Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-07-03

omission of ali he British Colonial authorities
70 apaly the act OF Parliament 10 the commerce
Of the Un;ud Statesl was the continuance Of
the benefits Of the then existing state OF things
20 the United States for nearly tUelvemon,h
longer than they would otherwise have enjoyed
IT.
I have shown you. in nv last letter, that this
remark was altogether Irrelevant TO tie matter
in hand. The question is not whether the con-
tinuance OF this state OF things was benetoial
or no, to The United States, bu, whether they
were not fully authorised TO infer from the FACT,
that none Of the British colonial authorities un-
derstood the act Of July s25 TO apply 10 the
Uuited States, that il really was not intended 10
apply 10 them.
You very iudiciously evade the task OF show
ing that this was not fair inference. Instead
Of doing his, you say,
"That continuance was permitted by the Bril-
tish Government, mainly in consideration oil the
then aendeucy IN the Legislature of the United
States, of the resolution hcreinbeiore mention
ed, Tor conforming TO the conditions OF the act
OF 1922
have become weary Of charging you with
he direct uistatement OF important facts.
beg 10 repeat, that j ascrbe it merely to the
haste in which your despatch must have been
written, and 10 sort of proud and gentcc dis
dain Of patient investigation.
You say III. British Government. sanctioned
the conduct o. the colonial governments in per-
hitting thr trade to remain open, on account q
ssihe tendency Of the resolution herelnbefore
mentioned.
have show1 you that no sach resolution as
YOU describe was ever moved IN either House oil
Congress: but let lha, pass.
report, or Gen. Smiths bill might insist
that YOU refer to the last, because that is the
only ON Of the three 10 which the word "rejec-
tion," in any se4ss, opplies and that bill was re-
ported as late as April 10Th.
But | Will adopt the suppOstion, most favor
able 10 you, that when you speak of the ''reso-
luton rejected you refer 10 Mr. Cambreeng's,
which, however. was not cjecied, but adopted
without opposition His resolution was not
moved til January 25th. You could not well
have heard Of it ill February 25,h. Your or
tcrs in conss quence, could not have rea he'd
America till March 25th, aud in allowing bu,
Sky days for the exchange OF intelligence in
mid winter, involving deiIbcration of your go
vernment upon it, l certainly snake an allow
ance most liberal toward you.
Now on the 23d OF January. IN other words,
more than two months before orders could pos
siby have come from England. founded on Mr.
Cambreeng's re soution, t,co days before that re
W
at Halifax. on lie representation Of the British In
specior General, re, oked the order excluding our
commerce from that port.
And yet you leave il to be inferred that this
revocation took place in consequence of the
tendency Of the resolution
Here must make long extract from your
letter, but my comments on il shall be proper
tionably short:
"lmmedia:ely upon the receipt of anthestic
intelligence OF these proceedings al Washing
ton, an instruction was sent out 10 Mr. Vaughan,
grounded on the belief Of the British Govern
ment, that Congress would not separate with
out adopting the resolution then under their
consideration. In that case, AID upon receiv-
ing an assurance from the American Govern
ment that the restrictions and charges on Bril-
tish shipping and British colonial produce,
would be Withdrawn by the United States, Mr..
Vaughan was authorised to delvera note TO the
American Secretary Of State, declarng-that
the discriminating duties imposed upon Anne.
rican ships and their cargocs in the West In
dies should Immediately cease. Mr.. Vaughan
was actually in possession Of this Instruction,
when the resolution, on the assumed adoption
oi which the instruction TO MIR Vaughan had
been founded, was rejected. ii was no part Of
Mr.. Vaaghan's duty 10 make any communica-
ton upon the subject TO the American govern
men,, before the result Of the discussion was
ascertained. After the result wholly (unexpec,-
cd in this country any such communication
would have been no, only useless, but might
perhaps have been considered as an improper
appeal against the formal decision OF the Ame-
rican Legislature"
So subily is the web Of arguments alton woven,
that nothing but the closest attention will suf-
fce TO unfold il, The reader, who will bu,
yield me this attention, will not, trust, regret
IT,
On hearing tina, there was a bill before The
Senate TO repeal the discriminating duly, tfor
that is what you refer to, though you confnund
il with resolution which was Lio,ed in the
house three months before) the British Govern