Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1827-04-17

Colonies, offe
r aFnc!es oil the growth produce, or manufacture
OF the British Colonies in Norti, America mr. Nav
,ouhuiaho IN British vessels coming respectiyelv fron
t .a. 'Ssnd or from North American Colonies; and
oy me existing revenue laws of tie United S,,teo iii
bnush vessels and their cargoes coming from, any OF
me Colones remained subject the foreign tonnage
abu npos duties. In my letter TO you of the eTlh
august 1872 enclosing copy CT this proclamation
suggested TO you the opinion that some further UNDER
standing between the two Governments would be ne
cessaiJ tor regulating this trade in manner advapa.
cons 10 The interest of both parties and the read mess
OF t.s Government 10 enter upon arrar;pemens for
that purpc-e with the British Government
| on me 18th 81 October. 1892 the British Minister
residing here, addressed 10 this department. con-
a'hG representations against the rles and restric-
tions provided IN The proclamation, being spcc
nc counterParts 10 those OF the of Par lament; and
also, Claiming exemption from the foreign tonnage and
ipost duties for British vessels and their cargoes CO.
Tng from the Coon:es because Che Of Parliament
subjected British and foreign vessels engaged i'm s
trade only to the 6;es and charges and iftiere
were IN Inc Colonies any dscr sating charges against
oreIgn Teses they did appear in the act of Par
lament.
have shewn you above, WI at would have been
ecJtc Counterpart TO the rules aud restrictions OF the
act OF Parliament, and 20 tho colonial export duty CO.
existing with il. Had the President possessed tho
power OF prescribing them by his proclamation, they
would have been in eject equivalent TO total proh-
oon OF the intercourse in British vessels and appear-
ed little better thana nockery. But the President
had GO such power He could neither select an exolu-
siVe list OF ports oil admission, levy DUTY
nor repeal the foreign tonnage and impust. Mr. Can
ning's note was answered, and lie replied There was
also, much discussion OF the subject between u.s. at
personal interviews, i'll wiicb well as his notes lie
kept me constantly reminded of the authority eiven
oy the act OF Parliament TO the King 10 prohibit the,
intercourse by an Order of Council If Tie privileges
granted by this act should not be allowed 10 British
vessels, and OF the necessity there would be of ccupar
vaiiIns determinations if those Of the proclamation and
Tue foreign tonnage and impost duty should remain
IN Inc course OF this correspondence and of these
conferences which continued through the whole of the
late session of Congress- Mr. Canning with great ear
neSness, pressed the claim of admission of British yes
ses from the Colonies free from all discriminating du
es ana charges, on the argument that there were no
duties charges operating against yes
sells OF the u Staies in the Colonies. On The 18th of
January les2, he addressed 10 this Department uoe
claiming, distinctly, the wdra wai ~ he discrim-
mating duties and particularly the application 10 Bri.
sil vessels coming from the Colonies of the fair and
iu operation ofsuch acts of Congress- including that
vi niarch so, 1915. as appear TO have an immediate
application 20 the case,
In support of his argument that there was no diseri.
'ns"hs duties operating against in the Colonies
ne men, ana at other times, uncated copies OF
documents from few OF the enumerated ports cartfr
ing mat Eritis and American vessels paid the same
JecS or ne act IF Parliament, they paid the
same onties; or that they paid the Custom, IouSs
'PeScS ana lie constantly urged that these were suf
dcient 10 establish the fact our vessels and their
catsoes Pald IN the colonies other higher fees
'iniie5, or charges, than own. But he inyarahIv
declined piedgng Himself or his Government IN anu
declaration that there were discriminating duties in
me enumerated ports, and we have satisfactory
I
u!scr'ninaohs TO our disadvantage, besides those
( of The act of Parliament.
The act of Congress OF Ist March, 1928 "to regulate
she commercial intercourse hewe the United States
and certain British Colonial ports was ntro,uc ID ;nto
The Senate by their Committee of Foreign Relations at
an early PerG;i Of tie late In maturing it, thew
had before them tie act Of Parliament of oath June
i62& the Presidents proclamation, and the correspop,
dence between Mr.. Canning and This Department. CON
corning II. While il in discussion before the Com.
nIiiee of the Senate, Mr. Canning to whom cory of
oh
/ marks upon IT, which immediately submitted TO
the consideration ofthe Committee The full import Of
Tue teTIn elsewhere In the second, third and fifth Sec
Mons OF The ACT which formed the principal subject of
these remarks, deliberately examined and seIod
as well III senate, as upon consultation by the Preg-
dent wish line members Of the Administration; and was
explicitly made known to Mr.. Canning.
Iic principle assumed by the act was not tho
TFPe1i, but the Suspension, during The continuance of
The admission OF our vessels ITO the Colonial ports by
tie act OF Parliament, Of oar two navigation ects.
In return for the opening of The Colonial ports q,
our vessels, by the act OF Parliament, we opened
our ports TO Britain vessels from the same Colonial
ports But, as a power left to the King, by an
Order III Council, 10 prohibit the trade and inter
course, 1t was necessary 10 be prepared for that
contingency, if it should occur, by making Tie rcvi
val OF our acts ofnavigaion, also contingent upon The
same event.
80. hy The act OF Parliament the intercourse in our
vessels was limited TO direct ages both to and from
The United States, and the enumerated ports tie same
Limitation prescribed for the intercourse in British
vessels by the act Of Congress One of Mr. Can
nipg5 remarks that the condition in the 5;h Sec.
ton OF cur act which limits the permission 10 export
III British vessels. to such hare prepo,tsIy come
Tccily from OF the enumerated ports did not appear
to base any counterpart in the British act of Par
lament This is true the counterpart was not in tiot
act Of Parliament but in the Oh nayga,ion ACT of -
! Oh. Q. BY that act vessel of tie United States
could enter Pny Of The enumerated ports coming from
any other part OF the world and tl,e act Of tho
24th June, 1922 admitted s5n only diyect from tho
United States. No vessel OF ours therefore other
thaO such as have previously come direct from the
United States TO the enumerated ports can EXPORT any
lung from them, because other are admitted into
The enumerated ports at all. Now, we could not ex
cude British vessels from coming to the United States
from every other part Of the world exccpt the enume
rated ports which would be the full counterpart TO te
exclusion OF the old navigation OF Charles g. still
| IN force against u.s. but we could and did exclude
those corning from elsewhere ION bringing with them
merchandise from the enumerated ports and those