« PreviousContinue »
FEB. 21, 1827.]
The Colonial Trade Bill.
hend, be rejected, without hesitation, by Great Britain. sponds much of the letter of the Secretary of State to Tbe President would not think himself authorized to Mr. Gallatin. It has, therefore, high authority. With. negotiate beyond the letter of the law. Why should out intending any offence, and sincerely hoping that I we ask to be admitted into all the little outports for will give none, I mean to make a few observations on the coasts or islands? Are they of such importance some of its parts. I feel myself authorized to do so, beas to endanger the object we have in view ? What cause they seem to aim a blow at some of the observacan be the object? I can see none, unless it be for our tions I had made on a former occasion. I do not know vessels to go into the little creeks an'l harbors, to that they were so intended; but my correspondents inbarter with the planters and their slaves, and thus avoid sist that they are, and that I am bound to answer them the payment of either the import or export duties. Ithat my own character calls loudly on me to sustain my-, have been informed that such a trade has been carried on self. I have another call, which I shall notice if I do not with the connivance of the planters, especially in the forget. I declare; with sincerity, that I have no hostility island of Trinidad. I trust the Senate will never consent to the Administration. But, when a member of this, or to a system with a view to such an object. I am inclined to any other Administration, presses himself forward, in any think that no nation permits foreign vessels to enter any way, direct or indirect, to attack me, I cannot submit, port or harbor other than those where custom-houses are and must and will defend myself. In the 3d page, the Reestablished. The period, Mr. President, 'until the 30th port says-" They, (the British) began by a liinitation to September, is too short. It will not give time for the the direct tradeprohibition of important articles, adBritish Ministry to asemble and consider the subject. It'mission of certain articles only, and then burthened by is well known that they are out of London during the “a heavy duty, and an export duty on the articles imSummer months, dispersed, and at their country seats. “ported here.” This is a response. The trade was liA few months can do us no harm, and I would be un mited to a direct trade, to and from, by the act of 1822. Willing to lessen the chance of success by not granting to Well, sir, had we ever asked more? If we had never our own Administration, and to our Minister in London, asked for more, what right had we to expect more? Imtime sufficient for effectuating the object. What loss portant articles prohibited. This is speaking in the genshould we sustain? None, except the carrying trade eral. I like to come to particulars, and the Committee for a few months. I should scarcely think a Senator onght, in justice, to have given them. What are they? would act a friendly or fair part to the Administration, Pork, beef, fish, and the other productions of the sea. who would refuse the time which will be indispensably Now it so happens, that we have prohibited by our duties necessary. There is a discrepancy in the bill ; but that all those very articles. Beef and pork were, at the time could easily be rectified. I have one other objection to we levied those high duties, imported from Ireland. Our the bill. It carries on its face a threat, which is always ports were filled with fish from Newfoundland and Nova offensive, and which can do no manner of good. It may Scotia, and so careful were we of the intercst of the fishdo harm by wounding the pride of the person or nation eries, that we not only levied excessive duties, but refus. to which it is applied.
