Delaware journal. [volume] (Wilmington [Del.]) 1827-1832, 1827-06-12

From the ". I. Commercial .4tlUertise1

From the ~ +. Conamercim ADVERTISER.
The United States, anxious to settle the terms of
this intercourse upon fair and permanent footing,
have always preferred negotiation to legislation.
Whatever ia done by treaty can't be changed with
out the consent Of both partes-whereas if done by
legislation it may be changed AT any time by either
| party. Not only so-but as power over this sub
ject is habituaily reserved to the king and council
the British king Can at any hour vary, embarrass,
or break up this intercourse against the will of con-
gress and without the intention Of parliament. The
| British ministry had uniformly possessed willing
ness to negociate-had negociated-and never gave
any inmaion to the contrary, so far AS am inform
ed until the negotiation was abruptly terminated by
Mr.. Canning letter of the ! lth September 1895.
Nothing having been done by treaty, this inter-
course became the subject of successive legislation
OIL the part Of both parties Congress passed the
first law on the 18th Of April 1918. This law closed
our ports against all British vessels coming from
British Colonial ports which were closed against us
and they were then in f,ct all closed against us
and it further subjected British vessels to EoNps not
to land any Ancrican produce in Il colonial port
closed against our vessels. England, thereupon
opened certain enumerated ports ia Lower Canada,
New Brunswick, SC. and in the lest Indies, which
she called ''free ports'-n consequence whereof,
congress passed the act of the 18th of May, 1920
This act broader in its terms than the other closed
our ports against all British vessels coming from any
British 'lsland, colony, territory or possession"
whether their ports were open to US or closed
against us--and prohibited the Importation, into the
United States of all articles of colonial produce,
except such only came directly from the
producing colony; and it is worthy Of remark, that
this law passed the senate with but one dissenting
yoice-forty voting for it, 7 Of whom were members
ofhe senate at slast session and some of whom
oppose the policy which they then Tin l820) sup
ported In anticipation Of British relaxations, con-
Eress, on the 9th of May, 1929, passed law, limit
ed to the next session, authorizing president Mon
roe to open our ports upon certain conditions NC
The British in June, 1929, did somewhat relas
their colonial policy. Congress, however, at the
succeeng session, found it necessary again to take
tine subject in hand; and the celebrated act Of the
!, LIST of March, 1923, was passed. This act-ls
! suspended the acts of 1918, and 1920, and thus
opened direct trade with the colonial ports emu
N erated in the British act of the Gath of June, 1929
and eli. authorised the president to abolish our dis
u eliminating alien tonnage duty, sc. (Which is no
imposed by these acts but By prior la10)-ProOid
ed that our vessels and produce should be adntte
into the colonial ports upon the same terms as BIRTHS
y vessels and the like produce from elsezvhere. NOV
. this term elsewhere" used in our law include
all British ports rs we'll others, in contradlstlnC
u ton to the British phrase, "from any foreign port,
which excludes all British ports. Congress, talk
~. it, must have intended by this, that our vesse
NJ should enjoy equality in the trade and that tn
TO- breadstufs Of New York and the other states shou
i. go to the British West Indies upon as favorab
~. terms as those of Quebec or Halifax. 1t is unde
Il. stood, and indeed admitted, that this law passe
ON both branches congress with great unanimty, ar
ri without opposition. The subject was not new
ID congress had repeatedly acted upon it; and tai
n. it for granted, that the law made advised
FOR upon great considerations and with full Snowled
nv of its important principles and provisions Yet
m am told, and the fact is so, that many who we
present and assented to the policy of the law the
If are among its loud and vehement opposers no
Of What does this mean? Did they then know the |;
il. to be impotc and wrong, as the British now pl
ID. nounce it to be? Why did they not lift up tn
to warning voice. and tell the people so. Or was
M right then to protect our navigation and commerce
err and has it become wrong now, for certain pot
in reasons to protect their great national INTEREST,"
we England, lis has been observed, imposed COZ
IN, tervaing tonnage duty. This was done June
Of 1928 Thus the matter stood, and the trade in {
we own vessels continued until cut off by the Brit
sh order in council Of the 9th Of July, 1926.
re; SECRETARY Canning in his letter to Mr. Gallatir
his the l4th of September, 1926, assigns but two pl
led cipal reasons, so far as understand him. for
d a order in council, namely the non-repeal Of our al
cal duties, and the operation Of the phrase ''from e
the where's" in the law of 1898. This last he c
ry. "pretenson," and asserts that the British COVE
md men can enter into s'reuewed negotiation
ais, long as that "pretension" remains in stat
re- book. These reasons are at least questona
try Mr. Canning says himself that their countervai
cen duty was inposed to meet this ''pretension'' in
the law. If the terms of the law were objection;
arr as to justify Great Britain in closing her ports
ow- after having voluntarily opened them to u.s. it is
per little difficult 10 perceive why she should, a
selecting her own remedy, continuing to negoc
ana and suffering the trade and intercourse to cont
ner- Il