Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-02-01


of Parliament. From the existing state of things.
il was impossible to limit our concessions, or 10
make our restrictions conform in kind to theirs.
They began by q limitation to the direct trade:
prohibition Of important articles: admission of
certain articles only, and these burthened by
heavy daty, ind an export duty on the articles inn
ported here 10 open our ports by 90 rules reci-
procal," and " with the like privileges" the
President should have, the power Of prohibition,
and should have exercised il their most valuable
staple: the power, not of removing existing duties,
bu, OF imposing additional ones, Of prescribing
regulations for the payment of duties and port
charges, and designating the precise number OF
ports to be opened. equivalent to hers; which pow
ers he did not possess. The President opened the
ports on such terms as, with the best advice and
most mature reflection, lie deemed reciprocal in
effect 1t they were not like privileges, the King
in Council could then have Withdrawn the privi
leses from us, which power he did not exercise.
One important exception was made to terms OF
the proclamation, in which the g. iti-h Minister
required the removal of the discriminating duty
foreign ships. This claim either founded
the law of the Sd of March, 1915, on the last
act, OF the 9th May, 1922. If il was founded on
the former, then no proof was furnished, such as
that law required, to establish the fact g that the
discriminating or countervailing duties, SO far as
they operate to the disadvantage ofthe u S., have
been abolished'' in the West lndia Colonies. The
last act OF Parliament did not abolish any discrm>
mailing or countervail.ng duties; besides, il was
thought that the law of 1875 was inspplicabie,
inasmuch as special provision had been made for
the case of the British West India Colonies in the
last act OF Congress, prescribing new terms, with
regard TO them, adapted to their peculiar condition
and superceding, to them, the act o! 81 March,
1919. The evidence offered was not until the
meeting OF the next Congress, (when that subjec,
was again referred to that bojy,) and was not oil
satisfactory character, and Mr.. Canning declined
piedsing himself or his Government TO any decla-
ra'io'' that there were no discriminating duties in
! the enumerated ports.
lie Jill not make his claim, in the first instance,
under the law of 1915 but under the act of the 9th
May, 1922, which gave the President the power
10 open the ports, =" subject TO such reciprocal
rules and restrictions" as he might prescribe
Alter the publication of the proclamation, d.
rect appeal was made to the President TO remove
under the authority of this act, the discriminating
duty from the British vessels arriving rom the
! colonies, which he refused, because it was not in
the competency Of the President TO remove or re-
peal duties prescribed by an act of Congress-
p'e-existns and independent of any restrictions
| imposed by any law upon the intercourse with the
c"onies, and which could only be revoked by the
au horty by which II was enacted, and in the man
ner prescribed by tie act.
The rules aud restrictions prescribed by the Pres
ident, corresponded, in effect, with the terms OF
the act OF Parliament, bu, there we're discrimina
uons credited by this act uniavoratle to American
prousctIons, such as duty Oh importation, aver
aging lu per cent. and on expectation to the u
Oh per cent duties, not pre-eXisling bu, created
by the same act, which opened the ports, which he
cou'd not counervail or coun,eract by any reel.
proca rules. The exact or even satisfactorv ORR
ua'ion OF the privileges and restrictions coatem-
P'a'ea oy these acts, was matter of extreme diff.
Guilty, and information was Immediately commu-
nicated to the Bri ish Government =. that further
measures would be indispensable on both sides 10
! obtain result satisfactory TO both.'
Ihi. subject submitted 10 CONGRESS- nj ,bc;,
next session, with full explanation of all The dis
| cfepahces OF opinion which had occurred in the
eHecu ION OF the law of the preceding session, and
as that law expired by its own limit alton il began,
neee. Sary to act again.
| On the LIST Of March, 1923. Congress passed an
aci su-pendiDg the acts of 1915 AID 1920. Sc
which opens direct trade with the enumera,.d
British colonial ports, and authorizes The pre,isen,
upon proof that no other higher duties of ton.
mage or Impost, or charges, Sc. uron American
Vesseis, or upon tile goods, wares, and merchants.
imported therein, are exacied than upon British
vessels, or the like goods, wares and merchandise
imported from eIsetohere To Issue his proci Ima,on
declaring that no other or higher duties of tonnage
or impost, or chafges, sc. upon British vessels
coming from the sad ports, or the goods. wares
ana merchandise imported therein, shall be levied
'han on American vessels, or the goods wares and
merchandise imported therein.
This act was passed aduiSediy and ,oifh great
H'dn"'tfy' with perfect knowledge OF The point
In issue between the two countries with ali tho
correspondence on The subject
Til. law niemplaied a mutual ,eneaI of all
discriminating or coun'er' aing duties of any Kind
ittendered removal OF discriminating tlutie. imno
sed by our laws British vessels in this trad. g.
the Tepe7l OF the iinpost duty imposed on or pro
duceby their laws.
efTa
ed and well understood IL was inserted bec,,ee
II was The most apt and expressive word IN NEE,
the case The import OF the word was distinc; Nv
seen oy the British Minister, 10 whom the bill
was submitted on ITS passage The word was in
tended TO mean any other place Than the pIace of
importation, and in contradisiiGclion to any TO.
reign place.
1t will be pecesed, that a. this stage, the two
Governments came fairly to issue The one OFF,,
ing an equalization of duties, by repeating the inn
port duty on one side, AMI removing the alien du
~ on the other, while the other party insists TO
retain Inc |th section imposing duty of importa-
uon, and demands the removal of our duties
Inc act OF Congress opened the direct trade
WIN 'he colonies, with no other inequality than
he discriminating duty We did not ask the repeal
Oh Their dnty OF importation, but proposed if ours
was inconyenicnt, TO remove il, proyided thew ,s
moved theirsj which was matter of strict ms
ice, as, IN the opinion Of the Committee will he
made 10 appear.
Al this stage, the British Government had this
quesnon 10 'heh own hands. They had the right
LIST. To let the trade remain ,vbe,s The IT,, O..
placed 1t. IDLY. To remove these re.,ic,;ons
mutually. Billy To counteryaiI it by another equal
duty. 9lh. 10 open the trade to the res, sf The
world. 9th. To negotiate, and, lastly, to re.ore.
The inteFdct. She refused 10 remove her .utv.
she lalda retalia,ory duty equal to our alien duy
opened her ports TO The sest of The world, and has
excluded ms