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

States, to any OF those Colonies. IL is said thai
this right has been denied to Great Britain by
the United States, not perhaps in contradiction to
the letter, but undoubtedly ia depiation fron
the spirit of the treaty of 1915. Such serious
charge the undersigned is bound to rspel.
The argument adduced in support of that asser-
tioD rests the gratuitous superstition, that the
privilege which before the Convention of 1915.
British vessels coming from other ports than the
British West India Colonies, enjoyed. to clear
from a port of the United States to those Colo,
MES, was right instead of "a permission which
indeed not granted to them especially, but
which they had in common with all other vessels.
from whatever port they might have come. The
Unit ed States had the undoubted right to grant or
to withhold that permission, and in that, as in e.
very other 'oher where the right was not
restricted by treaty, TO regulate the intercourse in
foreign vessels between their own and foreign ter
ri cries of every descriptions as suited their con-
venience And this general right, which existed
before the Convention of 1915, was, by that com.
pact, preserved expressly, and without exception,
as respected the intercourse between the United
States and the British West Indies
The indirect intercourse alluded to, is so init
matey connected with the trade in general, that a
reservation, whereby the United States whilst al
lowed to forbid the direct Intercourse, would have
been bound TO permit it to be carried on indirectly
in British vessels, would have been useless and nu-
decided advantage over American vessels, on ac-
count OF the circuitous voyages which they may
make from England 10 the United States and thence
TO the West India Colonies, it was precisely the
branch of the trade again st which it was most inn
portant for the United States 10 preserve the right
That right actually enforced under the A
merican navigai on act of 1878, whnut being OBJ
ected 10, or being made bar to negotiations. When
the general restrictions of this repealed by
the act of 1923, this particular provision was in
substance reained and the undersigned understands
that his Majesty's Minister at Washington object
ed TO it, not as being deviation from the Con-
veniion bu, because he enormously believed that it
had not its counterpart in the acls of Parliament
then in force. In 1924, that provision appears
to have been adverted TO by the British Plenipo-
tentlaries. only for the purpose of remarking that
II conhnel British vessels TO direct trade, in TIE
same manner American vessels were restricted
by the act of Parliament, and even to greater
degree
1t may be here observed, that neither this, nor
any other provision of the of Congress OF
1923, would at this time have interposed any OBJ
stacie TO the favorable issue Of negotiation upon
the intercourse between the United States and the
British Colonies. But, respects the preliminary
condition, without which the British Government
cannot consent TO enter into any renewed negoiia-
tion on that subject, the undersignedis at loss
how 10 construe 1t. II cannot seriously be expect
ed by his Majes,y's Government that The United
States, even II II had not been mentioned as pre-
minaTy condition, should repeal their restrictions
on BRUSH vessels, when not only the intercourse
is altogether prohibited in American shipping, bur
when they are with frankness informed that re-
moval OF that inteTdct will not, as matter OK
course, follow such repeal their part. VIVA,
renders that allusion to repea of the enaclments
OF the act of 1928, still less Ineligible il perhaps
only affords an additional proof that both Govern
ments may occasionally overlook some of the
provisions contained in the laws of the other, is
that 1t Is provided by the sixth section of that act
that IL shall cease TO operate if any time the in
tercourse American vessels should be prohibited
by British Order in Council, or act of Parlia-
ment, and that, in such case the acts of Congress
OF 1915 and 1920 shall revive and be in full force.
mat contingency has actually taken place. AS &c
natural consequence "a The Order in Council, the
act II 1923 ceases to be the Law of the United
States alter The LIST OF December next And the
act which Mr.. Canning allows to have been i.ist.
he'd, viii again revive.
The intercourse, direct and indirect, will then
be prohibited by The laws Of both countries.
" here there il no commerce, there can be no dis
eliminating or other duties The Two countries
Will again be placed, respects that intercourse,
In The same situation in which they before the
act OF Parliament OF 1922, and that of Congress
OF 1923.
Ii there is any difference, it will consist in this:
the right of Great Britain both to decline to ne
gotlate, and TO contnus her interdict Of the in
ieTcourse, if The United States should accede
to the conditions of the act of Parliament OF
ls2o, is incontestble The undersigned bess leave.
however, to suggest, that an act excluding the
United States from trade open to the rest of the
world, is, as permanent measure, of differ ent
character from general exclusion of all foreign
nations.
! The undersigned requests Mr.. Canning TO accept
the assurance OF his high consideration
ALBERT GALLATIN.
| Upper Seymour Street, Sept. %, 1926.
| Document, o he c0nnuedl