The Arkansas advocate., 1831-01-05

term of one year, but renewed from year to year. In the transportation ot these productions, however, our vessels were not allowed to engage; this being a privilege reserved to british shipping, by which alone our produce could be taken to the islands, and theirs brought touS in return. From Newfoundland and her continental possessions, all our productions, as we'll as our vessels, were excluded, with occasional relaxations, by which, in seasons of distress, the for mer were admitted in British bottoms.
 By the treaty of l794, she offered to concede to us, for a limited time, the right of carrying to her West India possessions, in eur vessels not exceeding seventy tons burden, and upon the same terms as British vessels, any production of the United States which British yes sels might importthereirom. But this privilege was coupled with conditions which are supposed to have led to its rejection by the Senate: that Is, that A. merican vessels should land their return cargoes in the United States only; and moreover, that they should, during the continuanceof the privilege, be preclud- Cd from carrying molasses, sugar, ,cocoa, or cotton, either from those islands or from the United States, 10 any other part of the world. Great Britain req diiy consented to expunge this article from that treaty; and subsequent at temPts to arrange the terms ofthe trade, either by treaty stipulations, orconcert- ed legislation, having failed, 1t has been succcssiycly suspended and allowed, according to the varying legislation of the parties.
 The foIlowingare the prominentpoints which have, in late years, separated the two Governments. Besides a res friction, whereby atl importations into her colonies in American vessels are confined to our own products carried hence, q restriction to which 1t does not appear that We have ever objected, a leading objecton the part of C. Britain has been to prevent us from becoming the carriersot British ". 1. commodities to any other country than our own. On the part of the United States, it has been contended, 1. That the subject should bc regulated by treaty stipula- tions in preference to separate legisla- ton; I'd. That our productions, when imported into the colonies in question. should not be subject to higher duties than the productions of themother coun- try, CT ot her other colonial possessions: And, 5d. That our vessels should be allowed to participate in the circuitous trade between the United States and different parts of the British dominions.
 The hrstpoint, after having been. for long time strenuously insisted upon by U. Britain, was given up by the act of Parliament of July, 1895; ali vessels sui iered to trade with the colonies being permitted to clear from thence with a. ny articles which British vessels mighf export; and proceed to any part of the world, Great Britain and her dependen- cies alone excepted. Onourpart, each of the above points had, in succession. been explicitly abandoned in negocia- tions preceding that of which the result is now announced.
 This arrangement secures to the IT. States every advantage asked by them. and which the state of the negotiation allowed us to insist upon. The trade will be placed upon footing decidedly more favorable to this country than any on which it ever stood; and our com merce and navigation will enjoy, in the colonial ports of Great Britain, every privilege allowed to other nations.
 That the prosperity of the country, so far as 1t depends on this trade, will be greatly promoted by the new ar rangement, there can be no doubt. h. dependeutly of the more obvious ad. vantages of an open and direct inter- course3 it's establishment will be attend ed with other consequences of a higher value. That which has been carried on since the mutual intefdict under all the expense and inconvenience unavoid- ably Incident to it, would have been un- avoidably oneroas, had 1t not been, in a great degree frightened by concerted e. vaslons in the mode of making the tran shipments at what are called the neutral ports. These indireetions are inconsist- ent wlththe dignity of nations that have so many motives, notonly to cherish feel ings of mutual friendship, but to main- tain such relations as will stimulate their
 -t:-- l