Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-06-16

off the negotiation. by making it seem that the
Executive Of the United States needed 70 De
urged to accept the terms OF the act OF 1879
and that a slender executive majority OF TWO,
flor il seems you have counted our yeas ana
nays. refused to pass this urging resolution
Your total misc conception OF this pon' Is .here-
fore, Of the highest importance, because 'he eA'
posure Of il destroys your laboured apology 'or
breaking off the negotiation, without ~arhihs'
and issuing the Order in Council. repea',
therefore, as your third error, in reference 10 lhe
debate, that the question debated was not OF
resolution, urging the Executive, out on reso-
luton implying that it was inexped,ent 10 ai'er
the law and subsequently, on bill altering II.
4,h. You mistake the substantial parporf OF
the question debated This might seem to be
the same error which have Just pointed OUT
But i, is not The same question, in substance,
might have arisen on resolution urging the
Executive, and on legislative proposition -
You have accordingly -contrived totally 10 mis-
lake the substance as well as the form oil the
question debated. If, in the confusion OF your
statements, YOU leave any clear idea on the mind,
i, is. ,ha, in some shart or other, either OF le-
pislation or Of a resolution urging the Execu-
tive. the question was aei,a,ed whether the Unit
ed States ,oere wiing 10 accept The terms Of the act
of Parliament Of 1925
saw, on the contrary, Quitting forms asde,)
the only question agitated was. whether the
United States would pass n nW meeting. what
were then supposedly US 20 be, the provisions ct
the act of 1925, or whether the United States
would resume the suspended nsgofiafion.
The questions, Of course, are as different as
light and darkness A W ision Of opinion on
The one was totally different from division on
the other. There is no evidence to prove, and
there is no probability in the suppositlon, that
any one Senator was opposed TO the acceptance
by the United States Of what you now declare
10 be the conditions Of that act.
5th. Consequently, the grounds OF the decis-
ion are totally misapprehende6 bv you. You
state, that he Senate or as you first call it, the
House Of Representatives, and then the LeeIs-
lature, hitting on everv thing but theright) de-
cided Is to IA that the United States would
not accept the conditions of the act of 1925;
consequently, yoy leave it 10 be implied that
E were opposed TO this acceptance. on the
nart Of the United States. In your first letter
1 TO Mr.. GaIlatin YOU make this representation
empha'icallv
Now, sir. on the resolution Of The commit,
TEE of commerce TO he discharged from the fur
,her consideration Of the subject, because it
was ineIpedient. a, this time, to legislate upon
i, the debate alluded to arose. General Smith
Began i, against the report and resolution. Mr..
! LLOYD. who brought in the report. followed IN
lis defence. Mr.. Tazswel opposed the report,
md Mir. Llovd again spoke in its support
Reports of the speech Of General Smith. and
f Mr. Lloyd's first speech, were published in
he Inlelligencer. cannot find Mr.. TazeweFs
I.sneech, and do not think it was reported but 1t
nav have been Mr.. Llovd's second speech
have strong reason to think was not reported
take il for granted, then, as you can scarcely
have access to fuller reports than those OF the
Inteligencer, that when you allude to tine DE-
bates" YOU mean the two speeches OF General
fSmsb and Mr. Lloyd. And ynn leave II IA he
!. understood, that one Of these gentlemen (Gen
Smith, Of course) maintained tina, the United
States ought 10 accept the conditions OF the act
of 1925, and that the other gentleman, Mr.
LLOYD maintained that the United States
'ught not to accept them.
If YOU do not mean this, there is no meaning
nor relevancvin what Won say abon. the debates
To show then, sir that YOU have no! read the
'ebates, q would by no means intimate that
YOU Intentionally misrepresent them,) will
make few quotations from them:
81 believe, Mr.. Chairman" said General
smith. "that there is no difference Of opinion; that
u, who have considered the subject, agree
'that our discriminating duties ought 10 be re-
'ealed,' as far as they relate TO the subject be-
ore US. The only difference is the manner -
rhe committee Of commerce think it better TO
e done by negotiation. Others think it can be
E4c,ed BY an ac' Of Congress, which shall meet
once and without delay. the very liberal Of
rs Of Gr"a, 2 tain, made by her act of Par
amen nr 9th June, and her two acts OF 5th
Tulv, 1926"
Here vou perceive that Gen Smith explicit.
" states, that there was no difference OF opin-
ion, as to what ough, to be done, but only as
o the manner of doing it
| NV business is not now With General Smith,
7or shall NEEDLE, on this OCCASION, with the
"easons which he gave for preferrng leGisla-
| ton to negotiation
Again the General said
"Before proceed to take a general view OF
The subject think it best to. examine the report
Of the committee Of commerce. | have very
seldom differed with the very able chairman OF
! hat committee on commercial subjects in
fact we do not now differ on the general subject,
i Il 10 NJ <INf 80