The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-04-04

and 10 ask for the same enlarged intercourse which We
had with these nations But Portugal preferred TO Keep
The direct trade placing herself win those nations which
bad denied the indirect trade, or the transportation
OF foreign produce III vessels from the place Oh It's
growth 10 their ports. -
right BY treaties bring into our ports IN Their vessels
the produce OF foreign nations, from the places OF Their
production. upon the terms that our own vessels
may import them The act exemptng eonee from Duly.
when brought American vessels direct from the place
OF its growth when brought by foreign vessels en-
titled by reciprocal treaties 10 be exempt IRON discrinna-
ling duties tonnage, and other charges, has plain ~
ention and certain application. lis Terms are no Longer
doubtful No room Is lett for interpretation The ma
tons which il applies are ksown Il would indeed,
be a very wide construction 10 include other nations
under The act with which the United States has such
reciprocity either by mutual legislation by treaties, II
different application oil Inc act Is made y opeAs trade
10 porls in the article OF coffee in foreign vessels
which those nations deny TO The United STATES lhe ac
Itself shows careful consideration OF our carry ing trade
of thai article Reciprocity is what the United States
had desired in that particular Ii cannot be supposed
that Congress meant TO disregard 1t, or that was mad
yereny done that for some unavowed and indiscov-
cradle reason, Congress has permitted Tor
egn vessels 10 bring into cur ports from the place oil lis
growth manufacture, merchandise duty lee, oniy
because we have treaties with The nations 10 when
they belong abollshing duties OF tonnage ana ,pof
charges Such an Interpretation OF the act oil Juiy
1916, INVOLVES departure from a point IN our CON-
meicial system which has never been Yielded 10 any
compensaling advantage has been gained by DOING 70,
which was supposed be The with our treaty with
ducement The plaintiff in relies upon the "a ar
Gle OF The treaty with Portugal in connexion with the
tariff act OF Jnly, 1916, and upon nothing else lhey 40
mol avail for his purpose The suggestion that such
Interpretation may be given 10 the act because might
have been the intention to give the consumption OF coffee
duty free to the people OF The United States IS not at all
probable II surrenders principle more imporant-one
upon which the United States has invariably acted-no 10
grant indirect trade TO ports TO any nation by which
II is not reciprocated.
Our conclusion in this case afms what has been the
unvaryng policy OF the United States since they began
nallon their commercial intercourse with other ma
tons lis effects upon own interests have been bene
nclai; It's influence upon other nations has been ut-
mately decisive and successful
Perhaps it is not too much to say--however much the
changed political and productive condition OF nations,
daring the last half century, may have aided in liberal
iZDg navigation between lhem-that II would not have
been what it is, il II had not been Tor the stand
taken by the United States, in respect navigation and
commerce, early 1855, which has been kept ever
since. Its basis 10 ask for exclusive privileges
and TO grant none-to offer to all nations and 10 ask
from them that entire reciprocity OF navigation which
is made by each carIin 10 the other, in their
sells, their own productions and those OF all nations,
without regard TO the places from which they may be
shipped upon the same terms, both to vessels and
caIgoes The vessels OF each nation may take them TO
their ports. One great object has been produce
such relations, either by corresponding legislation BY
treaties The latter being preferred legislative liberty
to trade, is too vague and uncertain to 10 nation
all the advantages OF It's own commercial condition.
Thirty years, however, passed before proposals made
any impression upon the restricted navigation system of
Europe, and then only partially During all that time,
vessels could only take 10 the countries with which
we traded heproduclions OF the United States Even
that could not be done 10 many OF the ports and colonies
OF other nations Repeated efforts were made 10 get for
our vessels larger carrying trade by offers 10 AL
lions OF the same reciprocity.
II may be said as ii has been that our liberal views
forced upon the United States by the necessities OF
their commercial condonsat The close oil the revolu-
'ionaIy war. 1t may be so but the remark admits the
restraints that were upon navigation between nations,
and cannot be denied ha, the application OF them the
United States brought its appropriate wisdom
Our views upon commerce and navigation were part
and parcel OF the intellect and spirit OF our men OF that
day-made what II was by the great events in which
they had borne their parts. and the difficulties which they
were to be overcome before their country would be
pu, upon commercial equality With Other nations. The
trade which the States colonies had been allowed
with the other colonies Of England off by our
separation; that with the mother country subjec-
ed TO the rigid exclusions OF the Sd section OF the
CATION act OF Charles H. chapter H. The English sys
TEN, too respect to navigation had been adopted by
the other nations OF Europe with very slight exceptions
i which can scarcely be said 10 have been Telaxalons
Heavy duties were laid upon our vessels and their
by all OF them The trade and navigation of the United
States with all paris OF the world altogether perms-
sIvesuch each nation chose 10 allow upon lis
terms Our treaty spuallons al that time with France
the Netheands and Sweden were not exceptions OF any
value. The only benefit from them was that the
merce and navigation OF the United States should be
burdened more that that of any other foreign nation
With Great Britain, Spain, Portugal and Denmark thu IRE
was not even that reciprocity In such state of things
the United States began their a nation. How
changed our condition now
our commerce were promulgated The State
papers OF that day As early 1855 Mr. John Adams,
then representing the United States England proposed
recprocaion OF trade IN the produce and manufacture
OF both nations, and IN foreign produce in the vessels
oil each, upon The same terms and duties the
and their caTgoes as national vessels might pay His
proposals were rejected, with refusal to make any
mercla treaty with The United States. Mr. Adams SAYS
in letter TO Mr. Jay. dated London els, October 1855
his being the state OF things you may depend upon it
The commerce OF America will have relief present
or,oin my opinion, ever, until the United States shall
nave generally passed navigation acts III this measure
not adopted shall be derded, and the more we suffer
The more will our calamities be laughed at My mos,
earnest exhoratpn 10 the States then is and ought 10
be, TO lose no time in passing such acts" The temper
oil the lines concerning navigation and gene
rally, and that Of the United States especially, bad
been previously shown in Parliament by its rejection of
MI Pits bill "to permit vessels belonging TO citizens of
The United States 10 20 into the ports OF the West India
islands, with goods merchandise of American origin
and TO export to the United States any Merchandise or
charges as If they had been the property of British na,u
raj born subjects and had been exported and imported in
British vessels" Afterwards American vessels were al
together excluded from the British Yves, Indies and The
staple productions OF the United States could not be car
ried there even in British vessels
The exhor,aion Of Mr.. Adams had been d,sregarded
BY most OF the States Some Of them adopted his recon-
menda,ions but as others refused TO coneur they were
The statesmen of England knew that il
would not be generally done by the States and thought
rightly, too that as Congress had not The power by
the articles of confederation to pass national counter
vailing restrictions, England might trade with some
OF the States directly, and through those indirectly
truly said in reply offers 10 negotiate tina, in
coniedeacy OF States. without plenary power regulate
their trade and navigation conlointly il would be difficult
70 make and TO exercise treaty commercial arrangements