Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1816-02-10

sa"tc WuruS, In the war against 1TtpOll.-
The conduct IT the government had been
regulated by the same rule ia thei legisla-
tive acts t6carrf iifso effect the treaty with
Spain. An appropriation law was passed,
to pay the necessary expences. This was
all that was then deemed necessary. But
the 10th Article at the treaty Intended to
provide for the case of vessels of either na-
ton, forced by distress into the ports of
the other. The condition of the treaty
was dictated beth by pnlicy and humane
ty; 1t was, that the goods thus forced under
the protection of either OF the contracting
parties, should, if landed. he reloaded and
carried away, without the payment Of the
customary duty, either on the vessel OF
cargo. Noatt was passed until the case
actually occurred. Spnetime during or
before the year 1904, lae Spanish briqan
the Nancy, c;lne into Nugiulk Ia distress.
In order to give to her owners the benefit
of the treaty stipulation, it was deemed
necessary to pass an act renting the du-
ties in that particular instance, and pro-
piding that they should not be PAYABLE in
similar Instances in future. Inc treaty
with FrInce m1S0l, had been alluded to
ny the gentleman from N. c. (Mr. Gas.
| TOM BY referring TO the appropriation
act, passed in consequence OF the ratifica-
| ton of that treaty, it will be found to con-
tain declaration of tire obligation to re-
turn vessels captured during the war, ac-
cording to the conditions Jf the conyen-
ton. MIR. +. presumed that this was sup
posed sufficient authority for the delive-
ry OF the Berceau by the President, in per-
! Torrance OF the conditions of the treaty.
! The statute book was full 0fexamples. but
none were more decisive than those
founded upon the cessiOn of Louisiana to
the United States by France in 1908. AL
| though France coded it to the U. States.
Congress thought it necessary TO pass an
act authorizing the President to take pos
session OF it, and to use the military force,
1t necessary, for that purpose. Although
it WAS recognized as belonging to the Ubi-
ted States, and of course governed by
their Jaws, so far as they were applicable
to It's situation, at that time 1t was deemed
must expedIent to pass an act to lay and
collect duties on imports and tonnage with.
In the said territory. In this act, Prov.
sion was made to secure to French and
| Spanish ships the commercial advantages
which were promised as one Of the condi-
! tons OF the cession. Bat this was not all |;
In the year 1900, an act WAS passed, allow
ing drawback of duties on goods exDO ted
frOal the United States TO New Orleans,
being a foreign port. Although the reason
OF this act had ceased, aud it might have
been considered repealed by the transfer
| of this port to the United States, it WAS
supposed necessary to repeal the act by
q n n nj -nH
| Louisiana, too, was admitted into the
Union, not by treaty stipulation, but by an
| act OF Congress, in performance of the OBJ
legation imposed by it.
MIR. +. said, that no difference was made
by the constitution between treaties with
foreign powers, and treaties made with the
Indians within the territorial limits of the
United States. The rule had been ex-
tended to them. Without enumeratirq
the particular cases, he could refer to an
! arrangement which had been made with
all the Indian tribes with whom we had
entered into cOmpacts--that crimes com
mitted by whites upon | dians, within the
Indian territory, should be punished in the
same manner as if the same offence had
been committed upon citizen of the Uni
ted States, within the Jurisdiction of some
district of the United States. This en-
gagsment bad been complied with So far
as it could be complied with by the 90
vernmeut. Prosecutions had been inst
tuted against those who had been accused
of such offences. MIR. r. did uot remember
OF any punshments, but this was not the
fault OF the govern0 ent. These prosecu
tons were, however, commenced, not upon
the treaty, but upon the law, made in con-
sequence of the treaty engagement.-
These remarks, Mr.. f. trusted, would sa-
tisfy the House, that the course prooosed
to be pursued, in relation to the late con-
ventiOn with Great Britain, was perfectly
iD unison with the practice in all Former ca
ses, and justified by the RUE upon which
that practice had been founded. The only
difference between tie present and former
cases was, that in this case the convention
stipulates advantages to Britisl, vessels.
which cannot be enjoyed without an altera-
ton OF the system Of revenue, and repeal
OF existing laws. Some gentlemen had
imagined that the law of the last session,
on the subject Of discriminating duties.
contained all the necessary provisions to
meet this contract between tie two coun
tries. This was mistaken opiniOny--
The law Of the last session repealed our
discriminating duties, on tonnage, &c, of
foreign vessels and ON goods imported in
foreign vessels, upon condition which
has not happened, that is, that an aboIi-
ton OF all the discriminating duties, SO far