Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-02-28

u ena letter OF instructions admonons and directions
are gwen to minister, and repeated once and again.
70 urge ese more party considerations foreign go
vernmen 10 what extent is il probable the writer him
sen VIII be disposed urge them his one thousand OBJ
Pues OF informal intercourse with the agents of that
Government:'
All THIS sir is extremely well expressed; and if the in
referred to, 10 really bear the character which
Wv, e senator has given them, then the condemnation he
u Pronounced, IS strictly just and |, for one, will APP
paud MN Tor his fidelity and rmness The fact how ever
'' Tue instructions are such he has stated remains
" whether they be so not may easily be de-
cueu o reference TO the document itself and TO this
short and proper test Mr. Webster proposes to bring the
question Before he does this however, he undertakes to
state he posture oil that matter 10 which hoy related l. c.
Tue state oil our trade with the British West India Colonies
he men proceeds to give very brief but tho samo
me, very arpl statement of the posture of the sub
JecI here Mr. Butler read Mr.. Websters statement
., 'o circumstances preceding tho appointment Of Mr.
McLane.I Ifths were correct statement il would DO
n 70 ueny the Justice OF some of his animadvc
snail show that it is grossly incorrect. admit that it
does not profess to be minute history Is put forth as
mere outline but single instance of uniaithuness in an
outline. VIII deceive even hannumerous errors i'm
an elaborate work In tho present case there arc several
sueh Instances and some OF them of striking char
taxes the manner in which this subject disposed OF by
the convention OF 1915 On this point no VS.: know
a. oy .e convention OF lslS reciprocity Of intercourse
was established between and Great Britain The ships
Oh ooh countries wero allowed TO pass and from each
other respectively with the cargoes and subject to
the duties But this arrangement did not extend TO
tue British West Indies There our Intercourse ,ras cut
9B Its true, that bv that treaty. the commercial in
tercourse between G. Britain and the United States was
eS'aohshed on Just aud equal terms the ships of both
countries being allowed 10 pass and from zach other re-
specuveiy with the cargoes subject to the same
uuues IS also true, that this arrangement did
tehd 10 tue British Vest Indies; there being an express
stipulation in the treaty. that the intercourse between the
u D. aud the British possessions in the West Indies and
on tho continent of North America should not be affected
by any of its provisions This exception was inserted in
consequence of the peremptory refusal of the British 90
vernment 10 negotiate the subec-a refusal founded
on alrH dot rntn afsAK,f III
regulating this trade by navigation and not by treaty
but 1t Is not true that sour intercourse to the West IN
des oas cut OF by that treaty, by any Of things
then existing. On the contrary then had an inter
course with those Islands, regulated precisely like that
which wo enjoyed before the Ii such an inter-
course as permitted by the acts of Parliament and Or
ders in council then in force Our exports to the British
West Indies and their American colonies amounted in
$50 to 295; in lsl6, to $6,O69soO; in 1877 to
by US on imports from those colonies during the wears
1916 and 1916, exceeded, in the aggregate 5 600
and yet the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
could sayn his place, and it out into the world that
"oT r intercourse u toas cut ct7''
portant Ithas material bearing on the s,bso
quen acts and omissions Of the public servants by whom
he business OF this nation afterwards conducted The
tendency Of Mr. Webster's statement Is TO show that
those acts ard omissions only excusabe but bat
ihey occurred in the f"retaaory measures en-
tered into tho part Of with the view OIL
opening an intercourse from which had been "cuf Off,
by the treaty of 1915 That this assertion is utterly in
correct have already shown andif should extend the
towards Mr. Van Buren,, should be obliged TO add CHAT
he knew, or ought to have known" that it was So
The gentleman who first addressed you, Gen. Dix }
mas gwen, in very correct and lucid manner the gene
raj history oil the colonial trade shall 90 over the
ground that he has occupied but necessary shonIJ
state, that in addition to the practice of regulating i
trade by acts oil Parliament and orders in council another
cardinal feature the British policy was the imposition of
protecting duties American produce imported into their
colonies These protecting duties the British ministers in
ISIS refused to give up and they have adhered and
declared they should adhere, TO this determination Not
outstanding this. Mr. Adams, Secretary of State and
Mr. Clay, as leading member of the House of Rcprcsep
taves undertook the former negotiate and the latter to
drive the British government from the stand the had
Between 1915 and 1929 various of
ed, with the view OF coercing the British government in
to compliance with our demands The nature and
object oil these acts are carefully overlooked by Mr.
Webster; and this is the next material defect in his sum-
mary to which beg leave TO call your attention To COM
pei the British to give up their protecting u
ties alien or discriminating duties imposed and kept
up by u.s. to the great dissatisfaction OF Great Britain But
these did not accomplish the object the act of 1918
corning navigation, and that of 1920 supplementary there
TO- were passed; the effect of which was establish
non-incrcourse in British vessels with all the British
American colonies and to prohibit the introduction into the
United States of all articles product Of these colonies
except that OF each colony imported directly from itself
This state oil things continued until 1922, when the ports
opened by virtue of of Congress and of Para
mcnt suIectto certain restriconsour discriminating l-
ties being still retained hough still objected TO on the other
de with view to the original design of getting rid of tho
protecting duties With further reference This end the
act of the LIST of March, 1929 passed by Congress
elect,
long as those duties kept up in the Colonies our dis
eliminating duties should be exacted; and il provided in
the trade allowed by the British act of 1922 or anv
part OF it, should he prohibited TO by Great Britain that
the President proclaming the fact the acts of 1918 and
1920 before referred TO, should be revived and in full
force. IL is evident from this notice of our legislation
during the period referred to- that il involved claim on
our part to he allowed to participate In this trades without
being subjected to the terms on which it enjoyed by
other nations, and which, in the Judgment of the British
government were fundamental in their nature.--Tbjs
claim also brought forward by Minister'S under
the instructions OF Mr. Adams and Mr. Claws and Is 10
this that Mr.. Van Buren, refers, when he speaks OF the
"eias" and "prefensions up our part but after
wards abandoned by the last administration.
The next event referred 10 by Mr. Webster, Is the r-
fish act OF the 9TH Of July, 1925 Of which he says that it
offered "recprocty as far tSe carrying trade
concerned TO all nations who might choose within
year to accept the Offer" Without stopping to show
that this is not very fair mode OF stating the contents
and effect of this act let look at the which he
gives Tor its non-acceptance by Mr. Adams administrations
The frstis, "bccanse ii neverolcially communca
ted it, BY this the Senator means the public shall I'M
dersand, that the act tnknOUn 10 Mr.. Adams adj
minlstrauon, because not communicated IL he does not
mean this, then the amounts to nothng Tor if they
knew Of the act it all material that should be
officially communicated. Butdid not Mr. Webster know
that IT was not the practice of the two governments COM
municae TO each other, OF eg1ton? Did he not re-
collect that was made known TO Congress at the session
oil iS216 by the message OF the President? That the Bal
timore merchants presented memorial in which they re
fered TO this law, and prayed Congress on il? That
Senator Smith introduced bill on the subject, which was
laid the table by the chiefly, OF the administration
senator's That resolution introduced into the House
OF Representatives, by Mr. Cambrclong. of this State cal
ling on the committee commerce. at the head Of which
was Mr. Newton, supporter Of the administration,
TO report whether II not expcdont TO in under
this act IL Mr. Webster dOcs not kpo,c all this then
has he forgotten what passed under his eyes, during
the session Of 1885 n he does En0C a this what hal
CapdOf nd ia