Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1859-07-25

Coasting Trade of the United States.

Coasting Trade of the United States.
In the British House of Commons. on tn"
9th inst, Mr.. ID. Seymour rose to ask whe-
Their the American government regarded the
trade hy sea between New York and Calit"r-
MIA rs a c"asting trade, when the goods are
unshpped AT ASpnwall and carried across
the lsthmns of Panama to be rcshippcd for
California and. if 81. whether ii WAS pro-
posed by Her Majesty's government to ;.d
dress any remnnstrancc upon the subject To
the government ut Washington! The hon
orable member said that since he had gwen
notice of his question, he had heard that an
other carg" had been seized. upon the ground
of All inlraction Of the cO;lstiug trade oi the
United States.
Mr. Wilson was sorry to say hr was IN
formed that the cargo of another British YES
sci, consisting of guan", had been seiAed
upon Ms WAY from one port IL another oil the
ports Of the United States, which WAS an III
fraction Of the treaty between the two coun-
tries. The question WAS one Ot great lmp"r-
tance To the shipping interest. and, III the
present state of that interest. 1t drH"lsed
upon the House and the government t" take
special care that the existing arrangements
rird ont. Ii would be- rrcolcrted that the
understanding with the lntrd States, which
WAS rmbndird in Il correspondence between
the English Minister at Washington ana the
Secretary of State for the United States was
that the whole of the privileges conferred 10y
, the laws of Great Britain upon ships I'll the
United States. should be conferred upon
British ships BY the United States, except ~
regarded the coasting trade. \ very large
and expansive meaning was attached by the
United States Ia the term ''c"asting trade
for they made it include the trade from the
east coast Of America from New York and
New Orleans round Cape Horn to California.
on the other side of the continent.
lie did not, at the present moment, contend
that they were not technically right III that
Interpretation. because by the law OF ISL
the roasting trade was declared to be the
trade from one port of the lnItrd States to
another, ~ that ii vessel were chartered
from one port in the United States t" all
other, in one continuous voyage, 1t might he
contended, by IN extreme application ol the
term. that it came under the definition ol the
"consting trade" 1t WAS urged by the Uni
ted States that &; similar state of things pre-
vailed in Europe. and that when Il vessel
made voyage from liuvre to Marsclllrs, al
thuugha part Of Portugal and Spain inter
yenrd, vet that she was engaged III the coast
ing trade 1t was, therefore, contrnded that
the question was one of degree, and not "l
principle Admitting this. he must say that
To cunstrur rs coming within the definition
Of the coasting trndr. Il cargo sent from New
York or New Orleans to A>pinwall, unshiP-
ped there carried aRrnss the l-thmus. re-
shipped ON the other sldr and sent Ia Cali
turniu, would br. both Technically and ~
spirit. Incorrect: that WAS, however. I'll"
general representation oi The snip owners
Ia consequence OF the representations made
Ia the Board Of Trade, they had applied t"
the British Consul ut San Francisco, vii"
now hurrrued To bc in this country. As IT
present advised, he should he d'sp"Srd t"
say that The English shlp-owners were under
a mistake and that Il could not be construed
~ !, rnasting trade if gods from one port III
th,. United States were landed "n one side al
the l,thmu~, conveyed Ia the other, and re
shipped 10 California. However. /" Order
that nn mistake should arse, AMI IL hy The
increased facilities al communication m'r"SS
the Isthnns it WAS prubnblr that almost all
the shipments for California would l'c con
,eyrd across the l,ihmus, the matter ht-
came one of the greatest Importance. HE
l. ,ard of Trade bad, therefore, called lhr
attention of Lord Lyons t" the subject, w,th
the intention ul obtaining satisfactory SET
tlrment al this question.