Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-12-23

The position now assumed that Colonial trade
with foreign States is not lit subject, for nego,a-
ton with those States, but belongs exclusively to
The regulation OF the parent country is entirely
new. 1t is not sustained by the practice of other
Powers having colonies. II is not sustained by the
practice Of Great Britain herself and this brings
me to the consideration of what has passed be-
tween the two Governments in relation to this
trade.
They negotiated on that subject, to go no fur
Their back, in the year 1894 Their negotiations
resulted in the 18th article of the treaty of Amy,
Commerce, and Navigation, which was then con-
ciuded The very fact of treating between two
independent States, implies the right in each OF
considering and determining the mutual PROPOSE
iions which may be offered. The two Powers
again negotiated on the same Subs ct in 1856, and
because the Government OF the u. States did not
conceive that the concessions OF Great Britain,
contained in the l2ih article Of the treaty of 1894.
were equivalent TO the concessions their side, it
was annulled. They again negotiated in 1915,
and actually entered into stipuiRons which, as
you well know, form part of the Convention OF
The third OF July, ct that year, for the regulation
OF the British Yves; India trade but, not being able
10 come 10 any agreement, In regard 10 the Bsi-
fish Eas, India trade il was left to the two conn-
tries 10 regulate this subject by their respective
laws.
On that occasion, i, was stated by Lord Cas-
ilereagh, that the British Government would not
regard unfriendly, any measure which the u
States might think ii expedient to put into opera
ton for the regulation of that trade And, to
guard against all msconcepion, it is moreover ex-
pressly provided In the treaty itself, that " the iu-
course between the United States and His Bril-
fannie Malesiy's possessions in the West Indies,
and on the continent of North America, shall not
De affected 10y any of the provisions Of this article
but each party shall remain in the complete pos
session otits rights with respect TO such an in
tercourse." With what proprieiy, then, can il
be affirmed that, SO to withhold rom the ship OF
country having Colonies, trading from the mother
country to a foreign State, under regular treaty
between TIE two countries, the right Of clearing
for another port belonging 10 that mother coun-
try, in another Part Of the world, is injury
AN injury automatically in deviation from the spirit
OF the trealy!' The regular treaty referred to
excludes by its positive Terms, sll regulation of
the intercourse beiw The United States and the
British Colonies in the West Indies. And yet it
is coniended that Grea, Britain has the right, ac-
cordiug TO The spirit of The treaty. not only 10 the
benefit Of the application Of its provisions, 10
subject which it alone processes TO regulate, butt
have them applied also 10 another subject which
Is expressly declared not 10 be regulated and as 10
which both parties lief, in the conIlsle posses
sion OF all their rights. And this is insisted upon
in behalf Of Great Britain, wiihou. any CORES
pondlng privilege the part OF the United States
through the British West India ports TO the
United States, and vice versa, Whilst under sim
liar Circumstances, those ports are TO remain
shu, by British authority, against a vessel of The
United States, it would equally entit.e such Bri-
fish vessel 10 pass through the ports Of any and e
very cous.ry upon The globe, to and from the u
nied States The Uni:ed States might. without
any violation Of TIE Convention Of 1915 interdic,
all intercourse win the British West Indies, direct
or circuous. And surely the right to adopt the
stronger and mere comprehensive, includes tie
choice oil line weaker measure, tina, of rrohihtiny
TO be done, by British vessels, what Great Bri,ain
prohibits, under analogous circumstances, American
vessels from doing. 1t is alleged that that right.
from the enjoyment Of hich we are interdic,ed by
British regulation, nevertheless existed in Great
Britain antecedentIy to any treaty, and at period
when no claim ie any trade with British colonies
had even been whispered 10y the United States -
AS right II ne' er existed one moment since the
independence Of the United States. II the rriyi.
lege were exercised, it wa from their moderation
and by then sufferance. Since that epoch we are
unaware Of any period Of time when the United
States did OF Claim reciprocal intercourse with
the British Colonies.
The Two countries again unsuccessfully regotia-
Ted In relation 20 the Colonial trade in 1917, when
Lord Cast leresgh submitted draft Of four articles
whirh did not prove acceptable. and in 1873 and
1919, and finally in 1924. What was the footing
on winch The lniercours c had been placed by the
laws OF tie two countries, a; the reriod of open
ing ha' last nFeo'ia ion, you will see by adverins
to the instructions Of my predecessor, under date
23d Jme, 1923, with copy Of which YOU
have been furnished. The long and arduous
DISCUSSIONS which took place between Mr. Rush
and Mss-rs. lluslSsson and s. Canning in 1924,
brought The parties very near together. Each ex-
changed with the other the proposal with which he
would be satisfied, bat as they could not then
agree upon either, i, was concluded 10 suspend Ire
regoaiion, with distinct understanding, on both
sides, that ii sho'lJ be again resumed al some
enient day, (see protoe oil Of the 2jih confer
ence. page ISL OF The printed pamphlet. From
a companion OF the American and British Fropo-
sails (~ee the former annexed to the protocol of the
third conference. marked a page 1873 Of the same
pamphlet. and the British count project, marked
l.. page lA2 see also the Birth paper marked
w page 1851 it will be seen
l That both parties were willing TO abolish
all discriminating duties on either side
2. That the British Government was satisfied
AMI actually offered that the intercourse should
continue restricted TO tie direct voyage, AZ n then
was by retrospective laws OF Tie parties hat is 10
s'y, that aH American vessel clearing from the
British West Indies with their produce for an A
neiicsn rort, should be required 10 land her cargo
in such port and. on the otter hand, a British,
vessel cleqring from the United States, with their
produce. for colonial port, should he requirel TO
land her cargo in such port
But, tlifdiy, The poiut on which the partits
could lot then agree. was, that The United States
insisted tbat American produce should be admitted
into Tire British Colonial ports, upon the sane
terms ~ similar produce received from sny where
elsr; ,h1t IL, either from Bilish possession or
any foreign country.
Surb an equal aduj.-i IA Of our ,,,oJuro nae