Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-07-10


trade between the West India COLONIES anu
any other foreign ports.
The moment the Government of the United
States had reason to apprehend that such was
intended to be the operation of your act, mr..
Gallatin was instructed to make correspond
ing concession, on the part Of the United states,
of the only serious point of difference on which
the negotiation had been suspended. SO much
for the unconquerable difference Of principle.
You GO on to give one more reason why the
negotiation was broken of, in the following
words:
"Hitherto, when the trade with the British
West India Colonies had been opened at all, 1t
had been opened chiefly, though not exclusively
10 The United States"
To no other country had il been opened oy
specific and positive convention.
But time had now arrived, when, from mo-
tives Of general polity, Great Britain thought
it advisable 10 allow access to her colonies TO
all foreign powers, without exception, on condi-
tions rendered alike 10 all.
Such indiscriminate opening could only be
effected by some process common to all those
who were permitted or invited to take advantage
of it; impartiality was :hus maintained towards
all parties, and the power OF control over her
own colonies was, at the same time, retained IN
the hands oil the mother country
You here give, inadvertently, very exeellen,
reasons why you ought not 10 have broken OIL
the negotiation with the United States. Those
reasons are, that you had pursued with us dit
ferent course from that which you had pursued
with other powers, in reference to the Yves, In
dia trade. 1t is true, this was not out Of favor
to us; it was merely the consequence Of the pc
culiar position in which the United States stand,
in reference to the West Indies With other
powers you had not negotiated, but had nego-
taed with US; and the two governments had
also passed acts referring reciprocally to each
others legislation. A negotiation, though sus-
pended, was pending between them. The dill
| ference was substantially reduced 10 one point
| BY the act Of July 1925 you had changed your
colonial system, in matter most intimately
connected with that point. We were heartily
ready 10 meet you; this readiness was unani-
mously avowed on the floor Of the Senate, and
Of hi. avow al you had cognizance. immedi-
ately on the rising Of Congress, Instructions
were given to Mr. Gallatln 10 meet you on the
only remaining points Of difference, and on the
very day OF his arrival, you shut the door OF ne
gotiaiion on him; shut the ports of your colo
MES on us; and tell US, with gravity can
hardly think not affected, that "you are at loss
10 understand on what ground ii was assumed
\ q
an undated disposition, on the part of the Br-
fish government, 10 negotiate Oil this subject"
You conclude this part Of your letter by say
ing:
"The undersigned believes that he has now
touched on every topic in the last note address
ed to him by Mr. Gallatn, TO which he had
no, had occasion to advert III former stages Of
their correspondence. He will not allow him
self to be drawn again into discussion of top
les already more than sufficiently debated"
also have touched on every topic and on
nearly every sentence in your long letter You
have acted wisely in the determination, "not to
suffer yourself TO be drawn again into this dis
CUSTOM" The result OF my humble examina-
ton is sufficient 10 show the unenviable posi-
ton in which you would easily be placed, by
Diplomatic talent and political experience like
MIR. Galatians.
am sorry 10 say, sir, that the. last part Of
your letter, the seemingly candid part, is that
which does you the least credit. 1t betrays, on
your part, an intention, more or less apparent
in the whole despatch, TO DISCUS" from the
British nation the real state of the facts, and to
lead them to think that the United States as
sumo an unreasonable ground, which you know
they do not assume.
After repeating "the common places about
common origin, laws, language, &C. winch
are always al hand 10 be quoted, when blow
is to be aimed at US, you add:
"But it has never been held duty Of interna-
tional amity (any more than Of friendship in
private life) to submit to unequal compacts.-
Nor has it ever been held an offence against such
duty that nation (any more than an indi'idu-
aT should decline 10 make such uncompensated
sacrifices.
Between two nations, as between two indi
viduals most friendly TO each other, there may
sometimes happen, unfortunately, to exist some
known subject Of incurable difference Of OPT
nion> In any such case it is perhaps most adj
visable 10 keep that subject as much as posi-.
BILE gu, Of sight, and to take care that it shall
not interfere with the tenor Of their general in
tercourse, and Of their habitual relations"
When you made use Of these expressions, you
knew, from the debates in the Senate to which
you refer, that the United States entertained not
only the hope, but the expectation, Of coming
to mutually acceptable arrangement on the
subject. You knew that the only difference OF
opinion existing here was, as TO the mode OF ell
fectinp an object. which all admitted to be de-