Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-06-08

does not complain when courtesles are VIII
held. II does not deem itself the losing party
on any such occasion. But Mr.. Gallatin dio
no, complain, he argued; and this the Ameri-
can Government understands far better IMAM
COMPLAINING. l will restate his argument 10
Won. in form which you can hardly mistake
The two Governments had long negoua-
,;on about the Colonial trade. They could not
come TO an understanding. They passed laws
on each side; the last one passed by the Amer.
lean government was not only communicated
10 the British minister, in the usual form IN
which all our public documents'are communi-
Gated to the foreign ministers. but was Speeiai-
! " communicated for his comments.
The next year the negotiation was resumed.
Every ,oint but one was settled. On that one
point the negotiation was suspended, with an
under standing that il should be resumed. va
rious accidental, unforeseen, and unavoidable
circumstances occurred 10 delay this resumP'
ton.
The next year three or four acts were passed
5y the British Government containing vast
many sections, repeating acts still more com
plicated Their practical operation II was I'M
POSSIBLE beforehand to divine; they were con
s,rued differently in the British Courts; they
were misapplied in the British Colonies; it was
beyond the power of Mr. Vaughan, the British
Minister al Washington. to explain them,
when requested so to do by the Secretary OF
State.
Now, sir, under all these circumstances, the
fact that these laws were not communicated to
this Government is mentioned by Mr.. Galla,in
as one among the reasons which led 10 the belief
that they were not intended TO operate against
NJ
which you had promised to resume
Is the argument clear? Is it legitimate?
Blu, YOU follow up still further this omission,
to communicate the as! of 1926 topic which
il is pretty evident, by this time. you had better
no, have touched. You give the following in
penious reasons why ;he act ought mol to have
been communicated. You must needs prove
gre at deal TOO much. You not only snow that
there was no ground for complaint, (which
was never made) bu, you would almost lead us
TO think that you actually debated with yourself
whether you ought not to communicate the act
Of 1925 10 the American Government, * deer
ded in the negative.-lou say
"9ut the act of 1925 did not relate specially
to the United States. 1t held out TO al nations
Of the world certain benefits Cor what were be-
lieved by the British Government TO be sou on
certain conditions
"Ifa comWunic alton of the act had been
made to one nation, it must have been made a
like to all. Such communication wou'r have
been liable to differen, misrepresentation: some
governments might have considered II as soli-
citation to which they were bound IN courtesy
to give some answer, explaining their reasons
for declining ifthey did decline) to a'ailihcm-
selves of the provisions Of the act: others might
perhaps have taken umbrage al II. as an author
a,Ive pretension 10 imnose -ihe lsglslatlon OF
The simplest course was 10 allow the pfoVl-
sious ofthe act to find their way 10 general know
ledge through the usual channels OF CONNER
cial information
1t is certainly true that the act Of 1925 is in
terms indefinite. 1t applies to all nations; but
bv no means follows, as you slate, that II The
act had been communicated 10 one, it must be
communicated to all. Here again you are mis-
led by the continued delusion about the complaint.
But seriously, what can be more prepos,erous
than the suggestion, that Russia, and Prussia,
and Holland. for instance, would have taken in
dudgeon, had YOU communicated 10 the Ameri-
can Government an act which bore on the sub
ject mauer of an existing negotiation with that
government, although you did not at the same
time communicate it to them and other govern
mcn,s. with whom you had no such negotiation?
VIVA, more natural and obvious ground OF
discrimination could be desired, than that OF
commune ating the acts to all governments with
which you had pending negotiations on the sub
ject matter OF ,hs acts, and not communicating
them to any others.
Without pretending to accurate information
on this subject, | much doubt whether the Unit
ed States were not the only power with which
you had negotiation pending on this subject,
at this ,ime.-And what government, would be
so idle and outrageous as TO cas'i atyour send
ing us an act, which was to stand in lieu tand
singular subs,itute) Of the redemption Of your
pledge to renew the negotiation!
Blu, go farther You say, in the next para
graph, that some Other governments have availed
themselves of ne act oflS25 Reasoning upon
ordinary principles Of political probability and
the natural Coarse OF proceeding in such case,
have nc the lfasI doubt that in every instance
in which foreign governments has accepted the
provisions Of these acts, hose provisions have
beer the suhec' of diplomatic communication
from your Mluistecs and Charge d'Affaires to
such fnfeiSn g0ytrnments.
is il possible that the Secretaries OF State at
Mexico anc Al Bogota have uuravelled those
acts &c Oatliamfat with their unaided know