The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-06-16

that there ever should have been causes TO warrant
separations; and we greye that when that separation
was effected, the family relations between both
countries were not established upon more just pm
ciples and more kindly feelings. Unfortunately,
wisdom did not peryade the councils OF either Eng
land or America upon the subject OF International
trade during so favorable an opportunity as the
peace of 1883 for establishing the foundation of a
commercial system between England and America,
which must have attained an unexamped magnl'
tude-a trade and navigation which would have
formed~l urable bonds Of friendship and Of peace,
which he reciprocal interests of the people Of the
one and Of the other country would render too
powerful for any government TO violate.
In justice to Mr.. Pitt, we must absolye him from
any shaTe of iberslty in regard to such COM
mercial intercourse with the United States.
In March, 1883, he brought into Parliament
bill for the temporary regulation OF this inter-
course.
BY this bill vessels belonging to the citizens OF
the United States 10 be admitted into the ports
Of the West India islands with goods or merehan-
disc Of American growth or produce; and they were
to be permitted TO export TO the United States any
merchandise or goods whatever, subject only to the
same duties and charges as if they had been the
property of British natural-born subjects, and had
been exported and imported in British vessels.
Violent opposition was made TO this bill by the
British shipping interest," headed by Lord Shefieidl
and the Pitt administration being soon after dis
solved, the bill itself was laid aside, and the power
Of regulating the commercial intercourse between
the two countries was, by the succeeding admins
traton, lodged with the king and council by or
ders in council, soon after issued, "AmerIcan vest
sells were entirely excluded from the British West
Indies and some of the staple productions of the
United Sates-partcularly fish, beef, pork, butter,
lard, &c-were not permitted to be carried there,
even in British bottoms"
But we must admit that, If there were an absence
of Nyfaal
general, as well as in each State government there
was manifested In the policy of England far more
lamentabe spirit. When Mr., Adams, the United
States minister at the court Of ST. James, proposed,
IN 1875, to place the navigation and trade between all
the domlnlOns Of the crown OF England and all the
territories of the United States Of America, upon
basis of perfect and liberal reciprocity this generous
proposal was not only positively rejected, but he
was given to understand that no other would be en-
tertained. Instead of acting wisely, and scornlng
an offer which would have been so beneficial TO the
empire, 1t by strong sovereign will decreed that
the full of stringsncy provided for in the
navigation act should be extended to the ships, the
trade and the citizens Of the United States.
In consequence of this wrelched policy on the
part of the then sovereign and ministers of England
the government and Congress Of the United States,
on the adoption of the constitution, passed also
navigation act which, as regards British trade and
shipping, contained the provisions as the nav
lgutlOn law Of England.
In 1885, tariff OF duties on foreign goods was
imposed, upon the principle of creating, maintaining,
and protecting domestic manufactures.
As a revenue tariff, this tariff was based on an
utter disregard Of fixed principles. 1t may be said
TO have been continued until 1916; meantime, what
was the conduct Of the government
Foreign countries always complained of the Brit
sh navigation laws; but during the war, the circum
stances detailed in the first part Of this article
dered any countervang legislation, on the part Of
European nations, of little injury to British trade or
shipping This circumstance did not, however,
apply to the maritime and commercial relations be-
tween the British empire and the United States Of
America. These considerations led finally to the
adoption of the reciprocity system, which was first
argued and advocated, as well as the system of
counteryailing and protective duties by the cele-
brated Alexander Hamilton.
In the American navigation laws countervailing
duties were imposed upon all foreign vessels trading
the United States of half dollar per duty be-
yond what should at any time be paid by American
ships, (the duty was soon after doubleday and fur
Their, that goods imported in foreign vessels should
pay duty of ten per cent. over and above what
payable on the same description of goods when
imported in American vessels.
These countervailing duties were directed against
the navigation of Great Britain, and grounded on
the same principles as the British navigation laws
Various measures to counteract the American sys-
tenn were devised by the British government, and
they failed upon the principle of our continuing to
maintain in full force the navigation laws To all
intelligent men it became evident that we had en-
gagged in an unequal struggle, and that the real effect
of our policy was to give a bounty on the importa-
ton of the manufactured goods of other countries
into the United States, TO the gradual exclusion both
of our manufactures and ships from the ports of
America. By a commercial treaty agreed upon be-
tween Great Britain and the United States in 1915,
it stipulated that in future equal charges should
be imposed on the ships of either country in the
ports of the other, and that equal duties should be
laid upon all articles the produce Of the country
imported into the other, whether such importation
were effected in the ships of the one or the other;
and further, that higher duties should be levied
upon the produce Of manufactures OF the one the
other than upon the produce manufactures of the
most favored nation.
This is usually considered the first English reci-
procIty treaty; but such is not the fact Our early
treaties with Spain and Denmark were reciprocity
treaties in the trade with which countries England
however, had always contrved to obtain the chief
advantages.
The Americans continue to complain that as far
as the British colonial trade is open to them al
though the letter Of the treaty is extended to them
that the full principle of reciprocity is not faithfully
Observed; inasmuch as British ship can carry a
full cargo, or part of cargo, from British to a
colonial por-discharge the whole part thereof
there, then proceed reladen to any port in the United
States, and from thence carry cargo from the
United States to any other part of the world a
British ship may sail with cargo in the first in
stance from British possession to the United States;
then with another cargo to port in the United
States-there reade, and then proceed to any
part of the world; while American ship can only
import a cargo direct from the United States to a
British port; and although an American ship may
relade in England, and sail to any foreign port, it
cannot sail from England to any British possessions
-lhe East Indian teri eYrpDtpu
We admit this legal inequality, and arc convinced
that 1t could be for The interest Of both nations 10 place
NE trade Of every port in he United States and every
port Of The British empire for The ships Of both countries
upon the fooing Of an unrestricted coasting trade.
There is no one could deny the immense increase
Of the carrying trade which, under liberal tariff,
would follow. The shipping of both countries, in
stead of being injured, would benefit by such
truly great measure. If the countries constituting
the United States had continued to this day British
possessions, this would have been the present state
Of the trade and naygl alton between those countries
and every other part of the British empire To deny
this would be the same as saying it would be wise
policy to place the navigation between