Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1827-07-21

| SIR: You observed your letter 10 Mr.. Gaatin.
f, that
The only effect of ijs suspension (;z omission of
all the British Colonial authorities apply the act of par
lament to the commerce of the United S,a,csl was the
continuance of the benefits of the then existing state OF
things t" the United States Tor nearly tclyemonh longc.
ihan they would oihrfwisu ~ = enjoyed it,"
have shown yo in M Ia ;; letter that this remark
was altogether irrelevant tue matter in hand The
question not whether the continuance o this state of
thngs was beneficial or not 10 the United States; but
whether they were not fully authorized 10 infer from
the TACT, that none ri the British colonial authorities
Inderstoodthe act of July 1925 To apply to the United
States, that II really not intended to apply TO them
l. Eou very jndcionsy ovadc the task of showing tina
'hls was not air inference. Instead of doing this
you say,
"Tat continuance pcrmi;;cd By the British Govern
meUt, mainly i'll consideration then tendency in the
Legislature OF tho United States of the resolution herein
before h'eni'oncd, for confirming the conditions
act Of 1875"
have become weary OF char ging YOU with the direct
missatement of important facts beg repeat, that
ascrlhe It merely TO the haste in which your patch
must have been written. and sort of proud and
gentcel disdain of patient investigation.
/ You say the British Government sanctioned the
conduct of the colonial government in permitting the
trade to remain open, on IF ''Ihc tendency OF
the resolution herein before nontonoG.n
have shown you that such resolution rs Won de
scribe was ever moved in either House OF Congress:
| hot let that pass.
1t is not certain whether you now refer TO avr Cam
brelengs resolution, 10 Mr. i4ioyds report or Gen.
Smiths bill. might insist that ven refer TO the last
because that Is the 0nly of tie tiee 10 which The
wcrd reiection," in any scnSe applies and that bill
was reported as late as April eth
But viii adopt the supposition, most favorable to
you, that when YOU speak the rrso.,tion ,eicctcd
you refer TO Alr. CanhreIeag's which however was
not rejected, but adopted without Opposition. HIS re-
solution was not moved till January 25th. Yop could
not we'll have heard of it til! February 25I. Your
ORDERS in consequence, coud not have reached Hrn-
TIL Marcel! aud allowance hat
for the exchange of intelligence, in mid winter inYGi
wing elaboration of your government upon it, Ger
Etanly make allowance most liberal o,gaid is YOU
Now, on the 23d Of January, .cr words more,
than two months before orders could possibly have
from england, founded on Mir Camhreieuc's resoln
ton, tlco days before that rGsOIiii0n u;0re at -
'nsfon the CounciI at Halifax, tie representation
Of The British Inspector (teieyoi. revoked the order
excluding commerce from TINT ,nrt
and yet you leave IT TO be uttered that this revoca-
ton took place IN consequence oi the tendency OF the
resolution!
Here must make long extract from yonr letter.
but my comments on it sia!! be pGoportionabiy short:
Immediately upon receipt Of Authentic intelligence
oil these proceedings at w Washington! instruction ses
out to Mr. Vaughan grounded the belle!
Government, that Congress would not separate, whuu,
adopting the resolution then under their consideration. IN
that case, and nrccuvjng fto the Anne
can Government ttA the restrictions md charges OH ei-
fish shipping and British colonial produce. would be
drawn by the Unite States, Mr. Vaughan vas authorized
20 deliver a the American Secretary of State d,ca-
rnSthat the discriminating duties imposed
can ships and their cargCcs in the West Indies should
diacly Nh Vaughan actually in possess ION Of
this instruction. when the resolutions the assumed lu-
ton OF which the instruction to air Vaughan had been u
dcd, was rejected IT part Mr. Tauchan'S G,,v
to make any communication upon the subject Amer
government before the result of the discussion was as
cer"incd After the result (vhory unexpected in rIi.
country any such communication would have been aa
only useless. but might perhaps have considered rs
improper appeal against the formal decision The Amen
can legislature"
So subtiy is this web Of augmentation woven thai
nothing bit the closest attention will suffice TO unfold IT,
The reader, who will but yield the this aeDtion ,gi
not, trust, regret it.
On hearing that there was a bin before the Senate
to repeal the discriminating duty for that is hat yor
refer to, though you coDfound with resolution which
moved in the House tLToo months beorel the B,
tish Government lit seetns) the belief thai
Congress would not separate without passing that bill
in that case, you go can instruction was sent Oh
10 Ar. Vaughan" TO DO what? To admit us i'm oeucra
terms to the privileges Of the act Of 1895? No. T,
give us the right therein conceded of trading from The
colonies TO all other places tc mother country except
ed) No such thing MIR. Vaughan simply in
struccd TO say, Gin that y "llat the Discriminating
duties imposed upon American ships and their cargoes
in the West Indies should immediately ceasc.o
! j beg your careful attention 10 ibis because your
partisan presses in England and ours in America have
Yehemently maintained fliat the pas aye of Gen.
Smiths bill would have admitted u 20 the benefits of
J the act o 1925 Your positive statement here shows
| that ii would have done uo such thing
Dsl ii!IS IS nOl all. Even (He Withdrawing oil
! discriminating duties not TO be bought simply by
the repeal Of You demanded much more even
for that concession. earnestly beg lie attention OF
my couDtrymen to this fact; tai Gen Smiths bill had
passed, II would not even have procured the removal
J Of your discriminating duties. What is your Ian
! guagc?
lin that case wiz that Congress had passed the bill
tor the repeal OF The discriminating duties AID upon
receiving an assurance from the american Government
tba the restrictions and charges British shipping and
British colonial produce should he withdrawn by the
United States" then, Nr. Vaughan instructed to
promise that our discriminating duties should be re
peaicd.
Now, among these "restrctons,n you expressly re-
present, lin former letter 10 Mr.. Gaatn) that tho
restriction on he crcWtous Uoyngc the most offensive
and injurious; although in G24 you acquesced in it, in
the negotiation with Mr.. Rush. This, therefore, was
OF course among the restrictions. the removal OF which
I'm addition to tho repeal Of discriminating dntiesl
was to procure u.s. TOT the benefits Of The July
1879 6"t merely The repeal " youy discyj,asatiag
duties!