Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-12-19

| The undersigned apprehenos that,the object OF
his note of the Goth ultmo, may not have been al
together understood. II not his intention to
make on that occasion full exposition, much less
to argue in supper, of either his own opinion or
those of his Government, upon the whole matter to
| which the Order in Council relates.
His opinion Of the character Of the Colonial
trade did not enter into the view he taking of
the subject. He is not aware to have expressed
that of his Government upon any other point than
that of the preference it gave to arrangement by
treaty, regulations respectively enacted by each
Country.
The arguments ascribed to hir. seem 10 be rather
inierences to which he might not have objected,
did he not feel bound TO disclaim any intention on
his part to have suggested what the British Go
vernment ought to have done; an expression APP
plicable only the of alleged violation of
positive implied obligation.
J The object of the note of the undersigned was
simply wha, it purported To be: to express MS
greet that, under existing circumstances the Order
in Couach should have been Issued; and TO avow
his inability 10 discover its motive. This has now
been frankly aud distinctly explained by Mr.. Cam
ming. And the principal error which pervades TIE
note of the unders sned, is, that he had supposed
that the intercourse betwe the United States and
the Colonies of Great Britain was still considered
| as beneficial 10 her; that he wholly unaware
that the iEterdiCt that intercourse in American
vessels founded in consider atoms OF general
nature, and connected with an intention not 10
new, at least for the present, the negotiations on
| this subject.
/ 1t is true, that the undersigned had overlooked
the fact, that, since the 9Th oil January 1926, the
| indirect intercourse was allowed in American, and
forbidden in British vessels, and, 10 that extent,
his assertion OF perfect equality existing between
the vessels of both nations was erroneous; though.
in reality the oil equality in that respect may
have been compensated by other restrictions and
charges imposed ON American vessels
The undersigned has it not In bis power TO as
sign the reasons why the provisions o the of
sress, of 1928 relating that Indirect intercourse,
have been continue led in force, aft the correspon
ding restrictions of Great Britain had been renewed,
so far related to foreign countries. tits not i'm
I probable that the attention oil the Government OF
! the United States having been principally turned
! TO the general question, whether it was not most
eligible that the trade should be regulated by treaty,
by the respective laws of the two countries.
the fact that this particular restriction had been thus
revoked b. the act of Parliament of 1926, may
, have escaped its notice.
The communication made in the latter part of
Mr.. Cummings note of the intentions of the
British Government, would not seem, considered
alone, to impose any other duty the Undersigned
tl.n TO transmit it to his But it is accompanied
by various observations, one OF which a, least has
almt 81 the appearance OF charge against the Co.
vernment OF the United Scales, and 1t may not be
improper for the Undersigned avail himself of
the opportunity thus siortied once more to state
the view OF the whole subject, which Is entertained
by the United States.
Great Britain asserts clear, and rntoubied
the right give to the United States, or TO with
hold hon them, the privilege of trading with her
/ w est India oionies to reserve 10 herself that
trade, and generally TO open the ports of those
Colonies TO Foreign Powers, or keep them closed
as may suit her own convenience, wholly par
TALLY. uncOnd lionally. or condhonally, and, if
conIitionally, on what conditions che pleases.
As an abstract and general proposition, the right
is not denied; but consider ed purely matter OF
right this, which is attribute of Sovereignty,
applies TO all other Territories well Colo
MES.
Every nation has the abstract right generally,
and not in reference 10 her colonies alone, to
close or to open her ports to foreign vessels or
merchandise, and 10 grant the Indulgence wholly or
partially, conditonally or Internationally. Thi,
right has been, and continues to be, exercised c.
casionally by every nation, iii the shape of navi-
CATION, prohbitory, and restrictive laws, operating
unequaIly different nations
| The real distinction between the trade OF for
egners with colonies, and that with other terrific
rles, to consist not IN a greater less
plete right but in difference in the usage and
practice. 1t has long since been found that, il
commerce with foreign nations advantageous,
it was necessary, IN order 10 enjoy il, to suffer
| them to participate in 1t.
| That exclusive monopoly Of the colonial
| trade was the best mode OF preserving colo
MES, or of promoting their prosperity, is recent
discovery. Bui since the late final separation OF
the greater part Of the continent OF America from
| the mother countries, and now that more enligh-
tened views prevail, respects the remaining col
onies, the former peculiar character OF The colonial
trade is almost lost. The abstract right being
he same, and the ancisnt system OF colonial pol
icy having been nearly abandoned, it is difficult
TO perceive any striking difference between the
trade with colOnies and that with the mother
country.
These general observations, drawn from the
undersigned by the repeated refer to an alb
sract right, which is not questioned and by the
effort 10 consider still the commerce with colonies
as essentially differing from every other But the
| intercourse between the United States and the
British West indies has in fact always been consi-
dered by both parties of peculiar character ,
hch. distinguished from every other species OF
colonial trade, aud the declarations of the United
States to participate in that commerce, are ofmuch
| earlier date than Mr.. Canning seems TO have been
| aware OF.
As early as the year 1888, the Government OF
Great BrItsin, deyisting from that principle of the
colonial system, according to which her colonies
| were prohibited from trading directly with any
| other country, allowed her West India colonies
to trade directly with the United States of Ameri-
| ca, IN British vessels. This permission had been
| continued almost without any interruption TIL the
| wear 1922. when a more extensive change in the
colonial policy superseded that partial measure.
| And during the European War, Great Britain
found il convenient cot occasionally, but re-
! pealedly TO open her West Indie ports 10 Ameri-
can vessels at the same time that she ives ASSERT