Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1832-03-08

for claims Of American citizens on Co
lombia the Brazils, Denmark, Swedcn,t
and Russia. In respect TO the indcmni-
! ty from Russia, ! request permission Of
the Senate to relate an anecdote which
reflects so much honor upon the late En-
pcror Alexander Baron Maltz beiug
one day in the Department Of S,nte, ]
casually observed to him that thought
the Russian Government had not treat
!, cd Us well respecting that claim; that it
had been repeatedly during long course
ofyears, brought before that government; ;
that We could get no answer to our rep
reservations; and that we were at least
entitled to decision one way or the 9TH
or. He communicated this conversation
to his Government; the Emperor Alex
ander, as | was subsequently informed,
sent for the papers, personally inspected
them himself, and directed the payment
of the claim. 1t was accordingly adjust
cd and settled by Baron TuyIl and myscif
by an exchange Of diplomatic notes.
Il The gentleman from Georgia contends
that the late Administration submitted to
ndignitics from the British Government, !,
and that it repeatedly knocked at the
door ofthe British minister at london,to
renew the negotiation, without gaining
ken. After the refusal of Mr. Canning
to treat Of the colonial intercourse, an ell
aborate despatch was on the lth Nov.
| 1896, transmitted to Mr.. Gallatin, con-
tanning a vindication of the whole course
of our Government, in which, without re-
taliating on Mr.. Canning's sarcasm. the
honor, good faith, and character of our
government are maintained, whether with
ability or not it does not become me to
pronounce. In that despatch Mr.. Gal
latin is told: "What may be the nature
of the proposals which you were author
lied to make, upon the renewal OF the
negotiation so confidently antici pated, it
is not now proper should be communlca-
, ted to tie British Respect
for OuiSelres, not less than for that Gov
ernment, forbids that we should obtrude
upon their consideration proposals against
which they have deemed il proper to shut
! their ears" Mr.. Barbour succeeded
| Mr.. Gallatin; but he was not, according
to my recollection Of his instructions,
| charged with any renewal OF the nego-
/ tiation. No man was ever more tcna-
! cious Of the honor of his country than the
! late President, and he would have been
the last to have authorized a degrading
or derogatory solicitation to renew the
negotiation. 1t is alleged that he fore
bore for long time to issue his Procla-
nation intcrdicting British vessels, COM
ing from the colonial ports, an entry into
/ our ports The situation of that admin
istration was peculiar. During great
part of it, the opposition had the malori-
ty in Congress. AT the session of 1886
Congress had taken up the subject Of the
! colonial intercourse, although it failed TO
pass a law. In the despatch to Mr.. Gal
! latin, already cited, he was informed that
the whole matter would be communlca-
! ted to Congress. 1t was communicated
at the session 1861. Could the Pres
ident with propriety have issued his pro-
clamation during that session? Shortly
after its close, Congress having omit
ted to legislate in respect to the colonial
trade, the President, without hesitation,
issued his proclamation i'll conformity with
the existing laws.
H The gentleman from Georgia further
contended that the withdrawal or walv-
er of the demand, on the part of the late
Administration, of the admission OF our
produce into the British West Indies, on
the same footing with similar produce
from the British Colonial Continental
ports, was equivalent to the abandonment
! of the prctension made by the present adj
ministration; and that it was mere DIFF
ference of diplomatic phraseology. fut
| cannot agree with the gentleman
The Withdrawal or waiver of the demand,
was concession, the operation of which
would have been temporary limited to the
duration of the treaty, in which 1t was
! expected the negotiation would termln-
ate. Upon the expiration OF the treaty,
the right would have been revived, and
might have been insisted on In future
negotiations. Moreover, it was expect
|, cd that equivalents would have been OBJ
) tanned, and especially some provision for
our trade on the st. Lawrence and the
Sorrcl. But when the demand is aban-
r doncd, as an unsustalnable prcfenS'on,
when our Government is denounced for
having brought forward such preten-
sion, and too long and too tenaciously
clung TO it, how can we ever hereafter
assert it2 With what face can an Amer
. lean ncgotiator again put forward the de-
mand2 1t could only be done by follow
ing the bad example of one adlnnistra.
ton disavowing to a foreign Government
the acts of its predecessor.
The more reflect upon these instruc-