ed the right of drawback to the fish imported, on being The Senate will pardon me for the time I shall take in exported. At the last session I presented a memorial making a few reinarks on the Report. I shall do so in a from the merchants of Baltimore. They represented that spirit of the highest respect and personal esteem I have the British cured fish were much better than ours, and for the Chairman. lle has told us that the Report is be more valued in the South American States. That they fore the Senate in a printed form, and subject to any re- wanted them to make up assorted cargoes. It was remarks that may be made on it. The Chairman also told | ported against hy the Committee of Commerce ; and I do us, when he reported the bill, that the whole were his not believe that we would agree to repeal our prohibitory own : that neither had been shown either to Mr. Adams duties, if Great Britain would consent to the admission of or to Mr. Clay. I sincerely wish that they had been subo all the probibited articles into their Colonies. I am cermitted to their consideration : for, although we all know tain we would not repeal the duty on fish, and other prothat the Report is the act of a respectable Committee of ductions of the sea. All New England would protest the Senate, yet abroad it will be looked at as the act of against it; and I do not know that I would give my conthe Government : and for another reason ; that I have sent to the repeal. At present I would not. Then what good cause to doubt whether it would have been appror right had we to complain that those articles are prohibit, ed by the President. I think-and I have good reason to ed, and that the British will not consent to their admisthink that the President was really desirous that a con- sion into their islands ? When we do complain, let us ciliatory course should be pursued. Is the Report of that have ground for our complaint. Same page—“An ex: character. I think it is far, very far, from conciliatory. “port duty on the articles imported here." I have alIt appears to me calculated to would the pride and feel ready shown that there was no export duty whatever on ings of the adverse party. For many pages it is filled with any article, by the act of 1822 ; and, on another occasion, crimination and recrimination, wholly gratuitous, and not I showed, that there was no export duty, except that le. called for by the occasion. I never knew any good arise vied in the reign of George III. which could originally he from insulting the pride of an individual or Nation. We paid by British subjects only, but which we had of course are a proud Nation-and deservedly so: and we feel sen. to pay, as well as they, when permitted to trade with the sibly the satirical and sarcastic observations in Mr. Can. Colonies, and of which we have not a shadow of right to Ting's letter to Mr. Gallatin. We all think so; and shall complain. Page 6 of the report" When she asked a we follow a precedent that we disapprove? I have read “repeal of our discriminating duties, we required, as a the Report with attention. It appears to me like those“ fair equivalent, the repeal of their import duty."-Yes, papers called manifestoes, issued by Nations, accompa. Mr. President, we did so; and a very silly demand it was. nied by a declaration of war, to justify the Government to So silly that the present Administration have wisely rethe Nation and the world for going to war. I had hoped linquished it. Page 12 of the report "These laws, that a bill would have been presented without a report, “[1825) were framed with a view to her general trade. and that the Chairman would, in his place, have given us " It was not known to be a tender of the fixed laws of her the views of the Committee. His Speech would have “trade. It was not thought to contain a 'sine qua non."" been his own view, and could not have been considered By whom was it not thought ? For myself, and others as the deliberate act of the Administration. I repeat, with whom I conversed, we considered those laws as a that it will be so considered abroad, although we know " sine qua non." We reasoned thus ; that, where at. bat it is not. I find, Mr. President, that the Report re.' tempts to settle the question by negotiation having failed,
The Colonial Trade Bill.
[Feb, 21, 1827.
the Parliament had determined to fix irrevocably the phatically, that it is no loss to the merchants, and there. ground on which their Colonies should be open to the fore we may abandon it without a sigh. But, Mr. Presiworld, and no one has doubted their right to do so. We dent, I cannot perceive that we ought, from that cause, ourselves have always admitted that right. It cannot be to deprive the great farming interest of the United States denied. The terms offered were liberal, we all aclmitted of their best customer. I have a great respect for the that they were so ; that we were perfectly satisfied with merchants, but I have a higher charge than their immedi. them. And why, then, did we not accept them? I have ate interest. Of that they require no guardian. All they already answered that question-because Congress had want is, that Congress will leave them to their own judg not time to act. If the committee mean to divide the cen- ment and exertions. The trade, as I shall show, is deeply sure, it is with them. Do they mean to insinuate that it interesting to the farmers, and I dare not, will not, risk is necessary to justify the Administration? The com- the sacrifice of their interest, because it may not be promittee justify us all by saying, page 12—“Those laws fitable to the merchants, of which respectable body of “ were notified to us as containing the British ultima citizens I have been one for half a century. I perceive “tums." I frankly confess, that I did not expect, or that the committee mean to give us great comfort, when conceive, that negotiation would be refused : for Great they tell us of the depressed state of the British Colonies, Britain bad negotiated often on the subject ; and on that thereby insinuating that they cannot exist without us. point Mr. Canning assumed that which was incorrect in That argument, I had supposed, was one that induced the point of fact. I thought, at the time, and said to my late Order