Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-03-30


Government, and by them rejected, and the otjec-
tons upon which tina, rejection was grounded, be-
ing stated by Lord Cssileresgh in a conference with
| Mr.. Rush; and Mr.. Rush having in that confe-
renee repeatedto Lord Cas,lereagh the views OF
the American Government, upon which the oirer
had been made, as is stated by Mr.. Adams in his
letter of June %, 1925 satisfy me, that this claim
on part, in its full eS' en, explained to the
! British Government, and discussed in 1918 and
1919. But those explanations and discussions ap.
pear to have been verbal only. MIR. Gsllatin
states, that this claim implied, not explicitly
made, in our proposition OF 1918. That OF 1919
OF which Mr.. Adams states the import, although
more explicit, not much so no, be
liable TO another construction the EXPRESSION.
from any other country or place tchatsosper,
which he says was in eiiec, part of our PROPOSE
tion, might well be construed according the sub
ject matter TO mean any country or place other
than such as belonged TO either ofthe contracting
parties, and might well require explanation. Ac
| cordinsly these explanations were made. But Mr.
Adams stating with anxiety the proofs of this fact
reiers TO no written communication between our
Ministers aud the British Ministers, making, or
requiring, that explanation; as he rainly would
nave done, II any such had existed, especially
when he was anxious TO prove to Mr.. s. Canning,
alter the passing OF the act of March |, 1925,
that such claim had been made, and when as he
says, he proved 1t to him BY reading parts of the
>.
the extracts from Mr. Rush's letters OF June IA,
Sept 1883, connected with il. These expiana-
lions were, therefore, verbal and no memorial of
them being found In the archives of the British
Government, and the Ministry being changed
MIR. &. Canning might we'll have misa pretended
the intention OF the equvocal propositions made
by Us IN 1878 and 1Sl9 and been ignorant, las
he says he was) that any such demand wa. ever
made. as that asserted by act of 1928, constm
ed as 1t was by our Executive; and 1t So Mr.
Canning must have been equally ignorant on that
subject
| The question, whether the British Government
or .Nr , Canning, knew, before the passing of the
act Of 1873, and the notice given the latter of the
| construction put upon il by our Executive, tina,
such claim had been asserted, is of little conse
quence The important inquiry is, whether this fac,
was ever made known TO the Congress & people of
the u S,or was iraudulently concealed from them,
ana II 1t was, then tor what purpose? Although
ihere was no motive to conceal from the British
government, that we Intended To assert this claim
unoer me equivocai terms OF our propositions to
! them; there was a motive to conceal i, from In.
congress and pep:le of the n S TIE Executive
conceived the design Of procuring the admission
oil our products into the British colonies subject
| 10 no hiSber du'y than was paid upon the smil, "
| products OF her o'hsr colonies and .f Gre,. r.;
tam herself Which. If they could have succeed.
| ed, would have operated exclusively in favour Of
N
oil other articles OF our produce, the British coIc-
MES having none such or very little, a duty on
| them would not have affected the coIonie< nv
cep' as consumers, and Great Britain would have
mad no motive Tor RETAINING from taxing them.
high duty upon -four, for instance, altbousb i,
would have affected the -four exported from Que
oec' would not have materially affected the lnte-
rests OF Canada since the far greater mar, of tic
flour exported from Quebec IL OF the growth of
! the U. 5. This object, utterly unknown 10 our
laws restricting the trade with the colonies the
sole purpose OF which was to procure The ad,n,s
sion oil our vessels TO participate in that trade TN.
on some reasonable terms, would certainly have
been frustrated, IT it had teeu known TO the Con
/ gre-s and the public. Ii could MOI he esr.c,.d
without the aid OF those restrictive laws. when
Great Britain by her act of June, 1922, opeced all
her colonial ports, having custom houses to o,,
vessels and csrSoes upon Terms of perfect email
| ty with her own vessels and the same csrsoes and
offered u in effect the monopoly OF thai marie,
Tor our products; the Presiden, Instead e onenn,
our ports permanently upon the same terms Ia
The laws authorised him TO do) opened them up
on conditions unequal in respect to Great Britain
and no longer than I'LL the rising Of the next
Congress, 50 "a to make il necessary, 10 PASS some
law on that suhIsc; at the next CONGRESS. II
the Congress had believed, the fact that
IN truth Great Britain had opened her ports On p
quail terms, and so had yielded TO US all. thai mn,
iormer legislation had sought to procure: they
would beyond doubt, have met the proposition
OF the British law frankly and literally; and if
the claim, made by our Executive 10 an exemn.
ton OF our products from protecting duties leyed
! in the colonies, had been made known 10 them
they would certainly have Regulated IT, II the
Congress had known or believed, that the terms
, upon which Our vessels were admitted into tb
| colonisl ports, were as they were) equal they
would have passed law, restricting the tajs
(as the British act had done) to direct in.
lercourse, and declaring that the Brii.h shin.
should be admitted into our pots. subject to no o.
her charges upon them and their cargoes. than
| were imposed upon own. This .youId have
been death blow to the PR ject entertained Inv
Inc Executive. 10 prevent this, and 10 keen omen
the contest, u leave in the hands of the Executive
some means OF coercing Great Britain, end thus
forwarding this their secret object, it was neces
ssry to Induce the Congress to believe, that there
were yet some discriminating charges in the Bri
tsh colonial ports upon our vessels and their car
goes; and while Congress were providing the
means OF countersctIDg them, to procure the in
serlion, In this provision, of equivocsl express.
sion, capable OF being applied TO the proertine
duIes OF Great Britain, without betraying to the
| public and 10 Congress, that such q claim vas
contemplated. And this scheme succeeded. A
careful attention to the evidence, which we have
in our power, will q thnk) clearly prove this
suggestion TO be well founded
fhe history Of the origin and progress of the
bill will aid Us in this inquiry. At the meeting OIL
the Congress in December, 1922, the President
IN his annual message, alter stating that the act
OF Parliament OF June, 1922, had opened the co
onisl ports, and that he had me, il with liber al
construction OF our laws, md issued his prociama.
lion, opening ports under the Limitation spe-
| he s -.