research, and the patience of investigation, are equally unnecessary and unknown to him.

Besides these considerations, said Mr. J. the extent of the privileges claimed under the act of Parliament for placing them "on the footing of the most favored Nation,' was not distinctly understood. If, by it, they expected to be placed on the footing of Guatemala and Denmark, who have a perfectly free trade, it could not be conceded to Great Britain, unless she made the same concession. The mere right, and the very doubtful right as to its effect, of carrying from the Colonies to Europe, could not be considered equivalent to the concession. Understood in the limited sense, there could be no objection, and there was none here to meet Great Britain on the terms proposed. The import of those words is distinctly known here, and it is presumed is so in England. But it was desirable to be explicit, and not to be involved in the interpretation of words. We have already had a tedious correspondence with one foreign nation; and, under the pretensions arising out of the construction of these expressions, our citizens find themselves deprived of an immense amount; their property seized upon the Ocean under the most illegal decrees, either burnt, confiscated, or condemned, without judicial formality, and paid over to the French Treasury. And, when they demand indemnity for these robberies, which every nation has received, they are for years deferred, under different pretences, and at last, this unfounded claim against the American Government is set up to defeat the just claims of our citizens. This lesson, which will be long and painfully remembered in this country, is sufficient to guard us against the danger of these expressions.

The Executive of the United States determined to accept the terms of the British Government, and it was believed here that no further difficulty could occur; and the President says in his message, "in the renewal of the di"plomatic missions on both sides, between the two Govern"ments, assurances have been given and received, of the "continuance and increase of mutual confidence and cordi"ality, by which the adjustment of many points of differ"ence has already been effected, and which affords the sur"est pledge for the ultimate satisfactory adjustment of those "which will remain open, or may hereafter arise." The indisposition of Mr. King continued from his arrival until all expectation of his recovery, so as to be able to conduct the negotiation, was abandoned. This was so apparent, that the British Minister kindly invited us to send an adjunct Minister, to enable them to proceed with the Ministers then appointed, and preparing to treat, on their part, on the important subjects then pending between the two Governments. Mr. Gallatin was immediately designated, as a man most competent for this duty. He was consulted, and consented to engage in it. He was appointed, with full powers, furnished with instructions, and the British Government was notified that the instructions would arrive by the last of May, only two months from the date of the invitation. The British Government had seen that the causes of delay, during the last year, were beyond human control, and were as unforeseen as unavoidable. If Mr. King had been furnished with instructions, he could not have proceeded; and if he could, he would have been so furnished in good time. If he had been instructed, they would not have been applicable to the new state of things, growing out of the acts of Parliament, passed about the time of his arrival; and, if the Minister had been able to proceed to the negotiation, it was late in the Fall before their Ministers assembled for that purpose.

At the last session, a memorial, praying the removal of the discriminating duty, was referred to the Committee of Commerce; who made a report declining legislation, because it was a proper subject for negotiation. A bill for that purpose was, however, introduced, but not acted on, for want of time; and, upon this, an attempt has been

[FEB. 23, 1827.

made to show that the Administration had prevented the passage of the bill, and various private conversations have been reported here to strengthen the impression. But the charge is as groundless as the other attempts to put "this Government in the wrong. When the gentleman from Maryland applied to the President and the Secretary of State, they both said it might be repealed; they made no objection; they did not dissuade him; they both told him there was no longer any difficulty in the adjustment of this affair with Great Britain; that the negotiations were about to be resumed. It was a mere question, whether it was better to give them this in advance, or to hold it in our hands until the negotiation. But they left him entirely at liberty; and he so stated it in his speech, last year. He said, "there was no difference on this subject, "except as to the manner. The Committee of Commerce " think it better to be done by negotiation." And he now says he took his measures with the approbation of the President, and the concurrence of the Secretary of State. The Chairman of the Committee of Commerce also applied to the President and Secretary of State. They told him the discriminating duty might be repealed; but that, alone, would not meet the terms of the British act of Parliament, and would not supersede negotiation. They thought that a subject about which we had been for ten years legislating, ought to be finally closed by a treaty, which would embrace all the points, with regard to the extent of the trade, the duties, and charges; and that the commercial rights of the nation ought to be fixed permanently, and not left to changing legislation. Besides which, the free navigation of the St. Lawrence, which was not provided for, was an object equally interesting, and ought to be connected with it. The repeal of the duty was not considered an object of any great moment.

