Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-03-15
Congressional.
GENERAL SMITHS SPEECH
on THE COLONIAL TRADE.
elixeItd 10 the Senate of the I'M, ed State Eeh


iCone,,sded.j
The Senate will pardon me for the time I shall
take in making few remarks the Report.
shall do SO in spirit of the highest respect and
personal esteem have for the Chairman. He
has told us that the Report before the Senate in
printed form, and subject TO any remarks that
may be made on i: The Chairmau also told us,
when he reported the bill, that the whole were
his own: that neither had been shown either 10
Nj. Adams or TO Mr.. Clay. sincerely wish
that they had been submitted 20 their considera-
ton; for although all know that the Reoor
il the act of respectable Committee of the Sen
ate, yet abroad it will be looked at as the act of
the government: and for another reason; that
have good cause TO doubt whether il would have
been approved by the President. think, and
have good reason to think, that the President was
really desirous that concilia,ocy course should be
pursued Is the Report of that ch1racfsr2 I
think it is far, very far, from concatory II
appears 10 me calculated 10 wound the pride and
feelings OF the adverse party. For many pages il
Is filled with elimination and recrimnation, who'll
~ gratuitous, and not called for by the occasion
never knew any good arise from insulting the
pride OF an individual or nation. We are proud
na,ion-and deservedIy So and we feel sensibiy
the sgtiricn and sarcastic observations in MI.
Canning letter to Mr.. Galla.n. We all think so;
aud shall we follow precedent that we disap-
prove? have read the report with attention. II,
appears 10 me ike those papers called manifestoes
issued by nations, accompanied by declaration Of
war, TO Justify the government TO the nation and
the world for going TO war. had hoped that a
bill would have been presented withour report.
and that the Chairman would in his place have
given US the views Of the Committee His speech
would have been his view. AMI could not
have been considered as the deliberate act of the
administration. l. repea, that i, will be so con-
eiderei abroad. although we know that i, is not
find, Mr. President, that the report responds
much of The letter of the Secretary of State to Mr.
Galiain. ii has, therefore, high authority Without
intending any offence. and sincerely hoping that I
will give none, mean 10 make few observa.
lions on some Of It's parts. feel myself au,ho =
riZed to do so, because they seem to aim blow
at some of the observations had made on a for
mer occasion. j do not know that they were so
intended; but my correspondents insist tina, they
are, and that ain bound 10 answer them that
my ewn character calls jondly on me to sustain
myself. have another call, which shall no
tice ii i do not forget. declare, with sincerity
that have no hostility to the administration. But,
when member OF this or any other adminisira-
ton, presses himself forward, in any way, direct
or Indirect, to attack me, cannot submit, and
must and will defend Uyself.
In the 3D. page, the Report says &" They Tthe
BRITISH began by limitation to the direct trade
prohibition OF important articles, admission OF
certain articles only, and then burthened by hea
w duty, and an export duty on the articles i'm
ported here" This is response. The trade was
limited to direct trade, 10 and FROM by the act
OF 1922. Well, sir, had we ever asked more /?
IF we had never asked for more, what right had
we TO expect mores Important articles prohibit
e6 This is speaking in the general. like TO
come to particulars, and the Committee ought, in
Justice, TO have given them What are they /?
Pork, beef, FISH, and the other productions Of the
sea. Nov it so happens, that we have prohbiie ed
by our duties all of those very articles. Beef and
pork were, at the time we levied those high du-
ties. imported from Ireland. Our ports were filed
with fish from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia
end 80 careful were of the interest OF the fish
cries, that we not only levied excessive duties,
bit refused the right of drawback 10 the fish i'm
ported, on being exported. AT the last session
presented memorial from the merchants in Bal
tiriofe. They represented that the British cured
6sh were much better than ours, and more valued
m the South American States That they wanted
them TO make up assorted cargoes. II was reporte d
against, by the Com OF Commefce; and DO not be-
lieYs that W. would agree torepeal our prohibiory
duties, II G.. Britain would consent 10 the admission
OF all the prohibited articles into their Colonies.
sm certain we would not repeal The duty on fish, and
other productions Of the sea. All New England
would protest against IL; end / do not know thst
I would give my consent TO the repeal At pre-
sent would not. Then what right had we to
complain that those articles prohibited and that
me British will not consent TO their admission into
their I-lands, WHEN we DO complain, LET US have
ground for our complaint
Same page -'' An export duty on the articles
imported here" have already shown that
there was no export duty whatever on any
article. by the act Of 1922; and on another occa-
sion ! showed that there was no export duty, ex q.
eept that levied in the reign Of George III. which
IL i 4. 70 -