of Council. The Ministry meant by it to friends, that I figured to myself the first interview be show that they could do without us-and, possibly, they tween Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Canning. The subject being may. But, vir. President, the trade is mutually benefiopened by Mr. G. I thought Mr. C. would say, Well, Mr. cial, and ought not to be lost. Each may do without it; G. there is our law-take it-draft your convention, and but certainly much better by having it an open free trade. we will signit. And I could not help pitying Mr. G. for the We can supply all their wants on better terms, and awkward situation in which he would be placed. I had of better quality, than any other nation and their cus no idea that Canning would alter a word of the law. Itom will be highly advantageous to the farming inteunderstand, by the Report, that it was wished to connect rest of our country. A trade so mutually beneficial ought this subject with others, and with profound diplomacy not to be lost, if it can be avoided ; and I feel disposed to contend for a little while, but give it up with apparent re- hope that a spirit of conciliation on our part may open the luctance, that we might thereby get another point in con- trade. Great Britain ought to remember that we are her troversy., I had before had that idea presented to me, best, her very best customer, with whom she ought to wish and gravely too-but I had no idea that such men as Can. to be on the best terms. The report dwells on our great ning and Huskisson were to be taken in by such a laugha- magnanimity throughout all our discussions on this subject. ble attempt. I am no diplomatist ; but, sir, I think I could The British also talk of theirs. Magnanimity! I see none on have seen through such a flimsy veil. Page 13, it is said : either side. I can only, throughout, perceive a desire to « The subject was brought before the Senate at the last make the best bargain. It is a mere business of pounds, "session, and that a majority of the Senate disapproved shillings, and pence, on the one side, and of dollars and o the bill, believing it better to trust the subject to pend. cents on the other. No nation, no wise nation, ever ought “ing negotiation." Is this really the fact? If so, Mr. to show its magnanimity by a sacrifice of its interest-and Canning was right, when he said it had been rejected.” none will. We ought not to expect, in a business of this 1, however, had thought it otherwise-and I think the kind, any thing more than that which will be mutually Senate will concur with me : for we all know that the beneficial. Ifit be not so, the agreement will not, cansubject was re.committted, with instructions to bring in not last long. A nation may mistake its interest. It will a bill, such as was reported, by an overwhelming majo- soon find the error, and break the compact as soon as rity ; and that, all will agree, was the only vote that test possible. Nations will only be bound to each other so cd the opinions of the Senate. When I attempted to call long as their interests have been preserved to each other, up the bill, I failed by a majority of one or two, and the and no longer. It only remains for me to say, that either reason given to me by several of the Senators was, that the Report ought not to have been made, or, if made, to there was not time to act upon it. That a majority of the have been followed up with a bill declaring an immediate Senate was in its favor, I do know, and that it would interdict. There was no middle course after such a Report. have passed it we had had time. “The instructions given I consider myself now called on to examine some parts " to Mr. Gallatin," (I agree with the Report,) “were of the instructions from Mr. Clay to Mr. Gallatin. They "fair and liberal.” They confirmed precisely what the are on our tables are public documents and fair obBritish Government had proposed in their law and injects for examination. Indeed, Mr. President, I consider the instructions we conceded all we had ever claimed, myself as particularly invited to take a view of that docuand we were perfectly right in so doing. Page 17—“All ment, by the writer; and I will examine it in the way I " the merchants concur in the opinion that the tra:le was may think it merits. I will be excused from entering in
not profitable." I entirely concur in that opinion, and to an examination of the whole. I have already trespass. I so said at the last session. But this opinion ought to be ell on the time of the Senate more than can be spared at taken “cum grano salis.” It is a losing trade to all the this late period of the session. It will be recollected that, great merchants. The vessels they employ are too large, at the last session, I said_"That the act of Parliament of and they do not exercise the economy necessary to such 5th of July, 1815, gave us more than we had asked." I a trade. The small vessels of Connecticut, Maine, and presumed it was a compensation for our granting to BriNorth Carolina, are navigated by few hands, and at small tish vessels the circuitous trade. We had objected that expense ; their owners are probably content with small they had, by the former acts, only allowed us the direct profits, trade in assorted cargoes, proper for the mer. trade to and from their colonies. To remove that objec. chants of the West Indies, and do not complain. But, Mr. tion, and to give an equivalent for the triple voyage, which President, those merchants are not compelled to carry on we were unwilling to allow, they, by that act, offered that a losing business. That argument would lead to this our vessels might load in their ports the produce of the conclusion. If the West India trade be a losing business, colonies, and “ proceed therewith to any part of the world, and the argument be bottomed on that fact, then we can, Great Britain and her colonies only excepted." The Seby abandoning it to the British merchants, bring ruin on cretary of State, it appears, did not believe that I was corthem. I conceive the argument to be one intended to rect, in my understanding of the act of Parliament, and console us for having lost the trade. It says, most em- he addressed a note to Mr. Vaughan, (the British Minis
FEB. 21, 1827.]
