Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-06-12
sELACTIoMs.
iFrom the Norfolk Herald.l
THE COLONIAL TRADE.

'e' appeared IN all the public gazette, written by
me comptroller OF the Treasury, on the liih o.
osp,emoer, is22, and addressed TO the differen
COLLECTORS OF the Customs in the United States
| IN TINS letter the Comptroller instructs them, &c
consider all British vessels and their cargoes en-
tering the ports OF the United States in virtue o.
the Rres!cents proclamation, as liable to the aler
duties ut one dollar per ton on the vessel, and tn,
cargo as liable to the discriminating duty OF ter
per cent. IN addition the duties cbargeabe upor
similar cargoes, when imported in vessels OF tht
United States from The same ports.
| Inc Act OF Parliament, ia consequence of which
tSls pIociamation as issued, had imposed such
discriminating duties. Under il, vessels OF the u
-. and Their esrsoss, might enter the ports thereby
opened, upon precisely the same terms as British
vessels employed IN the same trade. The Presi
dents proclamation had made and published no
such rule or restriction; and that proclamation be-
ing once issued, the whole power conferred upon
the PRESIDENT by the act OF May 8, 1922 was
| thereby exhausted. The President himself had no
authority afterwards revoke or amend this proc~
eiamation in any way. In virtue OF what authori-
~ then was Ibis circular letter written by the Comp
hoiier! And even ii authorized, why was it not
issued eontemporsneously with the proclamation
llseii, IN order TO guard the community against the
effects OF this new imposition OF daties?
ihIee weeks, (lust time enough) were allowed
to intervene, for this proclamation 10 reach the
| West Indies, and for adventures there TO COM
mence, upon the faith that no such duties would
be exscted, because none such were therein re-
CURED Upon the arrival of such adventures In the
ports o! the United States, however their propri-
etors were most Unexpectedly met by this new
order, subIecias their property TO the payment of
/ high duter, which they had no right TO expect
This was Particularly harsh upon the Importers of
cagoes OF rum and molassss, the high duty known
to be already imposed upon which articles, had
nearly excluded them from the American market
! o. tyh tba ala
intiction OF such mercantile distress could not
have been designed; but it occurred; and was
caused solely by the Thought of this circular
letter say atter-thought, in charity to the au-
thors of this project; for if they Intended at frs
10 exact such duties, and yet then withheld such
information from the community, the plan de-
serves to be characterized by much stronger
phrase.
So soon az the British vessels began to arrive
in the ports of the United States, and were unex.
pecte6ly subjected 10 these heavy discriminating
duties, the British Consuls in the different sea
ports, notified the representative of their govern
menl in the United States of this fact MIR Strait
ford Canning, the British Minister Washington
in consequence OF such notices, brought the sub
Ject TO the attention of the executive OF the o.
ni;ed States in formal official note. addressed TO
the Secretary OF State, on the 25;h of October
| 1929. q
| In reply 10 this note, Mr.. Adams on The IIth
OF November, 1922. says to Mr.. Canning, that The
act of Congress OF May 6. 1929, (under which the
proclamation was issued) did not authorize the
President, TO repeal any Discrimination prescrib-
ed by other acts OF Congress, than the two Nsyi-
CATION acts therein specified That the alien du-
Ties exacted OF British vessels and their cargoes
were " prescribed by other acts OF Congress: and
were altogether independent of any restrictions,
| which bad been imposed on The commercial inter
course between the " S. and the British Colonies in
I a 4 fta 81 l.
BY the same authority by which they were enact
ed."(2)
| This answer OF course conclusive, so far
as the British Minister concerned. II did not
belong to him to Judge of the power and authority
~ iih which the President OF the u. 8. might be
endowed, by The Constitution or municipal laws oil
this country. lie, therefore, could only say in re-
ply, +" learn, with regret, that the President has
MOI been invested by Cong ess, with power to re-
move the discriminating duties, by intermediate
exercise of his discretion. ''(3)
But although foreign minister may not be per-
mued 20 Judge of the powers and authority of the
/ Executive Government of the country TO which be
is deputed, every citizen OF the u S. may pro-
peIly claim The right, OF enquiring into and decd-
ing this matter for himself. take leave there
fore, to say, and will endsaYour TO prove, that
the President had such discretion given to hun.
and migh have exercised It, II be hal thought pro.
per 20 TO do.
Although it is certainly true, that the alien di.
ties imposed by other acts Of Congress than The
/ two Navigation acts referred to; and although ii
! may be true, that by the act OF May s., 1922, no
| power was given 10 the President to repeal any
| other determinations, than those prescribed by
these acts; yet by the of March ,, 1915, Ga
which have formerly refeued) all acts imposing
a discriminating duty of tonnage, or on rnereban-
dies were repealed condi,onally. Such rrpesl
10 take effect IN favor OF any foreign nation when
ever the President of the y S should be satisfied
that the discriminating or countervailing duties OF
such foreign na,io,. far they operate to the
disadvantage oil the u. States had been abolish-
ed"(4)
II, therefore, the President vas satisfied. iba. no
f, discriminating or cOunlrrvaing duty, to operate
to the disadvantage Of the " saies existed, IN "a
lation to the trade opened by this Of Parliament
1t is manifest that The President not only bad the
power, but was bound TO exercise IT, in giving ef-
feet 10 this law. Then why vas this power not
exereised9
The arguments advanced upon this subject By
Mr.. Adams, in bis letter 10 Mr.. Canning Of Janua-
~ IS, 1923, wouJ not notice, bu, 10 shey the
kind Of reasoning Tesoued 10, in support Of this
new plan Of his, to interrupt again be intercourse
80 recently revived by the proclamation Of Presi.
dent Monroe. In his letter he contends, thai
the act e Parliament Of June q, 1922, OJolishc,
no discriminating countervsiling duIes, "wbici
erisc in hs British colonies, to the disadyantse,
: Of the u. "(J)
This assertion is certainly ifue in ,COrds. Bn
z why! Because no such duty had previously ev
listed 10 be abolished. The intercourse thereb
opened, had been previously prohibited to al ior
egn vessels and OF course there could have bee
no du'ies imposoj upon on interdicteJ trade, wber
l. the sanction Of the iaierdict had been The entir
Z forfeiture Of both the vessel ard cargo engaged i
q. Bat no such dulles had bsen imposed bv tb