Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1827-06-15
From Inc Boston Patsiot.
ON TIE COLONIAL TRADE QUESTION.
10 the Eight Hon. GEORGE GAINING, First Lord Of the
Treasury, and Prime Munster of Great gtitaip

ON TIE COLONIAL TRADE QUESTION.
To the Right Hon. GEORGE CAaNINe FRS, Lord Of the
Ieasnry' and Prime Munster of Great Btitan.
No. ~.
SIR In my last Letter l promised -. co,,r,rso, ,f
what really took place in the Senate in the session of
1901, with your account Of ii. Before, however |
10 '"'s. must notice the manner alike uugracious
and unfair, in which you introduce The subject You
DO II IN the following words:
Io one piece OF evidence, which proves the perfect
understanding in America not only OF the purport and
provisions OF the act of Parliament Of 1895 but of the
conditions which it would be rec uste for the American
Legislature TO perform, in order entitle the United
States to the benefit of that act the undersigned might
have scrupied To refer as being OF the nature of
diplomatic docuinent) if Mr.. Gaatin had not
ragged him 20 bring forward any document tending to
throw light On the matter in dispute, by citing, sup
port OF his own view OF that matter. private letter
from MIR. Clay to Member OF Congress"
/ hat demon of contradiction could possess you thus
TO follow up your attempt TO prove there perfect
understanding" on the part OF the American Govern
meat OF that winch they formally tell you they did not
and could not understand will not presume TO saw
But notice here first, specimen of your ancient
passion for hdD suppressed Sarcasm, of which, twenty
years ago, you gave such examples, in your diplomat
correspondence with America, as we're then ascrbed to
the petuance of an highly praised, clever young man.
That the fit should have returned upon you at this time
OF life, is matter of wonder and will lead unfaYo
rable conclusions as toyour temper and feelings.
But what is il tina, you sheer al 1t is Mr.. Galatians
reference to what you pleased TO call "a private
letter of MIR. Clay Ia member of Congress" Now
this sprivac letter. was written by the Secretary Of
State to Mr.. Cambreleng member of Congress, ex-
pressy for the purpose of informing FIR. CambreleDc
and his constituents, and the commercial public at
large through him, what was the understanding of the
American Executive, in regard TO The act of Paria-
ment Tins letter was therefore, in IFS object pure
sy official any act which il is in the power of the
Secretary OF State to perform. At tie time il was
written 1t was communicated to Mir. Vaughan, the
British Minister and sis understood" fsaYs MIR. CLAY
in his despatch TO Mr.. Gallatn of 18th November
In hpen ted
ment."
This letter you pleased to call rrira,e letter
Why?
Further, in nstructng Mr.. Galla,n, on the 11,b
November, 1926, 10 the in which your letter
of 1ith September should be answered, Mr.. CLAY
transmitted copy Of this letter to be communicated to
you. In pursuance of this instruction, ii was coinmu-
ncated to you, BY Air. Gallatin.
| and yet you make it matter of implied sarcasm
that letter thus written, and thus officially connuni
Gated to you, should be adduced by MIR. Gallatiu
among other proofs OF the understandings which the
american Executive had OF the act of Parliament OF
1925.
You say, tontemptuousiy, that Won s.should have
scruped to refero to the Baltimore Memorial es being
document mot OF diplomatic uature," had not mir.
Galian encouraged you to bring forward ANY doom
ment," by citing in support of has view prtua!e
letter from Mr. Clay to a member of Cong ress
have shown that the letter, of which you make so
unbecoining and insulting use was letter written
by Mr. Clay, Secretary Of State communicated to Mr.
Vaughan at the time and understood have been by
him sent home TO his governments subsequently, furnish
ed officially to Mr.. Gallan, to be by him employed in
negotiating with you and actually By Mr.. Gala
tin to you under those instructions.
This you call ga private letter OF MIR. Clay,o Gated
by Mr.. Galsatin, in support of his cieso.
Knight dwell out for bear to do it upon the
ing nsnuaton whic you here repeat from your letter
of lh November, that Mr. Gaatin in his despa ches
ayours you with has oir" opinions, well those OF
his government, for which yoa say you greatly
indebted to him.TS
What oil 4 document couii Eayo avoaoto3
to establish the understanding which the American
Executive put your act, if you do not think letter
of the Secretary OF State pertinent for tha. pur
pose,
If letter of the Secretary OF State communicated
TO the American Munster abroad, and by him. under
instructions, furnished 10 you is ''pIiyate letter. ia
document not Of diplomatic character.'' what |
would humby inquire, does constitute. in YOUR uIr-
Dent, a document OF diplomatic character?
And here cannot bn, turn aside, for moment, 10
remark on ti:c curious fatality which attended YOUR
communication TO Parliament, and the world of this
your note OF January eth, in which you permit your.
self to sheer at Mr. Galatians of 'private letter
Either on the day when you laid this corr espondeuce
on the Clerks table IL the House of Commons or
certainly within fe| days before after you fell into
that singular alteration with distinguished judicial
officer with whom, as the OF an American citizen
may feel sympathy in his sharp contention l,at day
with you though feel none with his csDse or arru
ment.
In the of that debate you quoted, in oocn
Parliament, letter written TO yon by Sir +. Clifford
and SIR j. 3 CopIey as the law officers of the crown
The Master of the Rolls (Sr j. $. CopIeyl is said to
have accused you, in his place, of breach of Official
secrcsy" in thus quoting in public, what he il seems
chose TO consider document not intended for such
use. You turned upon bin, and, in a tone which one
OF the most respectable London journals calls decided
ly hostile" said, 'you thought il extraordinary
when you, as Secretary Of Stale, had, on question
affecting Inc discharge of your public duty, required
the opinion of tbs law officers Of the crown tina, any
objection should be made to IFS production.n
Most extraordinary indeed! and what ia it when Mr.
Clay, the American Secretary OF State, to convince
you OF his understanding of certain point, directs the
American minister to communicate to you letter ORR
ginaliy written that point by Mr. Clay as secre ia
ry of State, and you throw il back on sIr Galatiu,
with good-naured snCeT "a private letter. not of
a dmplUInatic nature
agree with you las far your ec J,r7,c represent
tatioD can be truscd) protesting against Sir John
Coploy's objection very extraordinary. His afec>
tInc reoard his lriinr cnniInntia