Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-04-03
coMMUM r0AT1orr
THE COLONIAL. TRADE-.Na .


would hsve opened the colonial ports, because it
would have reserved to Great Britain a night 10
Impose protecting duties. He slludes to the four
articles proposed in 1877, and again. with some
additions. stterei in 1878, dropping then The ob
hoXions proposition as to The Indian trade In
one oil The three original articles, again offered,
was the reservation of the power alluded to by
Mr. Adams. This proposition was before The
committee OF the House OF Representatives. in the
session oil 1917 Is, and they declsred that we
should be satisfied with it, ii the fourth sr,icle,
respecting the Indian trade, were not part OF it,
and they approved of sue rejection of the propo-
sion by the Executive on account of the fourth
article oaiy and, II ~ probable nay, certain thar
this report OF the COMMITTEES induced the Brush
Government renew the offer t.roppp. that ar,i.
Gle 'Ehe Executive could no, have informed The
oon'"i'e. that they net only objected TO the atti-
Gle respecting the Indian Trade, but also to the
power reserved tn lay protecting duties
Again, he says, that tohns the biz Of 1928
,oGs u'der discussion before the committee Of
sne Senate, VI. Canning made written remarks
upon the import of The terms, .. from eisstphere -
(see Doc. No. 2. page 81 } in which .,r = Can
which we're Immediately submitted 10 the cpDside-
ration of the committee. Thee written remarks
ning observes. that The meaning Of the words,
'' from elSelchere,' is egnvocsI, are without
ia'e. There is letter from Mr.. Adams to Mr..
Canning OF January Is, 1873, in which he saws:
The Bah inst. with its Enclosures Your noie and
its Enclosures have been communicates 10 ,bs Co,,-
malice " tie Senate, ,ch0 haze under consiie-
ration a bsH tor reg uldtilg the commercial I'M
.fercourse '6etiUeen the United States and the
ports Of The British Coionies' This letter oil
Mr. Canning OF Janusry 49, Enclosed documents
Tor The purpose OF showing, hat no discriminating
charges we're levied in The colonial ports; and no.
thing else i noticed nclo.ed. This letter re
mon atel against nott
Nr. Canning IN his answer of January 25. lS23
10 Mr.. Adams letter OF the 18Th, says: from
your letter, dated The 18th (it was the I5h) last
learn that Congress alone is competent TO the
removal OF those discriminating duties to which
by several .mmuncst lions, in gliding my note of
the IL u, have lately had the honour TO call YOU.
attention, inssmuch as the al OF March 3, ISIS
was intended to apply TO the commercial inter
csur'e OF notions, and TO that of colonies .
The declaration, lille as it may answer 10 my
own Impressions, being accompanied with the
sDornidfaOa that a bill dI. ectJy bearing on this
subject rs riosc under the consideration of Conf
'"11see OF the .Senae TO soiiich my repressl,to,-
mons 'cHh respect fothe Discriminating duties
| h0Ue been cOnnaune .,ted; | sd,ire.s YOU Sc
| 1ne letter OF Mr. Adams oi the 5 h OF January
seems 10 hsve been the first intmaiion which Mir
OaininS had, That The subject ,snder the CON-
+, side' dtsol OF a committee Of the Senate; and
Il so, ms remsTks on The bill could not have been
written until at'erwards, and, indeed not until af-
! ter The date o. bis letter OF January % The bill
passed along sub siientio: hlr Adams, on
! the lon OF January, when ne rroie 10 MIR
Csnnihg, that has note Of The I3ih of January had
been submitted TO the Committee who hid fhe,,
Ton the 10Th OF January,) the 6iH under cousice-
TaiI0n, did not know that in fact there was no
such Dill then under lie consideration 0f tbe
committee; in fact there vss not, for ON the
Ism oil january MIR. Barbour had reported it TO
me senate. lhls mistake OF fir. Adams proves
that IN fact, ne had not Communicated MIR Can
ping letter and lis Enclosures TO the committee
and the Journals prove ne did NOT connuoics,a
'hem To the SENATE IL he mad communicated them
10 the Commit ee, he would have been informed .
'nat The bill was no longer in their poo er and be
could not have msde this mistake Neither these
remarks, nor any of tie proofs furnished by Mr.
Canning, ere, am persuaded ever cornrunicat-
ed TO The committee. These facts, with The one
already noticed, of the extreme reluctance and
delay OF MIR. Adams IN aYowing the consiruc-
tioo OF the equvocal terms of The act of 1924
! afterwards adopted, aud his great anxiety 10 es
'abiish tie fact, which was manifested in his
letter of june g, i523, to Mr. Rush. when no
one had yet publicly denied il; an anxiety so
great, as 10 induce him 10 advert in four distipct
instances TO that subject; satisfy me, iba, Mr.
canning did not know nat such a claim had been
or was intended TO be asserted, until after the act
OF 1923 had passed. But il he did know il. the
Congress and people Of the u. States did not
Mr. Adams asserts, IN diife en parts OF hi, let
ter TO Mr.. Rush OF June 23, 1928 " that The Biu
was introduced into the Senate vt an eqyI ueriod
OF me last seSsi0ni HAT in maturing il Ihev had
before them The act of Parliament OF the 9th Of
June, 1922, the Presidents pfoclamaticn and the
correspondence between Mr.. Canning and this
Department concerning it;'' that the foil M
port OF the term, Z" eiseWhers," wa. Jelibe,a,elv
! examined and settled as well in the Senate ss
upon consultation by The President with the
members OF the Administration; - and that tbia
was fully discussed during the passage d tie act
Neither he act OF Parliament, the proclamation
/ OF the PRESIDENT, tie correspondence with
MI Canning before the passing OF the act, Which
are said to have been before tie Committee Of the
Senate, gave The least intina'ion that we had ever
made The demand ~ question; aad il is not the
LEAST oi the proofs OF the fraudulent supO, essop Of
this Tact by The Executive in respect TO the Amer
lean Congress aud The public, that 10 this cores
pondence With Mr.. CAMPING, before the passing Of
the act, while Mr.. Adams informing Mr. Can
nIng OF the grounds upon which the President
nad imposed The discriminating duties on the Bri-
tish SHIPS coming from their colonies, great va
rely oi objections TO the British act were ureed
All oil which were either uDiounded IN fsc, or fri
vclous, and Immediately abandoned hy the act of
| 1873 lie DID not inform him, that these discriris
naiing duties were imposed, because Great Britain
ltviei upon ouI products a duty which she did not
impose upon The products Of her own colonies.
the only real motive which weighed with the Ex
oeniive, a. Their subsequedt course has fully Prov
ed Why was NOT this ground taken in the cor
Tespondenee with hIJ. Gaming before, az II was
after, the passing OF the act? Because these ma.
peIs might De called Tor Or, If not, intended