Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-03-20

or inland navigation, would be stopped BY those
acts. or any of them, or by his bill.
"The act Of 1929" says the General, "e,.
cludes completely all trade Of every description,
with the British Colonies"
With great submission, beg 10 say, the &C,
of 1923 does no such thing. 1t was an &C, for
opening the trade, and not for shuttingi, wiz
the General have the goodness 10 say wha, sec.
ton Of the act Of 1928 contains the provision
he a!udes 10? AS to the acts Of 1878 and S2o
thew were expressly limited 10 intercourse BY
sea.
The act of 1928 suspends those acts, bu, It
contains 10 in,e rdict whatever Of its o@n. I,
onens the trade because the British had opened
il: and i, gives the President the power Of clos
inc i, when the British shall close il; and the
presiden, was 10 close it by putting the acls Of
1918. and 1920, again in force. But those ac,s
annlied only 10 intercourse by sea. 1t is cutie
mast nv comprehension, therefore, how any Gre
can terrain tho opinion that the act Of 1898
excluded all trade Of every description with the
British colonies There is one argumen, which
perhaps may suffice TO satisfy Gen. Smith him.
self of his error in this respect. 1t is this The
&C, of 1928 IS at this moment in complete oper
alton: does it, ask, "exclude completely all
u
onies?" II General Smith can answer this CUES
ton afhrmatively, his view Of this matter !,
right; if he cannot, it is wrong. We all know
that the trade is now open 20 British vessels, &
omen to them exclusively; and we know further
that if the President were tomorrow to issue
his proclamation, and revive the laws Of 1878,
and 1920, the effec. would only be 10 stop the
| intercourse BY sea; leaving the inland inter.
course entirely unaffected.
There are sundry other remarks, Messrs Ed.
i,ors, in the Generals communication, on the
legal effect and operation Of his bill which are
wide, indeed, from the Interpretation which the
writer of this article, and others, have put I'd
on il. But they are all absorbed in that one
great error, of supposing that, if the. bill had
passed, all intercourse with the colonies( f,here
had been no arrangement would have been
s,opped, of course after December. Il never
would have been stopped, till another law or
proclamation had stopped II. Another great
error, q must use the word from necessity is
in supposing, that, even if intercourse general.
ly had ceased, inland trade would have ceased
also.
As General Smith has now explained himself
il is quite clear and manifest, that The amend.
ment proposed in the House tOns indispensable 10
The accomplishment Of his o,on object. He wished
the intercourse 10 close, of course, and by oper.
alton of law. (if no arrangements were previous
ly made, on the 3lst Of Dec. His own bill
would not produce that effect. The amendmen,
Of the House enabled it to accomplish that pre-
else purpose. In rejecting the bill, therefore,
because the House had so amended il, he re.
iec,ec it because it had beer made capable Of
producing an end, which he desired to produce
by it, but which, without amendment, it was
inca pable of producing
AS to the inland, or Canada trade, the amend
mcnt of the House did not affect it, one wayo'
the other.
Amem6ey of Tie House Of Representatives..