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

Indeed, had Louisiana belonged to any other
! country, and been It's only colony, the admission
therein of British vessels and commerce, con-
templatedby the act of Parliament of 1925, would
alone have been sufficient to extend such coun-
try the privileges offered on certain conditions by
that Act.
| Taking all the facts and circumstances which
have been stated into consideration, the United
States have been of opinion that they might, with
out violating the regasd due to the usases and o.
pncns OF Others, claim to treat that subject as
| on that OF any other commercial Intercourse, aud
on the basis of equal and reciprocal conditions.
The claim has accordingly been brought forward,
| and considered by both parties fit subject for
negotiation, from the time when any of CONNER
| cial nature first commenced between the two
| tries.
An article on that subject made part OF the trea-
ty oil 1884. but was found so inadequate and was
accompanied bv such resirictions and conditions,
TO induce the United States reject it at the risk
OF losing the whole treaty.
The sixth article of the unratiied treaty OF 1906
stated that the high contracting parties, not hau-
sng been able to arrange at present, by treaty,
any commercial intercourse between the territories
OF the United States and his Majesty's Islands and
Forts IN the West Indies, agree, that, UlW that
| subject shall bereguiatedin satisfactory man
ner, each of the parties shall remain in the COM
plete possession OF its lights in respect to such an
intercourse" similar reservation ofrishts made
part of the Convention OF 1915, renewed and pro-
longed in 1918.
la the negotiation of 1918, and in very suisse
quent one relating to the colonial intercourse, the
determination of the United States TO conclude no
arrangement, unless founded ON a fair reciprocity,
has been distinctly avowed. The undersigned had
always understood, that, however differing as TO
the extent of the intercourse and other impo ant
points, that basis had not been objected to the
| part OF Great Britain.
Every article, indeed, proposed then or since by
her, has the appearance OF thai character: and the
preamble OF the counter proiet offered the 4h of
June, 1884, by the British Plenipotentaries states,
hat =. His Britannia Majesty and the u. States OF
America, being DESTROYS To- regulate, by mutual
greement, and principles of Just reciprocity,
| the trade now open under their respective laws,
between the United States and the British Colonies
in North America, and the West Indies, have
SC.
The third proposed article again declares it 10 be
the desire and intention oil the high contracting
parties to place the trade i'll question on footing
| Of jas. reciprocity.''
Ii is believed that the difficulties which have pre-
vented an arrangement satisfactory to both parties,
have been wholly unconnec,ed with questions of
abstract right; that they may, especially at first,
! have arisen, IN part, from a reluctance on the
par OF Great Britain, to depart too widely from
her colonial policy; that, far from being due 10
| W
had lately originated principally in mutual appre-
hension that the proposals of the other party were
departure from that principle The failure of an
attempt TO make an amcable arrangement, left each
| party to pursue its own course And the natural
| consequence has been, that the measures adupt ed
by either may not have been always satisfactory to
! The other; that occasionally they NAV have been
carried beyond what the occasion required. A
discussion of all that has been done in that respect
on both sides, would, at present be unprofitable
The undersigned will confine his observations to
those enactlnents which appear 10 have been most
obnoxious TO Great Britain and are to be found in
! the act OF Congress of 1923.
The first Is the provision of that act, whereby
discriminating duties on British vessels and mer-
chandise, coming fro,n the British Colonies. were
aot to cease until it was cefaned thai 10 higher
duties were levied IN The said Colonies on Amer-
can vessels and merchandise, than upon BRUSH
vessels and like merchandise imported from else
where, that Is to say, from other British Terri,o-
ries, as well AS from other countries. That provi,
sion might appear unusual and objectionable but
might have been expected
The principle implied in the article proro sed
by the American Penipo,ec,iaries in 1878. al
which time the Object explicitly stated and
discussed: and 1t was distinctly expressed in ano
ther article proposed by the United States, as SUD-
Elementary to the Convention of 1918, and de!iv-
cred on the 10Th June, 1919, to Lord Cas,Iereaph.
by Mr.. Rush.
Prior 10 the time when protecting duties were
Lana upon American produce, imported into the
British West Indies, the United States had made
proposals, intended either 10 prevent tina, contin
gency or 10 reserve the right of counterva,hn0 IN.
protecting by discriminating duties. After the
protecting duties had been actually laid by the act
OF Parliament of 1922, they did, on the same
ground, continue those alien duties, which, on ac-
count OF the other provis ons of that act would
Otherwise have been revoked
That claim, on their part, was at all times con-
-idered as nadmissible by the British Government
Ii was always said that every country had a right
| to protect its own produce, that Great Britain
would protect that OF her Colonies that the demand
OF America was no more founded in reason or
usage, than it the British Government should ask
that the sugar OF her colonies should be placed by
the United States, as respected duties, on The same
footing that of Louisiana.
| 10 this 1t was answered, that the general prin
ciple advanced by Great Britain, was uuoues,iona
abe; but that, so long as she regulated The Colo
NAL trade on principles different from those which
she applied to the commerce with her European
territories, so long she did not treat them as in
tegfa parts, but dependencies of her ero,;re
the United States must necessarily Consider them.
IN commercial point of view, as distinct conn
tries.
MIR. Canning has deemed it necessary tn s,v
that 1t cannot be supposed that Great Britain had
pfeciuded herself from extending other nations
The privilege OF trading with the British West In.
dies, in the first instance granted in effect excl
sively to the United States: suppositioo ,yLich
certainly never was made. - And he has added tina,
the question was now no longer, as in Is20 or
1872, between the United States and Great Britain
but between her and all the nations of the old and
new world, TO all OF whom she had rendered access