Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-03-20

10 obtain SeaiOuS credit with the community al
large. And it detracts greatly from the cha
racter for practical good sense which is attribut-
ed to Mr.. Calhoun, to give further countenance
to it.
From the baltimore american, March 49,
Messrs Editors: In your paper of this morn
ing, you have given, what you say, was Mr.
T omlinson's view Of the bill which passed the
Senate with only TEN dissentient votes, relative
TO the Colonial trade. You will excuse me
when say, that il is scarcely possible that a
gentleman Of MIR Tomlinson's good sense could
have taken such view of the bill. You make
him say that, "should the bill from the Senate
become law, ard should no arrangement have
be admitted into the ports CT the United States
from the British Colonies, paying no discrimi
mating duties whatever either on their toms ee
or cargoes; while American vessels were ALSO.
lutcly excluded from the British West Indies
&c. &c. SC " Now wha, is the fact? That the
bill from the Senate interdic,ed the British Co.
lon!al trade by sea, by land, or inland naviea.
ton, from and after the 8 lst day of December
II completely put stop to all intercourse with
the British Colonies alter that day, and actual.
y continued the discriminating duties on Bril-
ush tonnage, or their cargocs, until that day
as shall shew.-I have the bill before me.
The first section proposes 10 Great Britain
the same terms eract!y, as she had proposed 10
the United States in her act Of Parliament of
the 5th Of July, 1925. The second section sus
pends the operation Of the acts Of Congress Of
1918, 1920, and 1928, until the 3lst day Of De-
cember, "ercep' so nush thereof as imposes dis
criminating duties the tonnage of foreign vessels
or their corgoeS. OF course those duties would
still have been paid by British Colonial vessels
until the 3lst December; and as those acts Of
Congress were only suspended until that day,
they would OF course have been in full force a.
gain on The LIST day Of January. The acl Of 1928
would, as l have said, have been in force, and
that excludes, completely, all trade Of every de-
scription with the British Colonies. Had any
OF their vessels arrived in the ports Of the Uni.
ted States after the Sis, December, they and
their cargoes were liable to con6scation.
The third section was perfectly agreeable to
10 both branches. The House amended il by
simply changing some few words, which they
thought more clear, with which ,he Senate were
satisfied-but i, added words which were no,
acceptable 10 the SenateSand perhaps were no,
understood by some who voted for them. The
Senate rejected them, and the bill was thus lost.
What was the import of those words? They
repealed forever the act o. 1928. and retained
the acts of 1918 and IS2o--What would have
been the consequence? The act Of 1923 inter
diets all trade between the Colonies Of Great
Britain, by land as well as by sea; and that act
was, by the amendment, 10 be completely re-
pealed.
The acts OF 1918 and 1920 were to be CONT
nued i'll force. Those acts only interdicted the
Colonial trade by sea. Had the Senate concur
red in the amendment, then the trade with both
the Canadas and Nova Scotia would have been
open by land, and inland navigation,
precisely conforming to, and doing exactly that
which the British Order in Council Of July last
had authorized. That order kept open the trade
10 her North American Colonies, and tile a.
mendment was entirely to the wishes Of Great
Britain Had the Senate been so weak as TO
have concurred in the amendment from the
House Of Representatives, then Ohio, New
York, Vermont, and Maine, would have had an
open msrket for all their commodities, and
would have supplied sufficiency for the Yves,
indies, whilst all the other States would have |
'een cut off from all intercourse with the colo
lies: for they could have none except by sea,