Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-10-05

10
particularly anxious 10 as-imils,e the policy of
Mr.. Madison and Mr.. Adams Let us trace ali.
iesemolanre Under Mr.. NJ disons administration
sir. Adams, then our minister abroad, wa, in.
s"nc'ed (see his own letter of the 18th Sept, 1917
10 Lord Ca-iieresgh) TO cay, that we did nor az
Great Britain to 60 renornce the riebt of oroh;b,,
ing the importation into her colonies from the II
S'a'es' oil wta'ever articles she rpay think fit,
But hom he moment Mr.. Adams en,sreti the de-
p"''~fh' OF state lie never ceased to hit urnn
| zoe isnuncation OF this right, until he Ne >-om-
PEELED to abandon il, in August 1926 uhen IL,
Ssiia'in was instructed, in accordance with h.
poicy OF MIR. Madison, to ACCEPT the very termsS
which Mr.. Adams had rejected in 1924.
| we think the Reviewer might as well 6.y.
omitted hi. attack on Gen. Smith, of Md. whose
objectionable offence is TO understand this oues.
'Fh nelter Than the President his Secretary or
even the learned Reviewer himself 1t wouM
nave Deem well too TO have omitted the phra.c
| niggardy oon-pcddiipg," for il unfortunately
| reminds us too strongly OF our own disgrace in
the pediing conduct OF Mr.. Adams throushout
| ihis who's negotiation.
The Reviewer is mistaken in supposing srhss
the whole advantage of the mutual abandonment of
discrimnst NJ duties Gin the treaty of 1851 wa.
on the SIDE ct Great Britain 1t is true that this
was an Old opinion ofAIr. Adams bur he change,
! IL IN ISIS Oar merchants could give the Re-
f.WeI some useful information on thi. point
he next period we reach in this tedious West
india Chronicle Is October, 1913, hen we nego-
tis'ed the renew al of commercial trea,y Here
we have great aul, TO find with the fidelity of our
historian; Tor never was question more misrepre
sen'su IMAM ne has misrepresented the West India
u ies'ion IN This negotiation. Where we ,yo-,I;,
ask did the Reviewer get his auhoIt y for decIsr-
! ing That the British government insisted uppy.
re r,ght Of s'tTchaygiHg inde fnitely tcith dss,
l.s tie articles icci might DC am ported INFO m
~ eSs indies IN american uessels oycr and obo,e
ate duties ierisd upon articles of he same 6escy;s
Kan imported az B!itsh pssrciS2'' We haze h.
short answer TO this: There is nc, enc syllable
| OF truth 10 the declaration. We have ior,unatflv
better an hofify than the Reviewer. Our own
commissioners, Msssrs. Galistin and Ru.h AFT,
me negotiation was at an end tells us that ,he
British p!enipo,entia 0ceedcd to Inc followins-
propositions;
" let. British vessels to be permitted to imporf
from The British West Indies into the u. States.
and to export from the United States to the Britii}
west indies, only such articles O. the producs og
the said West Indies, and of the United States
respectively, az American vessels should be per
NJ, 10 ,f%nort from end import into the BIit.h
ri Jn4 Sss!es 80 0-zsess, ,.., ~. en-
10 he reeiProcolty the same, ,oheiher the ,rssets
,cere -lmerican or British.
81. The duties on the importation OF American
produce, into the British West Indies, MOI 10 D..
Mgher tchen tie produce acns imported d.nsrtIu
from Tie United States, han ,rhen imported az. a
eTcutton' manner; ieih reciprocal condition for
me importation q Hest inid,a produce inio us-
! U,,ifed States.
18th. Tue intercourse in British vessels TO be al
lowed only with such West Iudia ports as should
Ice open To American vessels.
| On Ihe Eriti-b vessels allowed TO carry on
that trade, 10 be only OF the same description WI
! the American vessels admit ed in the British West
| Indies
Those who presume &c TO teach ue how TO .ea
son should never forge, that truth is the fouuJa-
hoa oi reason. II our historian bad been faits.
| fo In this portion OF bis history, he would haYs
tod US that treaty not then made, Lerau.s
some hinge bad not been contemplated in fbs
ins'Iucuohs' OF our commissioners, and because
we insisted IN ISIS upon the very pr;ncipe which
!hf' Madison directed MIR. Adams in 1916 to
abandon, and which afterwards the origin of
hat famous s,atu'ory curiosity that emanated from
'he Department Of State, The act of the h,
March, 1928 1t is ungrscious in the Reviewer
go DISTINCTLY to defend rrincr.es after they have
been abandoned by bis patron.
1 1t Is further slated, IN a way that locke az IS =
was designed to- nslesd- thai the renewal of m,
negotiations upon .his and all the other subjects
wmcn had been Suspended bsio the return of
sif. Rush was committed to- Mr.. King IL
would have been more accor,Isn with the sir p,fci-
W ahd hdeliiy oil history, il the Reviewer bad ex
pIicitly said, we all know that Mr. King me-
yer received one syllable of instructions upoa .fe
: subject
. kvidentIy and conveniently fatisu.d, our I'M
partial REVIEWER biIugs bis narrative to yerv
aoruIt conclusion, 10y stopping very luckily In
March 1875, aud forgetting 10 give u.s. in ali ,bis
tedious Chronicle, any Information Whatever ahou,
certain acts OF Parliament passed in June and july
1879 ANA then, too, TO be left unc er EN- ON i
ously, telling Tie " we have thus traced our i'm
PoTIsht sugeci down 20 the PRESENT question be =
tween ''iea Britain and the United Sia,es' Thus
are We poor Iupils, p'oyoaingly lett at the end of
: nine aud thirty pages the threshold of the vsru
question: about which, were 10 lie taught b.
j our learned Reviewer " how we ought to tesI az
well az Te"sDr IL IL true be c0ndesc en- to civ
us Uo1d OF consols ion; he man ID. rh0ps pur.
-ue The sutleci IN a second put but even Til
ball promise loses ~ eiFec, when be tells us N az
e whether ms secoHd part ever appears or nos
" ne IS the les anxious, since the correspondent
Itself nearly enables every in eiIIgrnt reader TO
draw positive eoUclusIonsi'
We trust the Reviewer will never fulfil hi
) promise, for II IS all lsbor lost. We protes,
against so much dull reading 20 90 LITTLE p,,,nos.
We know too wen how THIS West Iadia trade
was lost, and we have read enough about il. Fo,
ihe SAKE oil tur navigating interest, If the frisnds
81 MT. Adams would wTHe reviews, nay folnoss
, ready To confess shall be much obliged 90
them. We would Suggest to This candid Review
e., should he ever undertake his seeOad rsEe
= the prOpdety OF discussing the questions whether
u % the West India fTsje ever can be recoVe, Ed
r wtIlo VIE permit the Csnsdisn outlet 90 continue
r. openf and whether, should II be deemed nessess-
e. ~, this poOr-spTitel administration will nave
courage enough TO end the nten d,ction Of
o. our Intercourse ~rb The Brush American rplo-
ne'f l"t before he commences his second
part wh1e we would not presume 10 teach go
Iestnro heylewef how 70 g eel or reason" W.
"o"id sdmon'Sh him 30 relIesb bic rec objection -
70 FAC - shd 10 give batter evidence than he has
ysi done, That he und Is'snd- fbs We India crss