Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-03-30

81, 1922, in several of the British colonies, In
the case of citizens OF the u 5. who had entered
their ports under the provisions OF that act. In
what colonies, in what particulars these ruinous
constructions were made, is not stated in tins let
ter or elsewhere. The first specific Gaze OF any
such misconstruction, mentioned by Mr.. Adams
IN all this correspondence, Is noticed IN his letter
10 Mr.. Canning of April 8, 1923, and was not
known until few days before the date OF that
letter. In consequence Of the suggestion in Mr..
Adams letter of November IL, 1922, that " IT
did not appear, that with regard 10 the important
article OF port charges, our vessels could claim adj
mission upon the footing of British vessels, Mr..
Canning furnished to Mr.. Adams between the 4th
of DeCs.S---. 1872, and the 18Th Of Jan 1928,
sundry documents, forwarded to him by the custom
house officers and others OF the colonies. From
which it appeared, that the commissioners OF the
customs in England had, with the act of Parlia-
ment OF June "a 1922, transmitted to the custom
house officers of the colonial ports orders, in sub
stance, TO impose charges upon American,
which were not imposed upon British vessels =
These came from Barbados, Jamaica, Nova Scotia
and 81. Cbrislophers. They described the effect
oil these orders in the language of the differeot
writer's, as prohibiting the charge of any higher
fees, higher duties or port charges, -" higher
Jees TO officers, duties on Tonnage. or other IS
land dues, on articles Of the grototh of the u.
y higher duties or fees" and higher fees,
or duties, c1stOm house expenses" This,
y
ought 10 have satisfied any one, determined TO
IND fault, that the inieniion OF The British govern
men was, and that intention carried into effect by
their laws and orders, TO prohibit any dIscrimlna
ing daties or charges vessels and their
ca'Soes; and that, 1T any injury done by
casionsl devia,ions from the intention of the laws
and orders OF the government by the mistake of
an officer, (Which ought 10 have been anticipated
in affairs OF that na,ure,O the British government
would correct II upon ino' nation, ard redress the
iJGry done. MIR. Arlington, the successor OF
MIR. Coming, In hi letter 10 Mr.. Adams of Sept
z, le23, assured our government, that an order
nae been issued. which appears to have been is
sued July d, 1872, and long since carried into
general effect, directing that no higher tonnage
duties. or custom house fees, or other iocGi or
port charges should be imposed on Amer can than
ON british vessels; and hat on information OF any
violation o this order, il should be corrected and
the injury redresssd. See Doc. No. 2. page 81
Mr.. Adams and Mr.. Clay, in succession, aud tor
years, looking out with obvious anxiety for such
information, found three four instances OF
thrilling irregularities In The execution OF the act OF
Parliament and Order OF the Commissioners oi the
Cnstons the particulars OF hich will be hereafter
noticed. These instances Of error abuse were
not known until alter the passing of The act OF
siarch ], 1928 and were all that occurred in up
wa,d' OF three Year,, and in than thirty ports
opened 10 AS by the act OF June "a, 1922. Surely
these could not be Justly imputed 10 any infidelity
In the professions OF the British government.
Mr.. Adams IN his letter TO Mr.. Canning OF
November Ii, 1892. states that to the dscrin-
mating jui;e- on the tonnage and cargoes of British
vessels, coming from the colonies mentioned ia
the proclamation; they imposed by 'her laws.
than those under which the President acted; and
that he had authority repeal determinations,
prescribed by other acts than those of 1918, and
IS20: aud he justified their imposition upon The
ground, that they ~ete necessary TO countervsil
the objections to the provisions ofthe act OF Palia-
} men above stated. And IN his letter OF January
10, 1873, to M Canning, he assigns the reasons,
why the President had not the power 10 abrogse
tbose discriminating du;ies These were LIST, that
the case did not within the act of 1915,
which repealed our discriminating duties, only in
ta'our OF nations, who repealed theirs and there
fore that our act did apply 10 colonies; and If
1t did, 2ndly, hat the act OF 1915, applying only to
nations, tDhO repeoird their discriminating d-.ies
7 so far as they operated to tie disadvantage Of
she u. 81, could MOI apply to This case, because
: the ACT of Parliament OF June p, 1922, repealed
no discriminating duties. The answer TO this
Is. that in iacr no discriminating duties 10 the disc
advantage of the u s. existed in the British colonial
ports, which could be rope led by that act and j,
impo-ed none; and. according 10 the laws of Great
Britain and the convention OF 1915 no discrniDa-
; ting duties could be levied upon Amer lean yes
5 sells in any port OF The British Empire. Grea,
Britain and her colonies ere natiol entitled 10
, the abolition oil Our discriminating duties az 70
them, under the act OF 1915. And this the Pc
sideai had authority TO declare by proclamation as
he had already done in relation to Bremen, Ham.
burg, Lubbock, Nor"ay, and Oldenberg. This con-
stfuciion OF Mr.. Adams was worse than thar pu
upon the act of 1878. by which oul Execu,iyt
held that ports actually open were po,entisll,
closed.
The British nation being exempted by the Act o
lSlJ from discriminating duties uron their YES
sells ana eargoes coming TO The porl- OF The United
States, the Presiden had authority TO inIpos,
them under the Act of May 6, 1922 That Act i'm
posed upon him the duty of opening our ports tc
the British ships, upon their opening their colonis
pots to ours; and gave him power TO prescribe
TeciPTocd rules aad restrictions for regulating the
intercourse. There no rule or Testriciion in
'ne BRUSH statute, which had not reciprocal rule
or restriction IN our Act Of 1920 except the re-
NIirhon OF the trade TO direct intercourse which
the PRESIDENT had u'horiy 10 recIpfors;e by pre-.
scHoIng sinilsr restriction ii the President had
imposed such restriction only, then the vessel.
Oh 'he y. % win cMgoes, the produce Il any part
VI 'Oe " D, texcep. salt provisions Of fish and
mea'') would hare been received into all The port.
OF tbs cciTnies upon terms of perfect equaity in
Tesp,ct 10 duties and all other charges upon the
vessel and cargo. This was surely all we could
m reason ask, and immessufeably more than tn,
Congress OF 1918 las appears by the renort OF N.
eonmiiiee.) hoped IN attain. They ,vould ,ber
have been willing TO accept the proposition nj
Great Britain Of 1917 If it had not been
with the question of the Indian trade. There wa,
no shado~ OF for rejecting or elnlst,ss-ia,
t5e execution OF the terms offered by the Act %
Parliament Of June, 1922, except the suggestion