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

sress and people to believe that the contest was
really about discriminating duties and other
charges, and to divert their enquiries and atten-
ton from the real point OF difference, wit the
protecting duties. And the more effec,ually to at.
tain this object the equvocsl expression, .s from,
elsctchere," was used in the law. And that OBJ
ect WAS fully attaned for, until the disclosures OF
this winter were made, man, believe, excep,
those in the secrets of the Cabinet, had any sus-
picion, that the struggle no longer for the
shipping interests of the nation but for the
ests only of the Northern dealers in lumber
and ire stock.
The only means proposed by the law for en-
forcing this claim, the imposition of the dis.
eliminating duties; means so utterly inefficient,
that 1 am astonishej that any human being should
have supposed, that ii could have The least tenden
cy to effect the objec; in view. The only thing,
that Great Britain bad to do to Illustrate entirely
the whole effect OF this imposition, was TO impose
upon US discriminating duties to precisely the
same amount; of which Mr.. Canning warned Mr.
Adams by his letter of November is, 1922 and
which the British Government actually did in Ju-
ly, 1873. The advantage TO US from these dscrim-
mating duties like that of the exclusive In ade
under the laws Of 1918 & 1929, which we had
with certain colonial ports, and which our Gov
eminent seems to have valued SO highly an add
vantage depending upon the mere will Of the Brit.
ish Government, and of which they deprived us,
when il pleased them TO do So As soon as these
discriminating duties were imposed by Great Bri-
tain, these mutual bur,hens produced absolutely no
effect bull to enhance the price of our products in
the colonies by the amount of the duties, without
any benefit to US from that advance and to bring
us into disadvantaseous competition with the
bread-stuffs of the Baltic, which since the act of
Parliament OF 1918, have found their way TO the
colonies, and are there received without paving
discriminating duties Even now the Bri ish
fishermen OF Newfoundland are fed with bread
s'uHs from Hamburg (See Gen Smiths speech
before cited. We once inonopoliz.d the supplies
FOR the colonial market, and might have retained
the monopoly with any tolerabe prudence, but
have now 10 encounter competricn which we
shall probably never get clear of. As to the ad-
dit:onal revenue arising from the dscrimina tins
duties, Great Britain received seven eigh-hs and
we onee eighth, of it, ships having carried on
sew en- eighrhs OF the trade. as stated by the Bri,
ish commissioners; (see Doc. No. 2, page a. \
aud Mr Clay complains that we paid the greater
Part OF them. our ships having the greater part OF
The trade. (See Doc no. 9, page 1917 Not.
with-tandng all this, have adhered to this
shadow OF advantage for years with desperate and
unaccoun. able pertinacity.
am confident, that Mr. Adams was the only
parent of this claim to an exemption from The
british protecting duties He has, indeed, nursed
IL win me anxiety OF doa'ins parent. and now
watches over il in the agonies of dissolution I
know not how many GoafaheTs it had I hone
r'i' few 1 willingly believe that MIR. Monroe
was rather the dupe, than the knowing assistant OF
Elr. Adams in pursuing this COURSE
MIR. Adams sfiirms, that this proposition was
made 10 the British Government in the neso,ia-
tons of 1918, and 1919; and as to this he refers
10 the printed documents accompanies the
message of the President of Feb IL, 1928 (Se.
Doc. No. 2. page 46 He sfiirms, that W hist
the Bill of March l, 1923, was in discussion he.
fore The Committee Of the Senate, Mr. CANNING
% whom copy of the Bill had been communics .
ted, made some written remarks upon IT, which
were Immediately submitted TO the consideration al
the Committee. The full import of the term
:. elsewhere" in Che End, Srd, and 5ih sections OF
the act, which formed the principaI .ob;.c, ~
these remarks, was deliberately examined and act
tied as well in The Senate, as upon consult alton
by the President with The members of he Admin.
jS'ration, and was explicitly made known 70 Mr.
S,ratiord Canning (See Doc No. 9, PAGE 50. y
He states, that q" the principal objection of Mr..
tanning was the import of the word &c eIss
where. -" He distinctly informed tha, rho
construction, of which he observes in his remark.
Il appears TO be susceptible, was the construction
which II was intended to bear, and would recev.
But that ii would put the question of discrinioa,
ing duties on footing irrecon ceasie with na,u.
raj view of the subjective can by no means ADM,
AS little do we admit, that having reference to
the conclusion OF the negotiation of 1910
M
been seen, that the United States then ex.
plicitiy declined acceding to an article which
would have opened TIE colonial ports, because i,
would have reserved TO Great Britain the rich, n,
laying In the colonial poris hgbeo duties upon ar
ticies OF the growth, produce or manufacture nj
the u s., than upon the like articles of The growth
produce or manufacture of Great Britain. or he,
colonies. The act of Parliament of Jnne
1922, undertook to do by British laws that. the
reserved right to do which we had uneqriyocalIv
refused to accede to by compact. In the course NJ
the conference with Mr.. Canning, proved this n
him oy reading TO hun the parts Of the Joint
letter from .HesSrS Gai!atin and Rush IN
this Department Of the 20h of Oetober
tracts from your letters OF the IIih of June
and 18th OF September, 1919, connected with il -
(See Mr.. Adamss letter to Mr.. Rush, 23rd June
1923, Doc. No. 2, page So " The request Of
explanation as to tho extent of the meaning of the
term, " elsewhere, Tin the act of Congress. in
MIR. Cannings correspondence with thi, Depar.
ment since the close of the last session. has M,
arisen from any doubt, which he could entertain in
his own mind, OF the construction which would
be given 10 it here. This was fully discussed a., :
ring the passage Of the act, and well understood
by him" See the same letter, Doc No. Q. n,oe
Soy These are extracts from MIR. Adams's i1-
structiOns to Mr. Rush of the 23d of June, 1929
MIR. Gallatin in his letter to Mr.. George CANNING
OF September %, 1876, (see Doc. No 2, PAGE
ll6,) speaking of the provision of our act OF
1923, implied in the term, eisetchere," saws.
" that provision might appear unusual and objec.
iionable, but might have been expected. The
principle was implied in the article proposed by
the American Plenipotentiaries in 1913, al which
lime the object was explicitly stated and discussed
end u was distinctly expressed in another article