The Colonial Trade Bill.
ter) in which he says_"In a conversation which I had on that subject, it could easily have been removed by an
the honor of bolding with you at the Department of State, application to Mr. Vaughan. No doubt existed. And I "a few days ago. I inquired of you whether, under the act can perceive no reason why a point of mere etiquette u of Parliament of July, 1825, American vessels were al. should have had any influence, or have given any pain. I Flowed to export to foreign countries, other than the do- may say, what I think, that the etiquette might have been #minions of Great Britaio, the produce of the British West waived, where the interest of the nation was involved ; « India Islands, in like manner with British vessels." To and that it was a circumstance too unimportant to be no-' that note Mr. Vauban returned him a polite answer, re- ticed in the serious manner in which it has been. Mr.. ferring him to the acts themselves, to which he declined Gallatin is instructed, on the 11th November, to inquire. giving any construction. Why, Mr. President, was that “whether all discriminating duties and charges, imposed question made > The law was plain as to that point, to“ either by the local authorities or by the Parliament, bethe meanest understanding:and I can conceive no other rea. “tween vessels of the United States and British vessels. son than to make out a well turned period in his instruc- “ have been abolished.” I am at a loss to understand why tions to Mr. Gallatin. who had better have had a carte this inquiry. We had not accepted of the terins offered in blanche, for I believe he understood the subject as well at the act of 1825, and, uintil we did accept, the retaliatory least as any of us. Well, sir, Mr. Gallatin is particularly duties continued until the ports were closed on the 1st charred in the instructions to make the inquiry. The an. December. If the question had been asked, Does the act swer of Mr. Gallatin. (in proper diplomatic form,) informs of 1825 abolish all discriminating duties? the question the Secretary "that the right of export from the West might have been answered. I, however, never would “Indies to all the world, (the British dominions excepted.) have asked such a question.. I could have turned to the " is granted to American vessels by the act of Parliament of act, and I should there have found a satisfactory answer. “1825;" and he very kindly apologizes for the Secretary's Nova Scotia, the Secretary says, had passed an act impos. not understanding the plainest words in the English lan- | ing discriminating duties on foreign vessels. That'act guage, by attributing it to the complexity of the acts of did not affect us : for we had not accepted of the terms on Parliament. I admit, Mr. President, that the Navigation which we could have had a right of admission. It affecte act of sth of July, 1825, which grants the right, could not ed the vessels of Hamburg, who, I am told, do now sup. be understood by us. It is done by the repeal of former ply that Island with bread for their fisheries. There is an acts of prohibition. The Ministry, aware that foreign na. exception taken by the Secretary to the act of 1825, tions might not understand that act, made a declaratory | It is, “that it requires that Powers having no colonies. section in the act of the same date, (the fourth) which I shall place the commerce and navigation, both of the had supposed could not be misunderstood by any one who United Kingdom and its possessions abroad, on the terms could read. You shall judge. The act is entitled “ An of the most favored nation.” On that subject he reasons at act to regulate the trade of British possessions abroad." | great length, and has come to this conclusion : “ That, if we The 4th Section reads thus : “And whereas, by the act of "had conceded to Great Britain the right of her vessels “navigation, foreign ships are permitted to import into any“ being received on the terms of the most favored nation. "of the British possessions abroad, from the countries to “she would have been entitled to all the privileges allowed " which they belong, goods, the produce of those