Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-03-13

and / could not perceive that those nations who
had no colonies, had any right TO complain They
paid part OF the expense OF their support or their
defence. asked myself the question II the
United States had colonies, would they grant
free trade TO all nations? thought it very doubt
full; nay, Sir sometimes believed we would not
There il a case somewhat analogous. We pro-
hbit the British from all commerce with our In
dams. Would we consent to their participation,
believe not
When Mr.. Jay made his treaty, he obtained
right to trade with the West Indies on fair terms;
limited, however, to vessels of seventy tons bur
then The Senate rejected that article, because of
the limitation. thought, then, that the Senate
were wrong; for vessels of that tonnage would
have carried at least 500 barrels of flour and
having high waists, would have taken deck loads
OF lumber, or live stock, and we would soon have
built vessels of that tonnage carry more articles.
Mr.. Jay was right, and the Senate were, in my
humble opinion, wrong; and we lost the entering
wedge to the trade at that time. Prior to that
treaty we traded to India, and believe traded
from port to port. know that our vessels csrri-
ed the cotton of Bombay to China, freight
which was profitable. The treaty put a stop to
that advantage. -another loss by q treaty 1t.
however, secured to our commerce entry into
all the ports of the British Fact Indies; not az
right, but as a favor-a boon, if you please
which word has given such offence. What is the
language held in the treaty, and admitted by uss
- His Majesty consents 10 the admission o. the
vessels OF the United States. into all the ports OF
India. What is the meaning OF the word con-
sentst does II not mean favor granted? In
The Convention OF London, when Mr.. Adams,
Mr.. Clay, and Mr.. Gsllatin were Commissioners,
the same word is not used bu, one of similar i'm
port In that it is said: ellis Majesty admits
the vessels OF he United States into four ports IN
the East Indies, specified still considering 1t
favor. Here. again. we gain nothing by treaty;
tor, by the convention of London, we were con-
hned to tour port- in India when, by Jays treaty,
al the ports were open to US. Yet, Sir, I com
plain not OF the Convention. II was, substantial
!y, good one; and our Commissioners did all
they could No censure or ought to be i'm
puted 10 them although we lost the eby the trade
OF their islands in the Indian Seas, Cape of Good
Hope, St. Helena, and Africa.
by that Convention The Colonial or West India
trade was left as ii had BEEN Each nation reserv-
Ing lie cwn rights The trade to the Yves, indie.
was considered as closed to us; but the Governor.
had discretionary powers to open them when ne
cessty required The measure and they were fire..
quen'iy opened TO our vessels In fact, Mr. Pre-
sident, the trade is mutually beneficial The colo
nies want our produce, and we wan, good
customer for it, and will still hope that if we a.
dept mild, couciis,ing course that we NAV ar
rive at proper understanding on the subject
think our ports continued open to British .hips
not for seven years as stated in the Report, bu,
from the peace until the passage OF the act of 1919
when their vessels excluded They had
opened some ports Bermuda was one " hicb
made 1t necessary to pass our act Of 1890 10 pre-
vent he subteriuge intended.
In this state of mutual occlu.ion tho coIoni.,
rade remained until the year 1922 CONGRESS- be
ing Informed that the British Parliament would
PROBABLY pass an act Opening the colonial ports to
our vessels, did pass their act Of Oh NAV, 1922.
IN antiripation; in which act the president wa.
au'hcIzed-" That, on receiving satisfactory evil
dehce that the ports in the islands or colonies OF
Great britain have been opened to the vessels Of
the United States, he may declare the ports of
the United States opened 10 British yes.eIs trad
ing TO a:d tom the colonies; subject to such re
clpTocai rules and restrictions he may make and
PublIsh." " The President issued his proclamation
ON the 2ith nj August, 1922, and our ports were
declared open TO british vessels trading between
the colonies and the United States But unfo-
'unately,.a Cabinet Council was held, and it was
determined to subject British vessels arriving from
the colonies TO our alien dnties and A Trea.urv
Order Issued, signed by the Comptroller TO that
effect, dated 2lih September. The British governs
ment reiaiiated by all Order Of Council / would
here remark, and pray The Senate 10 attend IN i,
mat prior to that act OF retaliation, occasioned BY
our inprudeuce, no discrimima ing duty had ever
been charged in The colouieo Of Great S,jtai, The
Report. giYe as oue reason -" That no nroof had
been furnished, such as The law reQuiI ed to esta-
Dish the iac that tie discriminating duties so far
they operate to The disadvantage of the IJnited
States, have Teen abolished Abolish ,vb,,;
Mr.. President. Abolish that which never had an
existence There never had BEEN never coulJ have
been, any discriminating duty imposed In the British
colonies prior TO the opening of the ports by the
act OF Parliament Of June, 1922 There rsy.,
could have been. ltwa wholly impossible There
was no nation on which such duties could oner,,e
Tor the ships OF no foreign nation were admitted
into the colonies, and any duties levied on them
could only be paid by British subjects; fber could
aol be OF discriminating character. Nor did
ever hear, nor do believe, that auy such dutv
was ever charged on an American, when snv of
tie ports were opened by the governors They
could not be, without an authority by law; and we
all know that no such law ever had an existence
But the Report says" that Mr.. Stratford Can.
ming declined pledging himself or his government.
to any declaration on the subject" We all know
his answer. 1t was" know of no discri,nin,
ting duties in the colonies do not believe there
are any: never heard of any. But will not
pledge myself or my government" Now. Mr..
President, If application had been made N anv
merchant engaged in the trade, the answer would
nave been, that no Discriminating duties existed in
the colonies. But the Report furnishes an Irregis
IDLE reason why our ports were not opened 10 meet
the act OF Parliament of 1922. II is true thar
Mr.. Adams had not discovered it--ror, indeed.
had any other person. It treads no little on nv
toes IL contradicts q view which had taken on
lhe same point, add therefore the Chairman Mr.
Johnston, } will pardon me for the notice i am
bound, In ny own defence, TO take of IL. The
Report says (page y " The rules and restrictions
presented by The President, corresponded in efFec,
win the terms OF the act OF Parliament; but there
were determinations created by this act, unfavor-