Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-07-03


bill, sIn that case you go on, San instruction
was scn out TO Mr.. Vaughan" to do what
To admit us in general terms 10 the privileges
of lhe.act Of 1925? No. To give us the right
therein conceded Of trading from the colonies
to all other places (the mother country except
ed)? No such thing Mr. Vaughan was simp-
w Instructed TO say, sin tina: case, that t!.e
discriminating duties imposed upon America an
ships and their cargoes in The West Indies
should Immediately cease"
/ beg yoar careful attention 10 this, because
your partizan presses in England, aud ours III
America, have vehemertiv maintained that the
passage OF Gen. Smiths bill would have adj
miited us to the benefits Of the ACT OF 1875
Your positive statement here shows that ii
would have dore 40 such thing.
But this is not all Even the Withdrawing OF
your,sc Eliminating duties was not To be bought
simply by the repsal OF ours. y on demanded
much more, even for that concession. ear
resty beg the attention of my coun'rymen to
this fact; that il Gen. Smiths bill had passed,
il would not even have procured the removal oil
your discriminating duties. What is your lam
guage?
''In that CASE wiz: that Congress had pass
ed the bill for the repeal OF the discriminating
duties, AND, upon receiving an assurance from
and charges on British shipping and British
colonial produce should bc Withdrawn by the
United Sta,es," then, Mr.. Vaughan was in
s,ruc,ed TO promise that your discriminating
duties should he repealed.
! Now, among .ht st 'restrictions," you express
" represent (in former letter to Mr.. Galla,in>
that the restriction on The creations royase is the
most offensive and injurious; although in 1924
\ -; tl,ap ali 1yit In
Rush. This therefore was, Of course, among
the restrictions, The removal Of which Gin audi
J ton TO The repeal Of our discriminating duties)
was 10 procnre as, NOT The benefits Of the act Of
July 1895, bit merely the repeal Of yow discrimi-
mating duties!
! Even this poor "boon'' was not TO accrue 10
Us as matter Of course; another proof that you
did no, yoursel! intend 10 apply to the United
States the law of Jnly 1925. No, Mr.. Waugh.
an was BY special Instructions, 20 inform the Sc
cre,ary Of State that these discriminating du-
| ties would cease.
| 1t is scarcely credible (though PLAIN matter Of
| fact) that YOU should through iwo-,hirds oil a
iopg letter have argued, that tho act Of Parlia.
men, Of 1925 offered, certain conditions, 10
The United States, the repeal oil all dlscrimna
ing duties in your COLONIES, anu traae NOM
those colonies to all the rest oil he world; that
you should maintain tina, those conditions were
50 understood by Congress; tina, you should
speak of an omission to pass Gen Smiths bit
{proposng only re peal OF our uuties) as re-
rejection OF those conditions; and yet say, In the
same letter, that if we had passed that BILL and
If, besides This, we had promised to admit the cir
cui,ous voyage, then Mr.. Vaughan world have
delivered note 20 Mr.. Clay, Informing him
that we should be. not entitled 10 the heneh,s oil
ionit S without q, E'fMiHsting dulies.
For what earthly purpose did you instruc,
Mr.. Vaughan to deliver such note!
II could not have been, by way of commune
eating 10 our governmenl he provisions fyour
act of July 1925 on the iul6imtnt Of the condi-
lions IN which they were rendered, because you
know "it is not the habit Of the two govern
ments 10 communicate 10 each other acts OF
their respective Legislatures" and because (you
know also) "the simples, course was 10 allow
the provisions Of the act TO find their way to
general knowledge through the usual channels
of commercial information"
VIVA, then was the meaning OF these new
special irs 'ructions TO Nj Vaughan?
THIS is The meaning: that when you sent them,
the idea had nor yet occurred 10 you, that the
act Of July lS25 was to break up the negotiation
with this country. This was an after thought
dex,erously caught UP by you, 10 soo!he the
clamors Of your shipping interest.
| So far from breaking up the negotiation, so
far from taking the matter, or supposiug il TAX
en-, out ofthe subsisilng though suspended) ne
sotia,ion, you instructed Mr., Vaughan to re-
sumo that negotiation You tell US what those
Instructions were. You say, in case we repeal
ed the discriminating duties, Mr. Vaughan was
to write the Secretary Of State note, telling
him that, if the Government Of the u. States
would farther assure you, that the Other res,rc-
tons shoald be rcmaycd, that then your discri-
minating duties should cease.
And yet, few lines farther on, you find the
countenance TO say, you are
"a, loss to undera,and on what ground it
was assumed al Washington, that there would
be at all times, an undated disposition, on the
part OF the British Government, to make the
trade Gifts West India colonies the subject of a
diplomatic arrangement
Why, sir,you must have written this sentence
with the same pen-ful Of ink with which you
wrote the sentence iltie preceding this, tell
ing US that YOU Yourself, al this very stage of