countries, “to Denmark and Guatemala by our late treaties.” And I "and to export goods from such possessions, to be carried ask, is this the real import of those words, found in all our " to any foreign country whatever.” Now, sir, I would ask, treaties? If it is the true construction, it is entirely now to if it is possible to conceive of words in our language more me. I had thought that their import was admitted by all to clear, to establish what I had said, than those words are ? | mean, that, where a favor was gratuitously granted to one I can conceive of none. Yet the Secretary thought pronation, then all those nations who had those words in their per not to comprehend them. Mr. President, there is an treaties were equally entitled to the same favor, and that it old adage_ None so deaf as those who won't hear ;" could not be refused to them. But where two nations made and "none so dull as those who will not understand.” a treaty where reciprocal favors were granted, or where one The complexity of the acts of Parliament appear to have favor was granted for an equivalent ; where, in other words, caused no little difficulty, and I admit that a great part of a quid pro quo was given ; then no other nation could. of them, relating to their municipal regulations, may be dif- .right, make claim to it. That subject was fully and ably dis. ficult for us to understand. I did not attempt the task.cussed by Mr. Adams on the discussion of the Louisiana It answered no useful purpose ; but all those in which we treaty with the French Minister and he took that are interested, are, in my humble opinion, very easy of ground ; nor can I understand that Mr. De Neuville had comprehension. I had no difficulty on the subject. An. contended against the general principle in common trea: other cordplaint is made by the Secretary, “'libat those ties, where those words are found. Indeed, I thought he acts have never been officially communicated to our Go. had conceded the construction given by Mr. Adams. Me vernment.” It would have been only an act of politeness De Neuville claimed solely on the ground that France if they had been. A point of etiquette, in my huinble had always considered the right to trade forever in the opinion, ought not to have been considered of vital im- ports of Louisiana, “on the terms of the most favored portance. I am no diplomatist, and do not know whe- | nation,” as part of the payment she was entitled to for ther it is the usage of nations officially to present their laws Louisiana, which she had transferred to the U. States: to other nations. I do not know that our Government and as the vessels of other Powers were admitted on the ever officially presented our act of 1815 to foreign Gov. same duties as our own, she had (he contended a right ernments, or our non-intercourse and embargo laws, to under the treaty to demand, that her vessels should he Great Britain or France. Such a presentation would have received (in those ports only) on similar terms. The been rather ungracious; and the British Ministry might words of the treaty of purchase are to this effect : “ That have thought that a formal presentation would show a too“ the United States shall pay to France, for Louisiana, fifa great solicitude on their part. Our Ministers are placed “teen millions of dollars ; shall admit for twelve years, in at foreign courts for the express purpose of watching over “the ports of that country, the vessels of France, on the every act that may interest their own Government : and it “same duties as would be payable on the vessels and their is thcir duty to notify the Secretary of every act in which “ cargoes of the United States, and forever thereafter on we have an interest. That duty was performed, and the “ the terms of the most favored nation." But we may be asts were received at the State Department before the told, and probably shall be, that Great Britain has not meeting of the last session of Congress. They were given her construction to those words, and, therefore, known to be genuine. If a doubt had been entertained might have insisted on a construction that would have
The Colonial Trade Bil.
(FED. 21, 1827.
