Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-02-11
77--7---@------
THE COLONIAL TRADE

we have not yet seen any OF the Speeches delivered by
the friends oil the administration, in reply Messrs Web
er Clay Frelinghuysen, &c., the subject of the est
India Trade negotiation. We doubt not, however that
they examined the question cridcay-and refued ably
me assumptions OF those speakers in defence of them
selves and their political friends with regard TO their for
mer conduct in this matter Ample materials for power
iui retort may be found in the documents ACCOMMODATING
special message of President Adams 10 CONGRESS- ri
April 2Sth 1925 consisting OF the correspondence
Messrs Clay, Gallatin, &C., the one side and Mr.
Canning and Lord Dudley tho other. We shall cite
few instances.
Mr. ciSy ""d HE Ge"i ~ the Ia,e i.ae.oa GIRO
nuousy that one Of the prominent causes of the deav Of
the late administration accept the terms of the acy ~
Parliament of July 1926 was the confident expectation
that the subject be settled bv neoof;ot;o,, avJ
i1ng me tendency OF the celebrated bill introduced bv
General Smith in 1926, it stated in debate ON The an
.hoy oil inc then administrations that negotiations were
heh Pe"a"s as reason for opposing it. What however
were the facts! The negotiations were suspendeJ in
turing Mr. Rushs ministry To England and one of the
unhcuues which causad the suspension was this very
question oil the preference for negotiation or legsotion
Mr. king was substituted in 1925 and received mo in;
sTnenons on this subject The negotiations therefore
could not have been revived bv him HAVING no, ro1
ceiyed any directions from Mr. CLAW on The sn m
Ject' ne did not OF introduce the subject at all
0 Mo mere ahe only passage relied by the apoogsts
oi Mr LAY TO shew that the s'negotiaton" was vel
pending Is line in one OF the communications of Mr.
vaughan The British minister Washington to the Secre
y OF state dated March 22d 1926, in which he states
ma. ne was directed to inform the American Government
that "he negotiations tciH fortsuih be resumed
uch stress was laid in the late debate upon this express
sion to shew that negotiations on This subject were II; fac,
iPendnS. The whole argument is defeated bv Mr.
Gaatins own statement, contained in his letter 10 Mr.
tanning, dated 18th December 1926, in which he
cey states that his negotiation excluded from the
phrase, and that negotiations pending and of course a,
ded TO by Mr. Vaughan, related the St Peersburrb
conVenlon,-and that his (AIr Kincss) instructions On
other subjects forwarded to him This 49,, -
completely confirmed by another part of the same docu
meht IN which Mr. Galatin states that on his appoint
meh as minister to England "the duty of reneicine the
negotiations devovcd on him" Now as Mr. King had
not been instructed at all the rene,caI spoken of must
have referred the period of Mr. Rushs failure in is9s
hear bafa
ana consequently from 1S2ito December 1926 no neeoia
tons were pending. This then out of the mouth of
July, 1925, TO December 1926 TO communicac viii H.
British Government did in fact proceed from the
TO winch his apoogsts assigned it the tendency of ne
gouauons,--but was deliberate gec of his dnv In
ac so lar from there being any negotiation ON foot when
Mr. Galatn proposed in December 1925 10 renew ,bo
discussion he was informed by Mr. Canning that the Brit
ISL Government was sat loss 10 UNDERSTAND tbe rounds
oil his belief that the negotiation would be renewed AT ali
Another subject of great complaint with Mr. CLAY and
mat tins administration authorised their agents
10 INFORM The British Government, that the claim of ~ ghf
on our part had been abandoned by the late
ana was renewed by the presentand hercupon the Claw
men ring long and doleu peal of charges on the aban
donmen of "rights the degradation of recoving
favors-'' priyilcgcs'-'' boom" &C. from FOREIGN na
uos ne very men who had embarrassed our comuni
cauon win Great Britain that could not advance with
out injury or error, camorous at the prudence and ms
tee which retrevcs their Here again the docu
cn are conclusive TO their rcaton of these pretences
for opposition.
"YOu will inquire directs Mr. Clay under date of ,,,b
April 1877, in Offering The terms he had neglected 10 ac
ccPt when offered in 1920 whether, if Congress sod
pass law 10 the above effect the order in Council of uIv
last VIII be revoked, the discriminating duties operating 10
the disadvantage of vessels in the British Cooni, po
VIII be abolished; and vessels SUFFERED IN cniov
the PkiN lLEGES of trade and intercourse according H
the emctments OF the act Of Parliament Of july 1925
Pursuant TO this suggestions Mr. Gaaiin on the 17fb of
August made the offer and accompanied by the follow
ing rcmarks - Wv '"O"
"Thc effect Of This will be TO leave Great B
tam IN the exclusive possession Of The circuou tr,d M
tween the United Kingdom and the United States tbro
the Brush colonies. an The provisions in former ocfs
OF the american Government, which had been dce,ncd
by that of His Majesty will ficrchs |
he ItEPEALED The condition contemplated bv fl,e ac
OF Parliament, IL IS understood will be fulfilled
Euey obstacle cieh hal heretofore prepenfeG nm ar
rangemeHt, 'ooud, DHis was stH subject of egofia
ton, beremored." . S
And in his letter to Mr. Clay. dated October. Is2zhe
mentions an interview with the British Minister in which
me used the following words:
al said that EVERY QUESTION of RIGHT had. on
Ibis occasion, been waived the part of tic United
Satcs'
Has MIR. Clay forgotten these things, or other does Inc
hinS that others have forgottenl-Bdif. Rep.
The ANT1-MAsoNIc Convection of the State sfl
Connecticut which recently met at Hartford nominated
ticket OF PTesideHfidI Eociws-of course favorable 70
Mr.. Writ. They are Mcssrs. Calvin Barber John IIol