Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 182?-183?, 1832-02-17

IL mas Deen already stated that the negoli-
a'iono mr.. Rush, embracing The precise colon
ial clam under Considerations, was suspend
ed in 1924, with an understanding between
The two governments that il was TO be re-
sumed on all points, at some future conve-
nlent period. Early in July, 1925, neither
government having then proposed resump-
ton OF the negotiation, the British Parlia-
ment passed an act TO regulate the colonial
trade with foreign Powers. This act was
never, during the late administration either
at London or Washington, officially com
municated by the British 10 the American
government; and we only obtained il through
other channels. Now, if it had been the
purpose of the British government, by the
passage of that act, TO withdraw The colonial
question from the negotiation, it ought 10
nave communicated that purpose TO this go
eminent, and, at the same time, the act of
Parliament, us supplanting and substituting
The negotiation. But it never did commu-
nicate such purpose. The act itself did not
specifically embrace the United States, and
offered terms which, upon the face Of the act,
IT was impossible Tor the United States, 10
accede 10. 1t required, for example, that 10
entitie Powers, not possessing colonies, to
the benefit of the act, they must place the
| navigation and commerce Of G.. Britain upon
the footing ofthe most fduored nation. To
have done this, would have admitted British
shipping TO import into the United States, ON
the same conditions with native shipping, the
productonsot any quarter ofthe globe, Nth
"ht reciprocal liberty on the part ofthe ship
pihg 81 the Z. States an British ports The
act Itself was differently construed in differ
emf colonial ports Of Great Britain; and an
order of the local government of Halifax,
closing that port against our We ssels from the
oih OIL January, was subsequently revoked:
| iherehv confirming the impression that the
act OF Parliament was not intended TO dis
pense with The previous negotiation And
TO conclude this part ofthe narrative, as late
as the 2Oth October, 1926, MIR. Vaughan,
The British Minister, upon being interrogat-
ed ny The then Secretary State, was total
ly uninstructed TO afford any information as
to the meaning or intent of the act of july,
1925. ''
Mean time, in March, 1926, more than
SIX months after thepassage of the act of Par
lament, Mr.. Vaughan, notified the Depart
ment OF State, that he had "receiyed instruc-
'tlons from his Majesty's Government 10
acqualnt you that 1t is prepared to proceed
Ito the important negotiations between that
country and the United States now placed
"ln the hands OF the American Minister, in
"London. " = s'The negotiations
"will therefore be forthwith resumed =
Here the negotiations were spoken Of with
out exception of the colonial question, the
most important ofthem. Hit had been intend
ed TO withdraw that: no time could have been
more suitable 10 announce that intention
but no such annunciation was made. Mr..
Vaughan was Informed that we also would
prepare Tor the negotiation, (including, of
course, the colonial question, } and MIR. Gal
! polt
with full powers and Instructions, amicably
| to settle that question. On his arrival in
England, in the summer of 1929, he was told
by the British government that they would
not negotiate on the colonial question that
they had made up their mind from the pas
sage of the act of July, 1925, not TO negoti-
ate about it ; and he was informed by the sar
castle Mr.. Canning, that as we have failed
TO accept the BOON, which the British gov
eminent had then offered, we were then too
late!
Such is the state ofthe case on which the
late Secretary of State so authoritatively
pronounces judgment against his own gov
eminent for 'omitting to accept the terms
'offered by the act of Parliament OF July,
1925" He adds, indeed, CATER the subject
"had been brought before Congress, and de-
"liberately acted upon by our own govern
hiSht ~ was congress
in the session of 1856, not at the instance of
the American Executive, but upon the spon-
taneous and ill-judged motion of the gentle
man from Maryland, (Mr. Smith, } and MIR. I
Gallatin was informed that if the bill pro-
posed by that gentleman had been passed,
it would have been unsatisfactory to the
British government.
have another objection 10 this nomina- :
ton. Ibelieve upon circumstances which
satisfy my mind, that to this gentleman is /
principally 10 be ascribed the introduction of
the 0dious system of prescription for the ex- |
ercise of the elective franchise, in the gov /!
eminent OF the u. States. understand that !
it is the system on which the party in his !
own State, Of which he is the reputed head. /
constantly acts He was amongst the first |
Of the Secretaries toapply that system 10 !
the dismission of Clerks in his Department.
known 10 me TO he highly meriorious. and /
among them one WHO'S now Representative |
in the other House. it is detesiable system |
drawn from the worst periods of the Roman J
Republic and if il were to be perpeiuated
if the Offices, honors and dignlies of the ,
people we're TO he put up for scramble, TO !
be decided by the result of every Presiden- |
tial election, our government and institu-
tons, becoming intolerable, would finally |
end in despotiSm as intolerable as that at !
Cons; antinople.
Sir, The necessity under which we are pIac-
ed is painful. But il is no fault of the SEN
ate, whose consent and advice are required BY !
the Constitution to consummate this appoint !
meni, that the Minister had been sent out Of |
the U. ,. without their concurrence. hope |