been dangerous. I do not know that she ever has; but our open trade)-in 1824, about $3,500,000. In 1823, I she generally reasons from Vattel ; and it is scarcely pos. have shown it was $4,263,078 ; and, in 1826, $ 4,798,765: sible that she has not, at some period, bad those words thus showing a general increase ; and I firmly believe that under discussion. However that may be, we now know the amount would have continued to increase. In a few exactly what were intended by those wor«ls. Mr. Can- years, we should have supplied all their wants. I fear, ning tells us, in his letter to Mr. Gallatin, explaining what Sir, we have lost that valuable and all-important branch was meant-that the British Government expected that of our commerce, and I think by our own fault. But we their vessels should be received in our ports free of dis- have consolation afforded us by the Secretary of State, for criminating duties, and with a right, which had been al- this heavy, this severe loss. ' In his instructions to Mr. lowed to all other nations holding colonies, and denied Gallatin, he says “If she (Great Britain) has reason to only to British vessels, the making the circuitous voyage;" felicitate herself, that, by the course of events, she is that is, that their vessels arriving from Great Britain at "enabled to draw from other sources those supplies which any of our ports, might proceed with a new cargo to any “her colonists had been in the habit of obtaining from the of her colonies, and there take in another cargo, and pro “ United States; we have, perhaps, occasion for equal ceed therewith wherever the owner thought proper. Mr. “congratulation, that, by the same or other events, inarPresident : in our treaties with France, Prussia, and Spain, "kets have been opened to us, which may be found amthose words will be found ; yet none of those nations have “ple substitutes to those which it is her pleasure to close ever conceived the idea that their vessels had the right to "against us." It has pleased the Secretary to deal in the , be admitted into our ports, on the payment of the same general. Had he descended to inform Mir. Gallatin where duties as our own, because Great Britain, Holland, and those markets are both he, and we, to whom those inother nations, had that privilege. They knew that a full structions have been communicated, would have known equivalent had been given ; and they had more sense than whether we could derive any solid consolation theretrom. to expose themselves, by making such a demand. It is I know something of the commerce of our country, and well known that the Secretary misconstrued the act of l'ar- am wholly unable to point to the Senate where those new liament of July, 1825; that he said that it did not take ef. markets are. Perhaps the chairman can tell us. I will fect on the 5th of January, 1826. The Senate will recol. try to tell where they are not. They cannot be in the lect that I contended, at the last session, that I thought North of Europe. They are not in Spain : for we have, the language was plain to every understanding. What by some means, (in part our own fault) lost the greatest are the words? “That, from and after the 5th day of part of the valuable trade we had formerly with that na“ January, 1826, this act shall come into, and be and con- tion. It cannot be in Portugal : for we had lost that mar“ tinue in full force and operation, for the regulating of ket in much the same way. Nor in the Mediterranean : “the trade of the British possessions abroad." I thought for we lost a great proportion of that market by the supthose words easy of comprehension ; and I find, by the ply received from Odessa, on cheaper terms than we can letter of Mr. Canning, that my construction was correct; furnish. Are those new markets to be found in South that error of Mr. Clay had, probably, this consequence- America ? I suspect, by the words of the paragraph, the that he thought that he had time before him for negotia- Secretary must have meant that it was there we had found tion, which mode he preferred. I preferred acting by them. if that be his meaning, he has labored under a law, considering, as I did, that the act of Parliament was mistake : for those markets cannot be called new. We the “ sine qua non” of the British Government, which we have enjoyed them for more than six years-perhaps I might accept, or not, at our pleasure. I find, by Mr. may say ten; ever since, however, they had been separat. Canning's letter, that I was right on that point.
ed from the mother country ; and that of the Brazils long Mr. President: In conversation, early in the session, prior to the separation. Mr. President: I remember, with a friend, on this subject, I asked what he thought when I was a boy, at school in the country, a neighbor was the value of the exports from the United States to the visited the good lady of the house, and told some tale, British Colonies? He said, about a million, or a million which was doubted. She answered quickly, that she and a half. I answered, I thought they must be more ; had seen it in print, which removed all doubt. Now, the and, on going to my lodgings, i examined the statistics, Secretary's letier has been sent by us to every part of the and found that the value of our exports, in 1825, to those United States; has been published in all the newspapers; Colonies, including the Isle of France, and those on the and, of course, coming from such high authority, cannot coast of Africa, amounted to the sum of $ 4,263,078-the have failed to have given the consolation that had been produce of the forest and the land ; that the whole amount intended. But, Sir, as I could not find any consolation of our exports to all the world, (cotton only excepted) therefrom, I have noticed the paragraph, that my constiwas $ 22,330,051. I was astonished at the result. 