Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-01-08

VIII not buy when they cannot sell. Nor
is it at all desirable, your HIeniorialiss suppose,
to favor our manufactures beyond the eneou-
raSement which they have already received.
In a country like ours, indeed, Astounding invast
regions Of fertile land, it would seem that the
cultivation Of tn. soil is the best i>ind OF indus
try IN which our citizens can engage To
| ormS tins restrictive system, therefore, TO The
aid oil our manufactures, Is to give tlvai an adj
ditiona' encouragement which they cannot
fairly require; and 1t Is 10 do this too, hy
laying new burdens upon our agriculture al
ready sufficiently depressed by the state OF
commerce in the world.
In answer 20 all this, however, ii is said that
nothing can he more just than the policy OF
tins restrictive system, which proceeds alto
Sether upon the principle of "A pen feet equality
"i rights, and reciprocity OF commercial regn-
lations, among all the nations of the earth
But Is TINS any thing more than Il spccous fal
lacy For has not every naiion !; clear right
tpreSulate the trade OF foreign vessels with
licr own soil And has She not the same right
IT, regulate their trade with her colonies. which,
are indeed Only parts OF her own soil: But
allow the principle to be ever So lust in iheo
ry, IL Is certainly erroneous in fact. 1t cannot
be doubted, at least, that in the actual state. of
things, and according to tho law and usage of
| nations, Great Britain has what may be called
the PHYSICAL right To regulate the lrad. OF her
colonies in her own way. 1t cannot be doubt
Cd tnat she has the right tn appropriate the
Whole ofthat trade To herself And do not al!
natons, holding colonies, claim and exercise
The same right Aud do not the United States
themselves maintain the monopoly of their
c"astinS trade ? And is not the trad. of Great
Britain with her colonies in effect, her coast
ing trade? Indeed, it is not denied that She
may exclude our articles ofcommerce and our
vessels altogether. But surely the greater pow
erlncludes the less sand if she may exclude our
goods IN our ships, she may yet admit them
IN her own. 1t is true, at the same time, the
United States have an equal right TO counter
act her policy, SO fan as it affects their inter
csts, by cOuntervang regulations in their own
lavor-lf they choose to adopt them. Whe-
ther they Will or not, is question, not of right,
or principle, or duty, but of mere expectancy
alone.
After this, it will not be said, your Memoir
alists indulge the hope, las it is sometimes
weakly lnsnuated,) that there is any want of
patriotism in contesting the policy of this
restrictive SYSTEM. On the contrary, they
LOOK upon IT. as they have always done, in the
l'Snt oil mere experiment whose virtue was
10 De tried by experience, and they only be-
iieve that experience has now decided against
t. AS long as its efficacy was upon its trial,
Notwithstanding its most heavy and affective
pressure upon themselves, they were anxious,
as became good citizens, to give it all the add
santageof apparent unanimity and concert,
TO ensure its success-and they forebore to
complain But now TINT it has failed, notori-
o9sly and palbably, to realize the hopes of its
| friends, they owe ii, they think, to the nation
as Well as to themselves, 10 demonstrate against
its continuance.
| With these feelings and convictions, your
Memerlalists, accordingly, now come before
your honorable body,l with that profound
respect which is due to the Great Council OF
their country, and they do most humbIy pray
yoa to repeal the said Acts of Congress estab-
'istinS the restrictive system, as the interests
oil tins Borough and District, and of the whole
nation, appear to require.