Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-05-18

to carry one article OF that cargo, or OF any other
foreign merchandise, to the West Indies, nor to
transport any thing from the colonies to Great Bri-
tain.
| How far this advantage may enable our rival TO
ovcrpower our navigation, In u competition for the
direct trade remains to be developed by experience
If the result should be decisive i'm their favor and
their navigation monoPolizc the whole directly,
they may not exercise the power they possess to
force il through other channels; for, their object
! will have been attained. They can try this expert
nicnt with safety for if they do not succeed re.
may be had To their full power of substituting
! the circuitous transportation.
The quantity of forcign goods which would be
shipped TO the British West Indies. in an open
| commerce., is not uncomfortable. The actual
amount cannot be accurately aimed by reason
of past restrictions and embarrassments. TO the
Danish islands sent alien mere handize, in the
year 1929, to the value of S2S2, I0l, and in 1880,
! of 1920, 1913; and to Cuba, in the same years.
81 $50 ,626; and 81 ,i77,G15 to which Island, the
amount, in other years, has considerably exceeded
two millions. What apology does ncgotiator
offer for yielding this discrimination in favor of
British ships? HcSays, al am not aware, that the
restriction of the right OF importation into the
colonies, to articles of American produce, was at
any period seriously objected to by our Govern
mcnt." True, sir, provided British vessels
! also restricted. We have uniformly insisted upon
equality in navgation-the vessels of both to he
confined To the same commodities; and the British
have not, in our former ncrotiat lions, had the cf.
roncry TO ask for this gross and palpable PARTIAL
~ in c:vor of their navigation. In the ncgotia.
tons of 1918, at the fifth conference, they offered
project, stipuatmg, that British and American
vessels should have equal rights of importation
from the United States into the West India
Islands, and combining both to the same articles
/ the produce and Manufacture of the United
States. Our envoy osght to have understood, that
II Was not the restriction of ships to goods
merely, hut the greater liberty allowed to the Bri.
ish tie Injurious difference that should earnest
~ resist. AS matter of fixed principle, we should
never, Tor, an instant, tolerate an invIaious dis
tinction i'll favor of foreign against our own
flag.
| But our ncgoiator thought otherwise. He says,
that 'hc difference, in this respect, between tho
| American and British vessels" if we allow it TO
continue, "cannot he object of much import
ance in any point of view" at will generally
be our interest, it is that of every other nation,
| to allow the expectation Of its surplus foreign
produce in the vessels of any other country
! Ayc?-and ts confnc such exports to foreign bot
toms, in exclusion of our own? Is this for our
interest And is it not still more for our in,crcs,
/ to send our produce to a market, than that of
! foreigners, and of course to consent, that alien
ships alone should transport III What a concep-
ton does this exhibit of the great navigating inter
est OF the country and of the spirit and object of
our whole dcbcnturc system! Why do wc cncou.
! rage the importation and expectation of foreign
goods by the benefit of drawback? Is it not TO give
employment to our navigators, ship owners, and
! merchants?
! But, sir, the gravcst the most solemn ground of
complaint agains, this discrimination in favor of
| British vessels still remains. 1t is tho
Iio'aiisn of the Act Of Congress Of 1880.
By the first section, the President is authorized
/ to issue his proclamation, repeating acts of
| 1918, 1920, and 1929, and opening our ports upon
certain conditions, and upon those conditions only
| One of them is in these words:-'That the vessels
OF the United States may import into the said colo
nal possessions, from the United States, any ar
tclc or articles, which could be imported in Bri-
tish vessels into the said possessions, from the
United States"
Now, sir SO far from there being any evidence
mat an American could import every article
which British vessel might, the proof was plcn-
airy, all well know that the whole class
of foreign goods are prohibited in the former, and
allowed TO the latter
Here is the law and here stands the fact. In
gcnuly cannot cvadc, and doubt whether etfront-
| cry can deny, their ncompat5ility.
This modification of the act, this executive repeal
OF one of It's clear and positive provisions, has been
called construction! And let us see the reasons
which have been assigned for such a stretch of
power. will examine them all. They arc cmbo-
died in the Presidents Message of Jan. 1881, in
which he says he does not suppose 'that the Omis-
SION to restrict, in terms, the imporatons 10 the
productions of the country to which the vessels
respectively belong, was Intentional" for three rca-
sons.
Here, it seems, the President was advised that
there was omission in the act, and he untcr COX
to supply 1t by imposing restriction which confess
|
this assumption of legislative power. First, that
this enactment is Inconsistent with 'thc PROPOSE
tons previously made by this government, to that
OF q. Britain and ,.hich before Congress at
the time OF the passage of the act" The fact Of
snch inconsistency does not exist; but suppose it
did. Is it to be tolerated that, if we make law n,
variance with presidential recommendations, and
send 1t TO him t. be executed, he shall alter, chpngc
and modify, till 1T conforms TO his prc-cXst-
! ing views? Why might he not as well have made
| without W,y
propositions here, If Congress not to be suppos-
| ed capable OF dissenting from them7
lhc second reason Is, that it is ut variance with
"the principles which govern the maritime legisa-
ton OF the two countries" What! requiring that
our vessels should not be subject TO an injurious
distinction In aid of the foreign, incompatible with
former laws, when we all know the object and aim
OF all those enactmens were to give advantages to
our over their rivals! And there is not in orr
whole history, single enactment that counicnan-
ccS THU partality to alien ships. But if there were
could we never change it? And if the National
Legislature should pass act to destroy previous
inequality, is the President to refuse to execute it,
because it is new law? But is it not i'll accord
ance with British legislation! Indeed! and is an
American Chief Magistrate to make statute of the
American Congress bend and break before an act
of the Imperial Parliament These two reasons,
if reasons they be called, arc the same as were
ass gncd by MIR. McLane to the late Secretary of
State.
But the writer of the message had discovered
another, entirely new, that had even occur
red 10 our ncgotiator. 1t is, that this enactment,
to the transportation to tho w. l., is inconsst-
cnt with 'the provisions of the existing CONNER
cial treaty" with England! That convention not
only does not embrace any part Of the colonial
trade, but, i'll express terms, wholly excludes it.f
But suppose the fact were otherwise. The Prcsi-
dent is authorized 10 issue his proclamatious when
certain condition shall have been previously per-
formed, nc thinks such performance incompatible
with treaty. What is he to dot issue his proca-