Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-06-30
From the United States Gazette
THE HON. LOUIS McLANE,
AND THE BRITISH WEST INDIA TRAD

No. VI
The session of Congress of 1861 being the second
IN the period of Mr.. Adams administrations passed
away also without the adoption of any decisive mea-
of legislation.
The instructions of Mr.. Clay to Mr.. Gallatn, and
the correspondence OF Mr. Gallatin with Mr. Canninr
the correspondence also of Mr.. Clay with Mr. Van
ghan and the order of council closing the British colo
MAI ports were all laid before congress, witha recon-
nendatlon OF the whole subject their attention and
suggestion that congress should proceed in the mat
ter with single view, to the best interests of Amer
/ commerce.
a report from the committee of commerce in tho
house Il representatives. and another from the similar
colttee of the senate both sustained fully the coure
winch lad been taken by the executive Bills BEING
introduced into each house, fully discussed and
that OF the senate was passed and sent the lower
house, for concurrence.
Amendments being made, in which the senate re-
fused to concur, the bill failed, on the day Lef.re the
close of the session. ~
Itwas afterwards asccrtaned that the BILL either a
passed by the senate, or amended by the house
would not have been considered satisfactory bv the
British ministry The difference between the schemes
OF the two houses not material to he prnc;nIas
involved but related chiefly to the overland trade with
Canada. ~
In the of the discussions, nothing was said
against the positions taken by Mr.. Clay in his insruc
TONS to Mr.. Gallatin; but Gen. Smith, (the senator
from Maryland) who had led the previous effort to re-
peal the discriminating duties expressly disayoed
intention to censure the administrations and declared
distinctly that the omission to the British pro
Posa comprised in their law of July s. 1895 had bcrp
the omission of congress entirely
In the same year. the death of Mr.. CANNING and
accession OF new ministry in England, gave occasion
to Mr. Gailatln to enquire of the new secretary for
foreign affairs, whether the British government wonId
now meet the advance of the American If an act of
congress should be passed, removing the nterdict on
eur part, sc.
The answer of lord Dudley was that the British oo
vernmen could not say they would be satisfied with ann
act of Congress that could be passed. that would
depend the details of the act and the actuaI cond
ton and disposition of Great Britain at the moment
and finally, that no reply would be given to such en-
qulrles' because any stipulation the subject would
be departure from the determination of the British
government, not 10 make this business AGAIN tho OH
Ject of negotiation.
The actual intcrdct our part, upon British YES
sells, coming from the interdcted ports followed as
matter OF course under the provisions of the act of
1925 which congress not being chosen to repeal If
was the duty of the executive to carry into effect.
At the meeting of.congress, in December 1927 tho
following view of the subject was presented in the nre
sident's message: F
''At the commencement of the last session of Con.
gress they were informed of the sudden and
exclusion, by the British Government of access in
vessels OF the u States to all thoir colonial ports ex
cePt those immediately bordering upon our own terri
torles. IN the amlcabe discussions which have s,,c
ceedcd the adoption of this measure which 40 II az
fected harshly the interests of the IT, States became
SUBJECT Oh exPostulaon on part, the principles upon
whch us Justification has been placed have been of
d'reTSUfed character. 1t has been once ascribed 10
mere recurrence to the old long established principle f
colonial monopoly, and at the time to feelinr of
resentment because the offers of an Act of ParI,ent
opening the colonial ports upon certain conditone b
not been grasPed at with sufficient ca perness bv am in
Simultaneous conformity to them At a SUBSEQUENT nc
loo II mas been intimated that the new exclusion was
~ resentment because prior Act of Parliament of
opening certain colonial ports under heavy and
ourhensome res ricions vessels of the u States
had not been reciprOcatcd by admission Of British
vessels from the colonies, and thsr cargoes militant
any restriction or discrimination whatever Bu no the
u'O'We Tor the introduction what il may the British Co
Vernment have manifested no disposition either bv
hegociation, or by corresponding, Legislative enact
nents, torecede from it, and we have been riven die
mcty to understand, that neither Of the bills which
were under the consideration of Congress- at their
last session. would have been deemed sufficient in their
concessions to be remarked by any relaxation from the
British interdict."
1T becomes not the scEfcspcct of the United States
eIer 70 solicit gratuitous fvors or to accept as the
grant 81 tauoT, that for which an ample equivalent is
Hacedit remains to be determined By the respective
governments whether the trade shall be opened by acts
OF reciprocal legislation It's, in tho time satis-
factory to know that, apart from the Inconvenience
resulting from disturbance Of the usual channels of
trade no oss has been sustained by the commerce. the
navigation the revenue Of the United States and
none Of magnitude is to be apprehcnded from this exis
ting state of mutual interdict."
As The British government pcrscvorCd in the detcrni
nation o Nj Canning not to negotiate; and rs con.