Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-06-19
From the Boston PairiOt. |
COLONIAL TRADE.-LErrER VIII.

COIONlAI lRADE.-l-ETTER WILL
To THE RIGHT IIoN. cssReE CANNING, FIRST
LORD OF THE TREASURY, sc.
SiR-In my last letter gave you an account
Of the debate on the resolution reported bv the
committee Of commerce in the Senate of the
United States did this 10 show YOU, that,
in rrferring to the "debaes" in our Congress,
to Justify your abrupt and unprecedented co.,
duct in issuing the Order in Council OF July
last, YOU not only resorted 10 a most irregular
mode of augmentation, but were wholly unln-
formed Of the state Of facts
| now proceed to thu subject OF Gen Smiths
bill, introduced Immediately after the debate IN
question took place. To this bill and the pro
ceedings on il you have also alluded, but with
the i'll. rortune which has signalized every other
starement of fact contained in your letter, You
mistake both the character and the fate OF this
bill.
beg leave first 10 repeat the very important
remark, that, in this as in several other errors
which have pointed out in yonr despatch of
January, 1927. you have not only fallen into
mistakes OF fact, but it is these mistakes of fact
which you offer 10 Mr.. Galla,in and TO the A.
merican Government, in justification ofthe rash
policy Of bre aking up the direct intercourse be
tween the British West Indies and North Amer
lea.
When, therefore, infinitely point out these
your errors. it is not merely the exercise oil a
close criticism upon your letter to Mr. Galisun,
although the tone Of that letter destroys your
title to any thing bui rigid justice in constituting
it. But in exposing YOUR errors, put the Bri'
fish Government in the wrong and the Ameri-
can Government in the right, in the controver-
sy.
Now, then, let us look at your account OF
General Smiths bill, compared with the bill
itself.
Here | must, for the sake OF greater clear
ness, go back to your last letter but one 10 Mr..
Gallatin, (ihat Of Nov 10, 1926 10 which ]
have not before referred, having found IN tina; OF
January 81 quite as much to rectify as my linn
its enable me TO comprehend.
Toward the close your letter Of Nov. Is,
1927, you say
81; seems difficult to imagine how they the
United STATES can feel it to be unjust or unkind
Git certainly is not SO felt or intended on the
part Of this country that the United States,
having upon free and (as is knswn from the
public proceedings of their legislature) dellber-
ate consideration, declined 10 subscribe TO the
terms on which exception from colonial prohl
bition was rendered impartiaIlyto all nations,
they omit they should find themselves, IN com
mon with such Of those nations as have decided
like themselves, liable to that exclusion, switch
is and always has been the general principle OF
colonial trade"
a considerable part of Mr., Gallatn's answer
is taken up in showing you that the terms of
the acts of Parliament Of June and July, 1928,
were not and could not have been, for reasons
which he states, understood by the American
Government In allusion to the paragraph,
which have just quoted from your letter, he
remarks as follows
The proposition made during the last session
OF Congress, and to which Mr.. Canning has al