Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-12-11

THE American, has already broken ground. 1t pei
ceives something alarming in the rapid growth OF on
trade with Canada, and hints at restrictions. The con
plant is, that by exercising "the right of the mothe
country to the exclusive trade or regulation of trade wit
her colonies" and by importing the produce of the U
S. through the channel of the ST. Lawrence, Great Br
tain is destroying all reciprocity in the commerce be
tween the two countries. 1t ascribes the origin G
this want of reciprocity to Mr.. Van Buren,, who, a
il alleges sssacrifccd the West India trnde." A cor
respondent, in our paper Of Saturday, has satisfactorily
refuted this charge; but we must add a further motto
of the celebrated diplomatic controversy of Mr.. Ad
ANS, about The word which for so man.
wears entirely suspended our intercourse with The Bri
fish islands. In 1913 the British government propose
to open this trade TO US on fair terms. The first propo
sition was connected with an article on the trade Will
the Indians, but ministers subsequently proposed I
treat separately. Had Messrs. Gallatin and Rush bee
properly instructed by MIR. Adams, this treaty woul
have been made in 1918. The latter gentleman, had
however, made the important discovery, that the Bri
fish islands were not, commercially, a portion OF tn
British empire; and had determined that unless we coul'
participate in the carrying trade between the colonle
and the mother country, he would not accept a ton .
The direct trade with her islands. A war of res Rr;.
tions was accordingly commenced, to force GrrrIon;a.
tain 10 allow US 10 carry the produce of her -:
TO her own ports-the word 'else where" = ~ sa
tuted by Mr.. Adams for "foreign count5iss; g. we,
by our own legislation, put an end ton Mr.. Galln,;"
We en5Uyt ~ Emoiand hS Mp 2Sd,ms, that clear headed
statesman saw at once the fow G. H. sorn
and persuaded the latter TO a's"ou" y nc noooy
he had been vainly endcs.o,hs - sPu. vi m say
e ye a w. ~ iad;. %ade on the terms offered by Great
R-;,a;n ~ 1919. The British Government declined
namo,;a,;nr upon the ground that we had refused their
nreno.sls sid voluntarily prohibited the trade by our
~ op Iays; and that, since then, a trade had grown up
'"H - ;bofr islands and pnf,op IN tho North nF Et.
rone, of whose maritime strength they had no fears
cen. Jackson succeeded Mr.. Adams. and, under in
~structions from MIR. Van Buren,, Nj. McLane concIud-
ed the treaty on the basis proposed by Mr.. Gallatin.-
The American says:
at is now some eighteen years since, in The columns Of this
paper, we Insisted upon the right Of the United States to the free
navigation Of the 81. Lawrence"
II was probably owing TO the arguments of that as-
tute journal, that Mr.. Huskisson was induced to reduce
the imposts in Canada 10 mere nominal rates; to declare
her, commercially, almost independent of Great Brl-
tain, and to make the st. Lawrence a free channel for
the produce Of the United States. AS he could not by
statute remove the rocks, shoals and rapids OF the st.
Lawrence, and enable our sloops and schooners 10 pass
directly from the lakes to the Atlantic, he natlonalIzed
our products; and that portion which the Canadians
might not require for their own consumption ne allow
ed them to export as their own whittier they pleased,
even 10 the mother country: thus granting 10 the Hour,
wheat, &c. of the United States, the privilege oil entry
in violation of the corn-laws-a privilege not enjoyed
by the productions of any other country. And tins Is the
trade, which the American would destroy,
because we cannot participate in The carrying trade be.
tween the colonies and the mother country. That journal
insists on an entrepot at Quebec for that purpose and
would revive the principle contended for by Mr.. Adams,
that American vessels and cargoes should, in every
colonial port, enjoy all the privileges OF British vessels,
and be authorized to trade, as they do, from colony, to
colony and between their colonial possessions and Great
Britain.
Before we resort 10 any such experiments, let US in.
-. -. r. - I.,o oontrtbpTab Inv 0pr otup p1ao
sures. to aid Great Britain in swelling the current of
trade down The ST. Lawrence. Why did we not open,
for the trade Of Upper Canada, an outlet through our
own channels to the Atlantic, while our adversary
was sagaclously removing every obstruction 10 the pas
sage Of our productions through theirs: The people
of both countries-on both sides of Lake Ontario
ten thousand Canadians in one year pettioned Con-
press to aa,horize the transit of produce and mer-
chandise 10 and fro, between Upper Canada and the
ocean, through our New York channels OF trade, yet
nothing was done. We damned up this channel at
both ends, by heavy duties ct New York and Oswego,
refused the benefit of drawback on expectation
from either port. While the British government al
our produce to 90 free, as its own, through Ca.
prohibited the passage Oft ton OF their pro-
duce or merchandise through our territory, and now we
complain of want Of reciprocity! What right have
we to complain, when we are obviously charging the
commerce of our ~neighbors by refusing 10 them an out
let through our channels of trade Our remedy is
plain Let US retaliate by adopting their liberal poll
cy-let us remove every obstruction to this transit
trade. Let US take their produce abroad, and bring
them their returns in our own vessels, and we shall care
little for an empty en,repot at Quebec, or for the priv.
lego now enjoyed by our neighbors, of carrying our
grain into the consumption Of Great Britain, in viola
ton of her long-cherished Corn Laws. If the farmers
of Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana,
and other Western States, can find a market in that d.
rection for a portion of their grain, they will be able to
make larger purchases of supplies, and thus encourage
nm Atlantic navigation. In opening such a trade Tor
our neighbors, we need not fear the introduction of the
mother country. Any such attempt to restrict the
trade through the most expeditions outlet 10 the ocean,
would be promptly and eifectually resisted by the Up.
per Canadians. In any event, we have nothing TO gain
on either side by a war of restrictions.