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

Jsrred to British bottoms. by e srsaitous route
And if she has this power over the transmission
of our cotton to England; she has the same as 10
tobacco, rice. and all our exports to all her do
minions; tho transportation of which NAV and if
unressted will be engrosscd by foreign ships: and
the imports also. For she may with the same pro-
prcty by discriminating export duties impose bur
dcns NJ the direct transmission to the United
States in our vessels. leaving them free to British
bottoms through her colonies.
Here the important question arises, can this be
rightiully done by Great Britain, or is il incom
patiblc with the commercial convention, which
regulates the trade between this country and her
European dominions? confess that to me it an
pears 10 he inconsistent with fair j. lust expos;ton
of that instrument. But it seems that she does no,
so regard ii. She claims the power, and it does not
appear that this administration has ever denied that
she possesses it,
her prctcnsons that she asserted the right TO make
these determinations; and yet, in this import mt
arrangement, allowing her vessels TO clear from the
United States for tho colonies, he provides no SC
curty onters ne protest, suggests caveat against
ITS exercise: but, on the contrary, acqucsccs in n
general reservation, by Lord Aberdeen, of a right
in his Government thereafter, to chance the con
di'ion OF the commercial intercourse between the
United States and Great Britain, SO as to rondrr If
less favorable to this country.
Ihis part OF The arrangement merits deliberate
attention. The law of 1880 peremptorily rcuuircd
OF the Executive, that agreement respecting
"leaving the commercial intercourse of the United
states with all other parts of the British donini-
ons or provinces, on footing not less favorable 10
the United States than it now is."-But, says the
Ehstsh munster, we will make no stipulation to
continue that intercourse favorable as il now is
on the contary, expressly reserve TO my Govern
mcnt The liberty OF introducing changes mt plea
sure, however unpropitious to the United States
dad TO This Mr.. McLdne assenied.
Now, sir, suppose the British Government have
already, shall hereafter avail themselves of this
restriction, and place tho other intercourse upon IA
footing less favorable TO the United Statcs.-Thc
question ariscs-is the ARRANGEMENT still in force?
-Does 1t continue obligatory?-If so-thcn it
subsists IN VIOLATION OF ANOTHER POSITIVE ENACT
MENT OF THE STATUTE. If motif the exercise of
the right thus reserved by Great Britain dissolves
the contract then this boasted agreement is render
cd nullity, by placing it's existence at The mere
'cill Of oar opponent.
The statute of 1880 vested i'll the Executive large
discretionary powers, with the design that they
should be prudcntly husbandcd, and employed only
Tor the advancement of the interest of our country
ms cad of which he seems to have exhausted Tho
whole at once, and not contentcd with that-tron.
seconded their limits, in accordance with the views
OF our rival Lord Aberdeen is INDUCED in all his
constructions, as he is pleased to dcnomnatc them
permitted to mould at pleasure, not only the En-
ghSh statute, but our own act of Congress- His
every rcquisition is submitted to without reserve
-no' even Nmltaiion caution, Il counter sug-
gestlon OF any sort IL intcrposcd in our behalf
There is one defence set up by this adminstra-
ton OF the terms of this contract which deserves
passing notice; it is, that they arc the same
which were proposed by their Immediate prede-
cessors. Yes, after having loaded them with abuse
Frustrated them by calumnies, driven them by
canor from their stations; their opinions are now
quoted; their example is relied upon; refuge and
defence are now sought under the broad and ample
shield OF their integrity and ability. This then is
the nigh blown merit of this boosted achievement
that it is the adoption of work prepared by 9TH
ers, who have been made the victims of political
denuncation. But even this defence is without
foundation. II is true that Mr.. McLane's original
propositions were subst antally the Same as those
authorized by Mr.. Adams, but it is also true, that
they were never accepted, and that the final agree
ment is essentially variant. To put this matter at
rest, will point out in what particulars.
The offer of Mr.. Adams renewed by his sue
ccssor, was that upon certain conditions We should
have the full benefit of tho act of Parliament of
the 5h July 1925, which established among other
things, these two most important points:
LIST. limitation and specification of the duties
upon our produce.
I'd. An equaHsation Of them in the direct and
crcu,fOus uoydge. Both of which essential points
are Internationally surrendered in the final adjust
ment. Lord Aberdeen having, in the most express
ana reiterated language, asscnted to by our Min
lister, reserved 10 his government the right to in
crease, diminish, alter and vary the schedule of
du les dd Lib,tun,
That MIR McLane understood that his original
propositions would secure the benefit of those re-
srictcd and equal impos' s. is certain In his LET .
ter OF the 10Th of March, he says that they en-
brace "lhc scale of duties prescribed by the act of
1879" And In subsequent communication that
the negotiation Will result in of three modes
the two last of which tho revocation of the
british order, either ''upon the terms of my pro-
position Or" "with some increase of the duties
imposed by the act of Parliament of 1926 to favor
their northern provinces" And the recent cor
respondcnce laid before the Senate yesterday con-
tains pcnary and conclusive evidence that such
were his original views.
There is third difference. Mr. Claws offer en-
braccd the benefits of the of Parliament accor-
ding to his understanding of its provisions-as
communicated to our minister-which was that
orr vessels might import from the United States
into the Colonies every thing which the British
could; and if Mr. Gallatin had assented to any
compact, it must have embraced this construction
Indeed 1t was never suggested during the last add
ministraion that any disparity, in this respect,
could be tolerated for moment. Yet, now tho
whole class of foreign productions arc free to Bri
fish, land prohibited to American vessels.
NoTE.-Since the above was pronounced the
President has by message communicated to the So
nate letter from Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Barbour,
dated on the Goth OF JAM lS29-hy which it an.
pears that the latter had protested against such
determinations as incompatible with the CONNER
clal Convention, but the former had insisted that
there was no such incompatblity and that the Bii.
tsh Government had the right to institute and per-