11 tuents (the merchants of Baltimore) may be informed shows that the exports of those Colonies amounted nearly where those new markets are to be found. In all that I to one-fifth of the value of all the exports of the United have said, I mean nothing offensive. I have thrown out States to all the world ; that is, (which I ask leave to re. those observations, that I may receive new light from the peat) derived from the produce of the land and the forest, Secretary, tlırough the Chairman, for whom I have the (cotton excepted.) Was such a large market to be tam- greatest respect. I also received from the Register a list pered with, when fully in our power to secure it? 1 of all the articles, their quantity and value, that had been thought not. Can we now recover what has been lost ? exported from the United States to those Colonies I I do not know that we can. I do not think we can if we will mention a few of them, for the information of Senamake the attempt with threats, and by the insertion of tors who have not turned their attention particularly to the principles in our bill that we have reason to believe will subject. Lumber, to the amount of $697,261. It was not be accepted. Having ascertained the result of 1825, less than half a million in 1825. That article was impor. I wrote to the Register, and obtained from him a state. Itant to the land holder : he sold his timber, the preparing ment, showing what the amount of our exports had been of which for the market, employed thousands of laboring to those Colonies, for the year ending on the 30th Sep. men. Hides and horned cattle, $ 151,908. In 1825, of tember, 1826. And I received what I had asked, to wit, horned cattle there were exported 2,700 head. In 1826, that the value of those exports, during that year, to those there was exported of flour, 206,973 barrels-nearly oneColonies, was $4,798,765 ; showing an increase of more fourth of all the exports of that article. Of pork, bacon, than half a million. I think, (but speak from memory) lard, and hogs, the value of $ 443,768. florses and mules, that the value exported to those Colonies, in 1823, was 1,931 head. Sheep, 7,981. Corn, 222,093 bushels-the about one and a half millions (that was the first year of preceding year, 358,377 bushels. Indian meal, value Fos. 21, 1827.]
The Colonial Trade Bill.
$225,596. Biscuit and ship bread, $ 109,061. Tobacco, gress, or in another way. We did not give our consent $89,884. Leather, boots, and shoes, $ 129,029. Snuff because the wode of negotiation was preferred. I have and manufactured tobacco, $73,648. Tallow candles and said, that we had lost something by every treaty or consoap, $246,621. Butter and cheese, 740,854 pounds. I vention made with Great Britain since the first treaty of will not fatigue the Senate with the going over of all the peace. In Jay's treaty we gave up the carrying trade of various articles which are exported to those Colonies; but India, and consented to her retaliatory duties, which gave will content myself with asking, Where is the new mar- to her the carrying of all the gross articles of vur country ket, or any market, for a great variety of those articles, to her dominions. That our act of 1815, and the convenand others, contained in the schedule I have in my hand ? tion of London, cured that great mistake. But that that which I mean to have printed for the information of the convention had relinquished what had been secured to farmers, that they may know how far their interest, the us by Jay's treaty, in our trade to India. Jay's treaty had great interest of the nation, has been attended to.
secured to us the trade of all the British ports in India, Mr. President: I will now speak of the substitute 1 all of which, except four, had been relinquished by the have offered to the bill on the table, and then conclude. convention, wbich also prohibited our vessels, in addition, It is precisely such a bill as ought to have passed the last from all the British Islands in the Indian seas, the Cape of session. It would have saved much trouble, and relieved Good Hope, St. Helena, and the coast of Africa-a comthe Administration from the necessity of negotiation. We merce which we had always the right to. That those then stood on high ground-that of accepting a proposi- errors and losses induced me, together with my opinion tion made to us by England. On what ground do we that negotiation was unnecessary, to believe that acting now stand? I will not give it a name. We are now by law was preferable. It was simple and easy. Nego. offering to England exactly that which was offered to us tiation hos failed ; and what are we now doing? Are we by her the last year. My substitute makes the offer in not now driven to act by law ? Are we not now endeavor. mild terms. If she accepts, all will be well. No as. ing to get back to the situation in which we were last perity in it; nothing at which she can take offence. We year? We cannot, Mr. President, now