Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-06-13
From the boston Patriot.

lt.,
G.. NOW procecd to compare what reah!
..,..s in ,he Senate Of the United States,
- frs, session of The nineteenth congress-
~ AZ ,,,nr accoun, Of it Were that account as
Sa,,ast az il is strangely otherwise, IL "ouie
III, he a highly ceusurable procedure IN you'
- sn,,eayor by historical detail OF what pass,
~ =, one branch of the American Legislature,
81 :" ,b,, the American Executive under
GOOD Thai. which il assures you i. did net un-
derstand. ,.,sn, If
L.,o,re>s of some me Assure in the House OF
Io,5s e,deavored % satisfy Mr. Vaughan thai
co., understood particular point, IN particu'
iar ,vay. which YOU had over and over again
.ssurpd the American Government you did no.
.o understand. would you not have hesi'aleu
:, he,ber 10 kindle at the impertinence or smiie
a, the want of good manners, implied In such
: nrocedure? But proceed 10 your statement
aFarly in the session of Congress OF 1855,
a ne,ition from Baltimore was presented 10
both Houses ofthe American Legislature, III
which petition il was distinctly polnled ou''
thai the British act Of Parliament OF July 1873,
had not only manifested the readiness OF th''
country 10 reMove all discriminating duties,
blu, also TO permit American ships TO clear OUT
from British Colonies, not, as heretofore, 10 she
ports of the United States only, but 10 all parts
Of the world, the United Kingdom and IT'S ae-
Tendencies alone exce?ted}
"The ne ,itiou, with equal distinctness, invited
the at,entton ofthe American Legislature to the
conditions on which these advantages might be
secured 10 the United States, and prayed Tor
the removal or the several restrictions imposed
by the American act CT 1928, not OF the dis
eliminating duties only, but OF the prohibition
Of what is called by Mr. Gallaun',he cireui'ous
intercourse in British Ships" the petitioners
expressly submitting to Congress the proprie'y
of admitting British vessels, from tohafecer
morris. on the same terms as the vessels of the
most taxorsd- patiaas-z---zg---ss-ss-e
ings Of Congress, that it was against the prayer
of this petition (but without impt achmenr Of
any of its allegations) that the decision Of The
American Legislature, at the close OF the ses-
sion, was taken, il cannot be doubted, therefore,
that the American Legislature had the whole
purport and bearing OF the act Of 1926 full be-
fore their eyes"
The amount Of this is, that, on occasion of a
petition from Baltimore, the question was fairly
submitted to the American Legislature, whe-
Their it would sanction the acceptance oil the
terms Of your act OF July, 1929, and that de
cision in the negative was had by the American
Legislature 10Th the ,Uhos parpovt and bearing Of
the ucf of s2s FIJI before their eyes.
Now there is no truth Whatever in the allega-
ton; and if Gas 1 cannot doubt from the earnest
ness with which you urge iD you so understood
the natter, YOU have totally mistaken it,
In the first place, the doings to which you
refer, were had, not In the american Legisla-
ture," but in one branch Of Congress No de-
cision was taken BY the American Legislature;
q bill was rejected by the Senate Your forms
Of legislation are not unlike ours, and you will
feel the difference.
The truth is, that there is no foundation
whatever for the statement, which form. the
main object Of your letter, that the American
Government &as not willing, in all its branches,
to meet the British Government on the footing
Of the act Of 1925, as now explained and under
stood.
The history ofthe case is this: the Baltimore
petition alleged, "that under the act Of ParIia-
ment OF 1895, the British colonial ports were
opened TO all nations Of the world, on terms
more favorable than to US, and that there was
danger that, unless something was done to meet
what was called the liberal policy of Grea, Bri-
tain, the trade between this country and those
colonies would be los, or much diminished, and
that the colonies viii be supplied from Eu-
rope"
Without copying the whole petition, which
is in the same strain, / assert, without fear of
contradiction from any man who will read il
with ordinary attention, that il is perfectly evil
dent the petitioners did not understand the &C,
Of Parliament of 1925, as holding on, to US the
alternative Of accepting its terms or being In
terdicted the trade. They speak Of the loss or
10 consequence of other nations
being allowed 10 trade TO the colonies on more
favorable terms than we could, while the dis
originating duties remained. So far from
" sing that the act Of 1925 presented to us
this alternative land it is the whole drift Of your
argumen, to prove that this was understood)
they expressly state il as their hope that "the |
ports OF Halifax, ST. Johns, and New Bruins |
Viek, had been closed by miscons,ruction of !
the act OF Gee ly..cap ll4,' and as their |
belief that s'this act was meant only to obliee
he vessels Of this country and of others impos
ng the like restrictions on British vessels. 10
'eturn direct 70 their own por,>." beg your
;lsss attention ts this poiAt and if you will not