Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-10-05
DOMESTIC.
GOLDMAN, TRADE oTIEsTIoN

ca, "ricDS owner 'oaics, some OF them both Inle-
resting and vsigable,) with nine and thirty pages
OF ga essay historical AID political, entitled 'f5r.
ush Colonial and Navigating System" Its object
~, So I" learn ircu the concluding sentence, Ito
illustrate The naioin policy and spirit OF G.. BIZ
tain and 'iis U >. respectively, ami to teach our
county n,-r' haw they ought to feel, eii
son, ~ this controversy
The auitor was not aware, psrhars that he was
Assuming an Office OF high responsibility, and that
teoie he undertook the modest task of teaching US
= how we ought to feel and reason il would
nave been wise had he previously submitted him
self TO the necessary, discipline of rnaster. lie
who undertakes iotcach US how to fee! and reason
on great question like this, should be statesmen
moi visionary and ih-oreiicsi, but practical and
sound-his views should be expansive his know
ledge OF our comm ecial interest profouud. A
nihd OF this Character would never conGescend TO
disguise under the pretext u teaching Us how 10
iee and reason. and elaborate. bot feeble attempt
TO vindics'c the lnduct Of the Administrs ton .
We VIII not say that this essay was writ, en-
entirely by the President, because in that case
tie President would compiimen, Lim-ef in DO
mean terms; tut we will say, that whoever the
ahihor may be- he has performed little more than
the mere o!fic- of an amanuensis; for he has res
pended every opinion heretofore expressed by the
president. Ihe article is evidently OF diplomatic
origin, and IL rnqlesoD5by introduced 10 the
public - BY sulhnriiy.'' 1t opens with all the
imposing grandeur OF of Molisre's Plaileurs:
" III - admitted as general principle, by The most
approved writers upon The avs OF nature and ma
tons, that man is tlrned for society," and with
rue same passion Tor antiquity the Reviewer ira
vsis back TO that pTecept of the law given
from Sinai" Passing over The Greeks and Ro.
mans our anthor approaches the confines of our
own TIME and introduces with just eulos um Mir
Piu'- Bill of 1888.
Various and elaborate essays on this question
have lstely appeared from the administration pres.
SEES hese were sittered to pass unnoliced I'M
notice, under conviction that the people of the
United States had already read enough to satisfy
lhein-efves that the West India trade would never
have been lost had Messrs. Adams and CLAY per :
mitied Congress 10 pass bill, or had they not
shsmeiully ;eg!ectel 20 give our mipis,er in Eng
!aui instructions. Bui failing TO make any mpress
sion on the public mind through tue ordinary chan
neis, the administration has called to lis
me character and well estsblishd reputation oil
ths = inesican Quarterly Review. We take il for
granted that th= highly respectable elitor of thai
, tSevlew would not desire 10 give currency in any
cause 20 untrue statements or uBsound orinions
ana That he will not complain OF us tor pointing
out very briefly some Of the errors Of the gentle
man WHO has been DoI1 Annnsi, volunteer III
Vindication OF the Administration.
une oil the prominent objects of the Review eT
SO Contrast as broadly possible what he thinks
TO be the difference between The policy of MIR
PIT and Mr.. Canning. OF the policy OF the former
he speaks in terms OF high and just eu!osium- III.
Il
and rccIproci'y''--it was marked with the stan,t
OF liberal principle and of profound WISDOM
whIie tue latter IS accused OF "nskng long -perch.
es OF liberal principle and enacfng laws OF severe
fesIiciIon. As thee Two distinguished statesmen
have now passed Oh the stage. we may venture,
even as Americans, TO do them justice without
havIHg cur patriotism questioned. The policy oil
MI Pitt WAS enlarged and liberal and his bill al
1883 "old have long since formed basis toi Ire
commercial respision, OF the world had not The
interests OF nsiions Leen sacrificed, as ours hay.
been, 10 the peTinsciy and visionary Speculation.
OF vaia and theoretical Statesman. Wa concu,
w!h The Reviewer IN MS opinion oil Mr.. P's pol C y
but we are somewhat at loss discover how h,
could discriminate between the principles OF MIR
Put IN 1883, aId lie PRINCIPLES Oh MIR. Canning II
! 1925.
! He has certainly made discovery which M
practical statesman can comIreheDd Lo ,vill re-
fleet for one Toe comparative co. d,tioi
OF American and British commerce at the period
/ III question, aud VINO VIII take the trout.e 90 ex
anime and compare the bill OF 1888, ar ! me act
( at PsrliameBt Of 1925. Had the author under
stood clearly the of discriminating dry
the distinction between sh inrcst and nav ,gatio
law-and what is meant by mptua! feciprociiy, h
would no; in The same breath have eulogiZ ed klr
Pnt and denounced Mr. Canning; for he youl
haze n.aJe, what 10 hm would have been the dis
cOveTy, that buth measures were founded upon ~,
cstiy the same prime pies. Ih. ollec, cf boz,
measures was-tO pirce JinericHI d..d British RS
ssis precisely on he same Jo0ftfg ~ The oOBlHerc
\ JtiiSecn tue LHtled SfdltS and the BRUSH Colo
MES; free from all dIscfiu mating du,Ies and en-
joymg mutually al the privileges of bome-buiI
ships. But this i an unfortunate comparison 70
the RevIeweT- the measures proposed ~ 1872
u ere, IN fact, more liberal IN IN those OF I7S:
Had he well understood the history of orr CON
merce or the practical eifec OF navigation laws, h
would never nave Ven,uf,d to make The coniras,
. In
Pari~un win that OF Great britain size enioye
almost ell this nsvgsli, "a - II wss then more he
interest TO take every mes-ure 10 = srd- reibovin
these discriminating charges; foi they were Ievip
III he hfst instance upon h,f own navigation. Mi
rnt, hberalEy cot Of The question, coU Il nor hav
bad stronger inducement tor bringing forward h
measure oi 1888, than the positive and direct in
iefest OF British navigation. but how diifeIen
was the condition OF thing IL 1927 On com
meTcs had gown TO nsnbood-- we had actual
driven Brush navigation oni ~ This cbannel G
trade, AMI were IN foil possession Of nineteen
l'Sen'ieihs Of The carrying 'rede. Here, then,
was moe our interest TO adopt every expedieRt 4
get nd OF tbe DISCRIMINATING duties; for they wer
vexs'ious charges upon oar own navigation. vs.
DID every Thing that bad psuae sneut cnld do 4
rieveat their removal; when me BRUSH govern
iuent by i's act, 10 lc15. voluntarily propose
mutual abolition. 81 much lar toe Reviewer
coniIast Of Mr.. Ptts snd alf Csnning's iberald,
But tbrs was all; the biil OF 1888 confined o.
vessels 20 'hs direct trade the acis OF Is25 Der
nnitted them not only 10 return home hu, To ORC
y csed 20 any foreign country. Yet oar rsn1,j On
impartial Reviewer eulog ze- the Turner snd a,
non"ces the latter measured eh.fru.t!
Another g'eal onisei of the lteyie.ver in n,
"i-""g us ~rb very esburste history # M
iqnespon, Is 20 leave m impression uyOn fhe ROTH
mind, lbsi Mr.. Adams conisbdsJ for no ~ re- The
ass pedeeesfors he'd done THAT we hsf urfrmi