place ourselves on leave ber no pretext, except that we had not immediate such high ground as that we then occupied. I have ly accepted the offer when tendered. If she should re- spoken much longer than I had supposed I should ; and fuse, we shall then understand her views completely. I feel greatly indebted to the Senate for their patient and Slie vill show, by a refusal, that she does not mean that kind attention. we shall have a fair participation in the trade. Congress Mr. HOLMES said it was not his intention to go into will be in session on the 31st day of December next, an elaborate discussion of the matter now under considerwhen we can act as the case shall require. I would not ation. The subject was one upon which there could be willing to shorten the time, lest that should be an ob- very easily be, as there had been, a wide variety of opinstacle. The Ministers are dispersed during the Summer ions. To those private opinions, some deference from all months ; of course, Mr. Gallatin can have no intercourse sides was certainly due, and he thought those of every with them. They generally return in all October ; and, description ought to meet with attention and inquiry. I should hope, that our proposition would be met in the His own opinion was, that, had the bill, prepared last same spirit of conciliation that the substitute will mani- year by the Committee of Finance, been passed, the Orfest. Mr. Canning has said, “That the British Govern- ders in Council, of which so much complaint had justly * ment cannot hold itself bound to remove the interdict,as been made, would never have issued. *This, however, "a matter of course, whenever it may suit the convenience was only conjecture ; and it was not possible to know the * of the foreign Government to reconsider the measures by fact. So far as regards the bill upon the table, if no “which the application was occasioned." The fair infer- other threat is expressed in it than an indirect demand ence is, that it does not follow, of course, that our over-that Great Britain should throw open her ports, I do not ture will be rejected. I am justified in this inference, by look upon it as so objectionable as to influence the conwhat he had said in the paragraph immediately preceding, duct of that Government in any manner. Still, I think the to wit : “ The British Government cannot consent to enter demand made in the bill one that she never will agree to “ into any renewed negotiation upon this intercourse be- | |_not because it is made in language which will wound “tween the U. States and the British Colonies, so long as her pride, but because it is not her policy to do it. It is “the pretension recorded in the act of 1823, and there ap-not-and of the position we have had of late sufficient “plied to British Colonies alone, remains part of the law evinence--her policy to give us all her ports. This “of the U. States." Well, sir, the substitute I have offers seems to have been pointed out in the act of 1825, which ed, not only suspends the act of 1823, but those of 1818 bears the name of Mr. Huskisson's act. In that act, cerand 1820. It removes the true reason, the great and only tain ports only are pointed out, into which Great Britain objection made by Mr. Canning to negotiate. He tells will admit foreign vessels. Had it been otherwise, in reMr. Gallatin, until that act be removed, he will not nego-lation to this country, the advantages would not have tiate. The fair inference is, that, if the act be removed, been equal to this country and the possessions of Great he will negotiate. The substitute does remove it, and I Britain, and the balance would have been in our favor, as will hope that a negotiation will take place, and that it Great Britain is distant from the colonies, and we are vill terminate in an understanding that will be mutually their immediate neighbors. Besides, we have a large useful to both nations. Such is the mutual interest of the and enterprising maritime interest-the colonies have litColonies and the United States, that a free trade ought tle or none; and hence, if all her ports were opened to * be pertnitted. It is true, that the balance is in our us, it would give us an advantage which she is not inclinfavor, owing, in some measure, to the export duty of ed to accede to any nation. From this simple fact, I four per cent. levied on their sugar in the Windward argue that she never will accede to it, because, in realiLlands. If the trade be opened, they will soon see the ty, it would not be an equal trade, although equal in policy of repealing that duty. A market is wanted for name. I have, however, in weighing the various argutheir sugar. We should be a customer if that export ments which, from time to time, I have heard advanced, duty be removed.
arrived at one conclusion, which will materially influence I have said, that acting by law was preferable to acting me in this question. It is, that legislation will be of very by negotiation, in this particular case. A simple propo. little use. Great Britain has, by many of her recent sition was made by Great Britain, after negotiation had measures, demonstrated clearly to me, that she has adopt. proved abortive, and all that was wanting was our con- ed a settled policy, from which she will not easily be sent, which could have been given by an act of Contempted to depart. That policy is to build up her North