Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-07-10
From the Boston Patriot.
COLONIAL TRADE.-LErrERX I.

COLONIAL TRADE.-LETTER al.
To THE RIGHT lIoS. GEORGE CANNING, FIRST
LORD OF THE TREASURY, sc.
SIR come now to the concluding topic in
your letter Of January eth; you introduce it in
the following manner:
"The undersigned is al loss 10 understand
on what ground 1t was assumed at flashing
ton that there would he, at all times, an unabat'
cd disposition, on The part OF the British Gov.
eminent, 10 make the trade Of its West India
Colonies the subject of diplomatic arrange
meu:"
This is exceedingly loose language, for an
official despatch, on Sc important subject
What warrant have YOU to intimate that cit was
assumed at Washington, that you would at oil
Times, be ready 10 treat" on this questions? All
tina, was assumed at Washington was, that, al
tins particular time. during a pending negoc'a-
tion, there would be a willingness, on the part
of the British Government, if not to resume
the negotiation, at least TO give fair notice oil
the design to break ii oh.
You go on to say,
"The circumstances Of the case were entirely
changed"
Changed from what! Changed since when?
On neither of these points do you state any
thing distinct or Ineligible. The only change
we'll knew, would dispose us to recede from our
former demands, because it promised US, on
your part, a compensation for so doing.
"Re pea,ed negotiations" you add, chad fail.
ed 10 produce any material approximation oil
opinions ON that subject"
So lar from this, the Penipoten,iaries in 1924
separated substantially on one single point, VIZ:
that Of equality Of duties in the West Indies,
on imports from the United States and the Bri.
fish North American Colonies.
You proceed to say,
sThe las, attempt a, an adjustment had been
made with an evident conviction on both sides,
that there existed between them an uncoDquera-
bic difference Of principle: and tina, il was by
tba, difference, rather than by any decided ire
concileableness Of interests, that satisfactory
arrangement was rendered hopeless.
So far is this from being true, that when the
negotiators separated, it was because 1t had be-
come necessary ITO refer 10 Washington on
some Of the subjects which had been presented
for discussion" There is not the least intima-
ton, on either side, that the negotiation was
broken off. II is stated in the protocol OF 2sth
July, 10 be suspended for the present"
"Tbe nature Of this difference" you say, "has
been sufici enly discussed, it lies in the deter
mina,ion Of the United States 10 dispute. and in
tina, of Grea, Britain to maintain, the establish
ed distinction between general and colonial
trade"
Neither part Of this proposition is true
The United States never disputed you. right TO
establish such u distinction. They maintained
only Ina, it was departure from the rule OF re-
ciproci,y Blu, The importan, remark is, that
so far was Great Br,ain from cherishing "the
determina,ion'' 10 maintain this distinction,
that by the act Of 1925 il was essentially done
away Mr.. Huskisson, in his speech OF 2ls,
March, 1925. in which the policy OF the act OF
July 1895 was announced, SO represented it,
He saws, 81, cannot BE- dissembled, that this is
great change in our colonial systemi" and our
General Smith, (whose authority ought to
weigh with you on this occasion, inasmuch as
he has supported throughout the British side OF
this argument,) observed in his speech CT The
18th Of April 1926, on this very point, that
"whatever Of argument we 1.-THE United States
Nigh. have had, whilst the colonies were con-
.idrred as such, is now taken from Us. The pos
sessions abroad, as they are now called, are con-
sidered as integral parts Of the British empire,