The Litchfield County post., 1829-01-22
I.HTrERM.

encourage domestic manntaCtW0s'
 additionally lodged m CongrcSs' tn "'s 4
 scrvations then made was involved tue "l," ion that the power was PT"Pe''! n. . ,I:o cd. As this last oF'n'"" a,,.,. th.. ,harr ar, causes tn which the power may he ,.ssIi,lly exercised by Congress, the only bodv with our political system capanle "t ex- ercising it with effect, you may think It in- cnmbent un me tO point Uui cas"s Uiailht des' criptiOn.
 1 will premise that cote IL in the "pinion that, as a general ruie, individuals ought tO toe deemed the best judges nf the best appIica- ton of their industry and resources.
 am ready {" admit, Iso, that there Is n" country ir which the application may wIth more safety, be left tO the intelligence and enterprise of individuals, than the UnIted States.
 Finally, shall not deny, that, in all doubt f, cases, il becomes every Government to lean rather to q confidence in the Judgment ofild;viirals than to interpretations cOutroIl ing the free exercise of 1t.
 With all these concessions, l think it can be satisfactorily shown, tkat there are cXcrp tions to the general rule, now expressed by the phrase " Let us alone,"s forming cases which call for interpretations of the competent authority ,and which are not inconsistent with tnc SeNefaHty OI tne rue.
 l. The theory of $ Let us alone," suppos- es that all nations concurin perfect freedom of commercial intercourse. Were this the case, they would, in commercial view, be but one nation, as much as the several dis tricts composing particular nation; and the theory would be as applicable to the latter, as to the former. But the golden age of free trade has not yet arriveds nor is there d si,;- crlo Eat hoc fho N.> ton can, indeed, safely do so, until rccip- rocity. at least, be ensured to it. Take Cur proof, the familiar case of the navigation employed in a foreign commerce. If a na- ton. adhering to the rule of never interposing countervailing protection of vessels, admits foreign vessels into its ports free of duty whilst its own vessels are subject to duty in foreign pOrt,, the ruinous effect is so obvious, that the warmest advocate for inc theory in ques- ton must shrink from universal application oft.
 A nation leaving its foreign trade, in all ca ses, to regulate itself might soon find it regu- lated, by other nations, in subsery yiency to a foreign interest. In the interval between the peace of 178S, and the establishment of the present constitution of the United States, the want of general authority to regulate trade is known to have had this consequence. And . have not the pretensions and policy latlerly exhibited by Great Britain, given warning to n like result from d renuncatiOn of all cOun- tefyaing regulations on the part of the Uni ted States? Were she permitted by confer ring on certain portions of her domain the name of colonies, to open from these trade for herself, to foreign countries, and to ex- clude at the same time, a reciprocal trade to such colonies, by foreign countries, the use to be made of the monopoly need not be tra- ced. Its character will be placed in a just relief, by supposing that one of the colonial islands, instead of it's present distance. hap pened to be in the vicinity of Great Britain i; or that one of the islands in that vicinity, should receive the name and be regarded in the light of a colony with the peculiar privil- eges claimed for colonies. Is it not manifest. that, in this case, the favored island might be made the sole medium of the commercial in- tercourse with foreign nations, ,and the parent country thence enjoy every essential advan- tage, as to the terms of it, which would flow from an unreciprocal trade from her other ports, with other nations
 Fortunately, the British claims, however speciousy cOored or adroitly managed, were .repelled at the commencement of our com mercial career as an independent people, and { at successive epOchs under the existing con ' stituti0n, in legislative discussions and in di- 'pomatic negotiations. The claims were re- pelled on the solid ground that the colonial trade, as rightful monopoly, was limited to the intercourse between the parent country and its colo lies, and between one colony and another; the whole being, strictly in the na- tnre of a coasting trade from one to another port of the same nation; trade with which no other nation has right to interfere. It follows of necessity, that the parent country, whenever it opens colonial port for direct trade to foreign country, departs, itself from the principle of colonial monopoly. and enti- ties the foreign country to the same recipro- city, in every respect. as in it's intercourse with any other ports of the nation.
 This is comraon sense and common right. It is still more, if more could be required. It is in conformity with the established usage of all nations, other than Great Britain. which has colonies. Some of those nations are known to adhere to the monopoly of their colonial trade, with all their rigour and constancy which its circumstances permit.- But it is also known, that whenever, & from whatever cause, it has been found necessary or expedient to open their colonial ports to a foreign trade. the rule of reciprocity in favor of the foreign party. was not refused, nor is it believed, right to refuse it pretended.
 It cannot be said that the reciprocity was dictated by deficiency of the commercial marine, Erancu nt laar1 c,,,lj mt he,