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

MES, shall be allowed clear from any port OF the
u. States for any OF those colonies.
If it is intended to be maintained that, because
the British of 1922 permits only direct trade
between our colonies and tbs, Uniel States in A
merican ships, the prohibition OF asrade thI ough
the United States between the mother country and
her colonies is therefore. fair reciprocity, that po
siion resolves itself in effect into the hrst OF the
III ee arguments into bich MIR. Galatians state
ment has been divided, and may be comprehended
in the answer. 1t furnishes striking Illus
tration of the general misconcepiion which has
already been noticed pervading Mr. Gaiiaun' s
note, in respect the character OF colonial trade.
To allow foreign ship to enter colonial ports
at all, and upon any terms, is a boon to withhold
from ship Of a country having colonies, trading
Rom the mother country to a foreiga State, under
a regular treaty between the two countries, the
right of clearing for another port belonging to that
mother country in another part oil the world, IS an
injury.
That right has been denied TO Great Britain by
the United States; not perhaps IN contradiction 10
the latter but undoubtedly in deviation from the
spirit of the treaty of 1916. 1t is right which
existed, and was enjoyed before the treaty OF ISIS
was framed; at period, that is, when no claim TO
any trade with our colonies had been even whisper
ed by the United States; and 1t could not, there
fore, be, by any just reasoning, connected WIN
that trade, or made dependant upon 1t. IL Is a
right which friendly nations, trattcsins with one
another, much in the habit OF allowing To
each other, that it is exercised matter OF course,
unless specifically withholden The colonial trade,
on the contrary, by the practice OF all nations
having colonies is trade interdicted, As matter
OF course, unless specifically granted.
1t must not be forgot ten that this enactment,
founded professedly on the limitations OF the
Bri ish act of Parliament of 1922, is continued
fourteen months after the passing of the British
act OF 1925, 10y which the limitations OF 1872
were done away. Since which 9th of January,
1926, American ship trading 10 British West
India colony, nay clear out from thence to any
part OF the world. the United Kingdom and its
dependencies alone excepted. But the British
ship in the American port still remains subject TO
all the restrictions or the American law OF 1928,
prohibiting trade through the United States. be-
tween The mother country and her West India
colonies.
Mr.. Gallatin, in his II ote of the och of August,
sates that :. it is well knuwn that the delay in
renewing the negotiation upon the subject OF the
colonial ,ercourse, principles of mutual ac-
commos!ation, is due to causes not under the con-
troll OF the Unid States. principally to the state
Of The health Of .5L'. R0,g."
Upon this point, the undersigned has only to OBJ
serve that no intiina,ion that MIR. King had re-
ceived Instructions which would have enabled
him 10 resume the negotiation, ever be
fore communicated 10 the British Government
On the conIsry, the only communication at all
relating TO this matter which has reached hin,
in any authentic shape, was in despatch from
Mr.. Vaughan, dated the 22l OF March last, where
in that Minister states: that g Mr.. Clay had IN
formed him that - he should not be able to furnish
&c .ir. King tcith has instructions before the
:" end ofthe month Of May, to enable him to re
commence the negotiation"
But, whatever may be the date tenor of the
H. AZ
will have collected from this note that, after all
that has passed upon the subject OF colonial inter
course, and especially alter the advised omission
by the Government and Legislature of the United
States TO meet Gas other nations have done) the
simple and dII provisions OF the act of 1925,
the British Government cannot consent TO enter
into any renewed negotiation upon the intercourse
between the United States and the British colo
oes, so long the pretension recorded in the act
of 1898, and there applied 10 British colonies alone
remains part OF the law of the United States.
But the British Government, further owes to the
spirit of irankness - hch il wishes to cultivate in
all its relations with the United States to declare,
that, after having been Compelled tn apply to any
country the inierdict prescribed by The OF IS2
the British Government cannot hold itself bound
TO remove the interdict, matter of course,
whenever it may heppen to silt the convenience
OF the foreign Government to reconsider The me-
was occasioned.
1t is not made matter OF complaint, by the
British Government, that the United ateS have
declined conditions, which other Nations have
thought worthy of their acceptance.
Il il on the other hand, not the fault of the
British Government, il the United States have
suffered the Time 10 pass by, at which it nigh,
have been object of greater importance to this
country to induce the United States TO come into
their proposals.
The United States exercised, upon this point, a
free judgment: and they can, on their part, have
no reason TO complain that Great Britain, ter al
lowing ample time for maturing that Judgment, is
contested to abide the result of their decision.
The undersigned requests Mr.. GaIlain to ac-
cept the assurances of his high consideration
GEORGE CANNING.
Foreign Office, Sept. IL, 1926.
z. S. The undersigned, reading over the
preceding observations. finds that he has omit
ted to notice two subordinate points
touched upon in Mr.. Galatians note of the 10Th
of August.
The first relates TO the trade between the Uni.
ted States and the British possessions in the East
Indies; the second, TO the intercourse, by inland
navigation, between United States aud the British
possessions in North America.
With regard TO the former, il is only necessary
to state that the trade with the East Indies remains
upon the footing on which it was established by
the Conventions of 1915 and 1918, with which
Conventions il is expressly stated, in the Order
in Council, that the provisions OF that order are
not intended in any way to interfere.
10 respect to the second point, relative to me
intercourse, by inland navigation, between the
United States and the British North American
provinces, the Undersigned begs to inform Mr. .
Gaatn that that intercourse, far relates 10 the
Canadas, is regulated by the act OF Parliament of
1925 by which the same duties are expressly I'M