Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-04-03


cargo in British colonial port: and by our act
OF 1928, British vessels coming direc, from any (
OF the enumerated colonial ports, being permitted
TO export cargo 10 the same ports DOLLY, from
which they came. ere required to give bond and
security to land the cargo only at the colonial
poit, from which they came, and for which they
cleared. This objection, moreover. had already
been obvatcd by The British acts of 1925, which
pc mitted our ships TO proceed with cugoes FROM
the coloniil pert. TO any other IN tae wo-J but
those of Great Britain and her colonies. Although
he Executive had these acts, it IS prob ,ble thai
,he committee had them not, before them, when
their report was prepared. IL further states that
export duty OF two Ier cent. was levied upon
exporis IN the vessels Of tue u. States which we
could no, coun;efva. This is one of Mr. Albums
objection. fully repealed 10y the answer of the Bit
sn minister, as have before stated; The British
ships paying ;he same duty, no matter whether
they carried the produce Tie report fnr,her
states. toat vessels arriving at bad marke have
at times not been allowed TO seek better unie.s
upon the double raymeni oil duties; while British
vessel. without that hrrthen may seek market
from Maine to New Orleans. This complain was
never before made, and wholly unfounded.
Mr. Rush states III hs letter to Mr.. Adams of
August IL, 1924, that the b, tieh Government, of
their own accord, had given orders that cur vessels
should he permitted TO proceed from port II port
/ on 50 mach a. was landed each port. (See Doc
/ No. ., pages 20, so. The report further states,
that dnue, and colonial fees are exacted amount
ing, as Ia stated, small lumber loaded vessels
| IN some instances, to the value OF the cargo; of
which Mr.. Husksscn IN. complained in the Brit
ISh Parliament. This also is new and the an
swer ~, tdat the British ships pay the same duir
! ana ieesi md il THAR account not ours
that MI. Hnslsisson complained This repor, has
! GccsrCy 10 tiiTip. lbatf here b.
er duties or Other harges levied in the colonial
! ports on American vessels and carpoes, than on
Tie British vessels and similar csrgoes. /, further
states, that only limited number of our article.
| are admitted into limited number of the colo
/ NAL ports; the old comp!siut of Mr. Adams All
our products were admitted 10 our vessels, and in
At! the coiouia port, in which there were Gust ON
houses except salt provisions of fish s, meat and
these we exclude b. prohbiory duries. Thi. pro-
hibiop certainly made no DISCRIMINATION between
British and American chipping. The repor, further
sales, that the 81 tsli laws were complicated md
oya mistake OF the effect of those laws the port
ct Halifax bad been shut against our vessels in
the midst of winter. Thi. is the same matter no.
ticed by Mr.. Ciay, and already observed upon.
The officer al Halifax executed the law properly,
but again opened the port upon the advic. OF the
BRUSH Minister at w ASKING on, at the instance,
believe, OF our Executive, no. because the con-
stuction OF the law was wrong, but becaus. h.
wished TO give time TO meet the terms of the
laws OF 1925 fairly and 10 entiiie ourselves 10 he
Dement, OF their provisions. This report further
states, and Is the las objection a. 10 r,. point
Of reciprocity, that The British Government i,sno-
se' heavy duty on our products vi ch they do
not impose "n the colonial products coming 20 the
same pore. And here the Committee take Mr..
Adams ground, that this prerenis an 90 IaI com
petition between the British ships and ours H4may
prejudice the owners of the produce 20 taxed, but
surely not the ships tina, carry it, when no o. her
ships can carry it better terms and il IL innos-
sioie, that 1t should prejudice The ships, which can
mol come INTO competition in CARRYING the untsx ed
! produce. II could not affect the freight of our
ships engaged in The trade, any more than our tax
upon Jamaica sugar, brought either by British O,
by an American ship, could affect thei, freight in
consequence OF the Louisiana sugar being received
IN the same port duty free.
The Committee admitted that same (,h.v sbo,,l
have said an of these regulations were Of char
acer 30 munIcipll, as not TO ne leg timats otiecu
OF complaint, IN reference to international in.
tercoUse; yet they said that "they did in fac
contraveos that just recipr city, on which il wa,
% be presumed would be til- desire of both mar.
ties to place the trade between them And they
advise neg itIon rather than legislation. since he
former cOfTse would retain in the hands of the
! Government of the u. s. the means it posse.sed
more equal, state OF intercourse bet yyeen the two
countries. They seem 10 have attached some .yus
TO these discriminating duties, which were the onI
means used by the Governtnentin The Ac, of 1929
for correcting these pretended inequalities a.tho'
their effect already terry frustrated by the
equivalent duties imp seI by Great B,i,sin; and
alIho' they die indeed operate on us iDiurously :.
oar ships !; heir cargoes bore much larger par,
or the burthen, than borne by the British
nd hair cir
: tar the greater part OF Inc trade, which was ~ eli
known to the Administration. (See Doc. No 9,
! o,ge 1877
Fhis report gave The fret intima,on 10 The Con.
( Eress and people of the u 5. tba, any oues.inn
IN relation the British protecting duties had ever
been raised by our Executive. #, however.
avoids most carefully the disclosure Of the fact.
That our claim on this point was the cause, and
the sole cause OF the failure TO adjust the subject
nj this trade with Great Britain to the satisfaction
of both parties This subject passed over lightly.
and may very well be considered as one of tho.,
which The Committee tres, a. being too municipal.
(ss II really was) to be ne legitimate object of
! complaint. This alluson 10 that subject was not
calculated 10 produce the least spspicion that il
had been our zine qua non, and the only pon, of
difficulty between the two nations or that il ever
had been seriously urged, even brought for ward
in any way, by our Executive. Why thi, sup
preston OF that sll-impcrtant fact? Why mingle
this subiert with variety of unfounded com
! pIsints, which bad been abandoned BY the act of
1923, and long since in negotiating? WHY were
! ihese futile and abandoned complaints brought uo
again, and insisted on that critical stage of the
aiFlr, and At The time, when the Executive were
! prepared 10 abandon By treaty, every one of the
complaints mentioned in the report including that
IN rsspect 10 the protecting duties, as they had al
ready abandoned all the rest in the negotiations OF
1924. and as they Abandoned the I,s, 4. IL. =