The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-01-25
@be Gnansrsr.
RICHMOND. JANUARYas. 1910.
FOR TIE ENQUIRER.

presents itself under tws different lights
l. as means ot repeating the inefficient re
stric'inns # our Non Intercourse Bill. and
OF placing our future commercial relations
on tenable and advantageous grounds 9
as means of coercing our enemies into n
respect for orr rights. There are some who
advocate it on the first ground. who reject i.
on the last--others again suppo-, it on
both grounds: Let US touch briefly both
these points:
So far as the bill, repeats the present norni
nal restrictions OF cur non intercourse law. we
readily acqnicsce in It's provisions We an
prove of the dissolution of svsier,, which
operates as n species of navigation iqso in
favor OF Brit ish Tonnage--f rit seems To be
universally admitted, that our productions
are at present merely transported in on,
o7vn Trsscts To some Circuitous port, AS for
instance Amelia Isle, and thence mostly
transported i'm British bottoms to the ports of
Great Britain-so that we mostly employ
our own tonnage, in carving our produce to
Amelia Island, and smuggling back British
manufactures while the British ship own
crs receive most IF the profit of tran sporting
our bulky produce to th&ir own ports and
their manufactures to the enlrehot.-hway
then with such system!
So For as this Bill excludes the armed ves
fseis If the beilieeren,s. we again readily ac
qniesce. This is part its provisions which
tl'iS within our powers of poXecutian-we
may be Incompetent TO shut out their mann
features, bnt who will deny, thar we have
power to exclude their armed ships.
The only doubt is as to the policy of ex
Guiding their private ships There is class
OF reas0ners, who think that the present bill
ought merely to have knocked Of the shac
kles of the non iniercourse---that it is IN
wise at this time to have preserved any OF
our commercial rcstrcticus--that the bill
ought not only 10 have revived the power Of
eXportaticn or importation. in our o7v,i pes
sets. but in the vessels Of the belligerents-
For what say they!
f, Ii you exclude The ships of Britain, NAV
you not expect countervailing system on
her part? Should you drive her from vour
ports, will she not drive your vessels from
her's9 Aud even though she may not posi-
lively prohibit them. i'll size not be spirited
up At least 10 lay such diacrimincfing duties
/ on your produce in your own vessels, as to
shut them ont from her ports, or at least
subject them to very heavy tributes for her
own benefit? Rather than encounter such a
state as this, would it not be better 70 raise
the discriminating duties in your own ports on
her manufactures, TO such height, if your
duties have not already reached that height
az to give your vessels the command of
the transport of these manufacturers -
Should Great Britain, "ccntinue these rea-
soncrs," fy to this coun,ervailing system.
will she not have every advantage over YOU
will you not be reduced to the same situa-
ton, in which you are now places by the
Non Intercourse law; thst is, as British
vessels cannot come into your ports, nor
yours go to hers, will they not establish
some intermediate c71trchot., whare the YES
sells of each nation will respectively meet to
erchcnge their cargoes---your's to deliver
American produce, and hers British manu-
factures---and in this sort Of game, will
she not have. every advantage Pa. there
are no free ports in her neighborhood for
your vessels TO go to, she will seek them near
;you--at Halifax, Amelia Island or some
other---to these your vessels will respec
lively resort but IS one of their cargOe.
is worth many OF ours, their Uaiue being SO
mach greater in frohortiors 10 their bulk
what follows! why, her tonnage will rea the
proht OF transporting your bulky produce to
her markets, aud yours the comparatively
humble profit of transporting her manufac
tures to your own from the entrepots, es
,tablished between yon.-And it Great Bri
tain should have occasion tor some of your
own Tonnage, how easily could she obtain
Litby granting Licenscs----how easily in this
way could she levy combinations and tri
bute ON your own CnmmerCe---au engine
which you would neither have the inClira-
ton nor the power to employ---under such
lights, instead OF being called an " American
I Navigation Bill" it deserves to be STYLED a
:. Bo"nfy Eli for tie bcncfs Of British
1onnage"
la answer to these arguments, it has be en-
said, that such views had been anticipated
by the fran eIe Of the bili-that they had
provided against one OF the greatest objec
tons, winch has been urgcd--that Great
Britain will never think Of resc, ting TO a
connterUaiiing system, because j. is provi-
ed by the SIN section IF the bill, that after
che 18th of April, no articles are to be
brought into the u. 5 but immediately from
The places where they are produced that d
course the system Of Intermediate entrepots
Wi 10 longer exist Hritish manufacture
viii 30 longer be seut 10 these ports. as under
this bill, they cannot be introduced into the
y. Sc G.. u seeing chat her goods can in
no other way fi,d a vent into the u States,
VIII be uHder the necessity Of keeping her
ports open for american peSseis
In reply TO these positions, II may be said
thar even if there be no risk OF a precise
couu,eryaiiing system, on the part of Great
Britain, this oil does not gard agains;
Inuch higher discriminating duties in Bri-
fish. ports, aud consequent imposition vi
burdens OIL American Merchants and Anne
rican snip owners but that there are 10
Sold reasons 70 think these positions correC,
that the British Ministry will probably
resort to a cCunterv ailiDg system--they will
consent to a certain reduction OF the guam
tity Of their manufactures consumed in the