Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-03-27
JAMES MONROE.
March 10, 1918.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE. !
17ih March, 1878.

vi submitting 10 the cOnSIuSIdllOn OF tne
President the correspondence herewith
enclosed between the Envoys Exiraordi-
nary OF the United States al the Court OF
the Netherlands, and the Penipoten,ia-
ries appointed by that government for
The purpose Of renewing and extending
HE Commercial Treaty already existing
between the two countries. The failure
of ihis uegociation is 10 be attributed
principally 10 two obstacles which arose
III The progress ofthe discussions between
the pectIye Pienipoten.iaries one pro
ceeding from an essential principle in The
commercial regulations of This country,
and the other from a principle OF like
character III the Kingdom of The Neither
lands.
The law Of 81 March, 1915, authorizing
IA partial repeal OF the discriminating du,
lies which operate against foreign ship
ping, and The merchandise imported in
them, required, as d condition OF that re-
peal, the abolition of all discriminating
or countcrvaiing duties of any foreign
nation 10 whose advantage II should T.
nurc, so far assihcy operate 10 lie disad-
vantage OF the United States; and on this
condition the acts OF The United States,
imposing discriminating duties, were dc
clared Ia be repealed only so far as re-
spects the produce or manufacture of the
nation TO which the foreign ship or vessel
might belong. The law, ther. fore, re-
CURED a total abolition OF discriminating
or countevailing duties in the foreign ma
ton, operating against the United States,
and offered only partial repeal of our
discriminating duties, which operated a
galust them, IN return. From an imper-
feet view of the provisions of tins act,
xpIIflt ,.a no t,,il,r nnda,SfnnI D,,Ix, L.,
collating it with the general system and
the particular provisions of the acts i'm
posing discriminating duties, part of
which only ii proposed 70 repeal, The go
vernment OF the Netherlands and others,
appear TO have understood it as offering
total repeal of all discriminating duties,
as wei! of tonnage as upon merchandise
oil every description, without distinction
OF origin. Tie power of the President
was, however, restricted by the terms of
the law. The laws of the Netherlands
imposed discriminating duties OF tonnage,
and on merchandise imported IN foreign
vessels, but without any distinction with
regard TO the origin of the merchandise.
When, therefore, they revoked their dis
eliminating duties so far as respected the
United States, they considered them> elves,
by the act Of Congress of Sd March, 1915,
entitled 10 total repeal of the discrimi-
mating duties in the United States, ope-
rating against them, not only the tonnage
duties, but those upon merchandise, whe-
Their Ofthe produce or manufacture of the
Netherlands, or OF any other country
This was, however, not warranted by The
act Of sd March, 1915, nor could it be
stipulated by treaty, without involving
consequences affecting the commercial
relations between the United States and
other countries. The revocation OF the
discriminating duties upon merchandise
imported in vessels of the Netherlands,
would he of little avail if limited to arii-
cies the produce or manufacture Of that
country, the principal part of whose ex-
pOriations consist of The produce and ma
nufacture of others. But, on the other
hand, if that distinction in our navigation
and revenue laws, should be broken down
with respect To- one nation, it could he
with difficulty, it at all, maintained with
regard 10 any other.
The other difficulty which occurred i'm
the negotiation, related to the admission
of vessels of the United States INTO the
colonies OF the Netherlands, if not upon
the same footing as into the ports of the
Netherlands i'll Europe, at least upon that
of the most favored nation. To this it
was objected by the Plenipotentiaries OF
the Netherlands, that certain favors were
granted by them TO other nations them
selves possessing colonies, for the equi-
valent of similar fdvors conceded in re-
turn, which could not be conceded TO
nation possessing no colonies, and there
fore not enabled 10 concede the equiva-
lent. The same objection having been
made by the British government to the
admission OF vessels OF the United States
into their colonies, 1T appears to deserve
attention how tar the principle itself is
jAstItiable, and now far the United States
ought 10 acqulcsce in it. There are vari-
Gus grounds upon which it appears OBJ
J"cilOnaile. l. Because all the other ma.
RHINE states. possessing colonies more
or less significant, a classification, how
ever general in terms, which, applies, by
way Of exclusion, TO the United States a.
lone, is manIfeSily measure say0uring of
hostility to them, as much as If il was
applied 90 thepl by name. 3. Btcaus- the
United States not only, by Che constant
and unparalleled rapid increase Of their
own popualioa, but by iac great enlarge
meni Of their territorf, and The admissi-
OH OF new states, producing almost all ihc
articles Of European colonies in this he
nisPherc, afford 20 ail The commercial MI
tons d Europe an equivalent similar i'm
prln iple. aud infinitely moge valuable
than the mere admission 10 tuo or three
small islands Of the West mdips. which
Is all That some Of The European states
can grant for access 10 the coionie. oi
the others 3 The United States lavea
inst claim ~ free trade with most of ihe
'iorics OF The West inim Islands, loun-
Gre occasional indispensable ne
t." lsVer. j. lhc United