a time considerable influence over the Legislature, a committee of the House of Representatives passed a resolution which went no further than to recommend to the House, “That so much of the several Acts imposing duties on the tonnage of ships and vessels, and on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States, as imposes a discriminating duty of tonnage between foreign vessels and vessels of the United States, and between goods imported into the United States in foreign vessels and vessels of the United States, _ought to be repealed_, so far as the same respects the produce or manufactures of the nation to which such foreign ships or vessels shall belong, such repeal to take effect in favour of any foreign nation whenever the President shall be satisfied that the discriminating or countervailing duties of such foreign nation, so far as they operate to the disadvantage of the United States, have been abolished.”