It

Mr. JOHNSTON said, he had examined, with the greatest candor, all the transactions of 1824 and 1825, without being able to find any want of respect to Great Bri tain, any inattention to her rights or interests, or any neglect or indifference to our own; nothing by which the argument that has been resorted to, can be justified. must not be forgotten, that, during all these discussions, Great Britain has refused us the free right to navigate the St. Lawrence to the Ocean, while she is permitted to pass, with her merchandise, to Upper Canada, through our jurisdiction, over the same waters-the effect of which is to place all the productions of the country bordering on the Lakes, under a charge very burthensome and oppressive, and almost prohibitory. The operation of this duty on flour was very onerous on that part of our country especially. This Government attempted to connect the right of navigating that river, with the colonial question; but which the British Government continually refused. The discriminating duty was resorted to, in the first instance, because it was peculiarly necessary to take a stand in favor of the agricultural interests of these people. The American productions on the St. Lawrence and the Lakes, have not only the long voyage, and all the additional expense of freight and insurance, but they paid 105 cents a barrel, duty, which brought those articles into market upon very unequal terms; and it was especially due to those people to remove, if possible, the duty on them. Mr. J. said, he would not here discuss the right of passing from the great inland seas, which belong equally to both nations, to the Ocean, the common property of all, through a Strait which connects them, and especially, as that Strait passes, at some points, through the territorial limits of the United States. Great Britain shall be deaf to the great right of this passage under the laws of Nations, we shall be obliged to exercise the same power over her right of passage through the same waters within our territorial limits, and to divert our trade into an opposite direction. But all those restrictions are equally injurious, and oppressive, and vex

If

FEB. 23, 1827.]

The Colonial Trade Bill.

[SENATE.

atious, to all parties. But the interest which this Govern- ports allude especially to the enumerated ports, and to no inent has manifested in the right of navigating the St. others. To those ports, which, in consequence of having Lawrence-a right heretofore so valued by our people in customhouses, and being ports of entry, admit vessels of that quarter, so essential to their happiness-is treated by other nations. It seems equally difficult to misconceive the the gentleman of Maryland in a very sneering and cava- meaning of the committee in the House of Representalier manner. He says it was a "laughable attempt," tives, when they say we cannot be satisfied with a "few and that "he could have seen through the flimsy veil." free ports, or places of depot." Great Britain has openThe right of navigating the St. Lawrence to the Oceaned this trade to the rest of the world-we cannot accept of is not a new subject. It has been claimed for several less; we expect the trade with the usual places in her years, and frequent attempts have been made to secure it. Colonies, in consideration of their trade with ours. We It is a right founded in public law, gravely and zealously shall not be satisfied to have a free port at Halifax, and at urged, and is still in discussion with the British Govern- Bermuda, as places of depot. We cannot accept of less ment. Whatever estimate he may form of it, or to what- than all the enumerated ports in the West Indies. If Great ever unworthy motives he may attribute the negotiation Britain should open the port of Halifax only, all the Ameon the subject, if the gentleman had read the memorial rican productions for the West Indies would concentrate from St. Lawrence, he would have seen the value of this there, from which port they would be transported in Briprivilege, and attribute the conduct of the Government tish vessels. We cannot, therefore, admit, in practice, a to a proper sense of the rights and interests of those principle which would exclude our shipping from a due whom it concerns. share of the trade in our own productions. This would be to permit ourselves to be circumvented by that "insidious policy," to which the gentleman alluded last session, and of the effect of which now, he seems to be entirely unconscious.

The gentleman from Maryland has made a great lamentation on the ruinous operation of the discriminating duty levied on American vessels in the British ports. This duty amounts to 15 cents, estimated by the barrel; while the duty on importation amounts to 105 cents a barrel. The American Government made a firm stand against this latter onerous imposition, injurious alike to our agriculture and navigation. But the gentleman has stigmatized the efforts of the Administration to remove this tax upon our productions; while an exaction of one-sixth in amount, is magnified into a most ruinous effect upon the navigation. At the last session he said, page 7, "But how are the ports open? Why, by our

Mr. JOHNSTON said, his duty obliged him to follow the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland, however tedious the details, or desultory the discussion might appear. To those who understand the subject, it will be uninteresting; to those who do not, it will be fatiguing, if not disgusting. My only resource is, to make my remarks as brief as is consistent with clearness. The gentleman says, "Mr. King having arrived in England, with"out being charged particularly on that point, (the Bri"tish proposition,) the British Parliament passed their "acts of the 27th of June, and two acts of the 5th July, “1825." He leaves the inference to be drawn, if the fact is not clearly expressed, that these acts of Parliament were passed in consequence of his not having instructions. Now, what is the fact? The British Government gave us their propositions, which were referred to this Government late in 1824. A busy and eventful Winter succeeded; and, as soon as the new Administration was organized," paying the enormous duty of 94 cents per ton, &c. upon a Minister was despatched, who arrived the very day the "our vessels, and I shall not be much surprised, if they first act passed. They did not wait for our answer, but "should consent to be kept open forever on those terms." created a new state of things, that would, in all proba- The duty of 105 cents a barrel on flour is nothing; but bility, have superseded the instructions, if any had been this enormous duty of 15 cents a barrel (being levied as given. But, when these laws passed, they could not have tonnage) is calculated to produce the most important efknown any thing with regard to his instructions. It was fects upon our trade. In the same speech he says, page three months, during which the Minister was sick, before 11, "If, then, we were relieved from the alien duties of he had an interview with Mr. Canning; and more than "impost and tonnage, there can be little doubt our flour four months before his presentation, prior to which, the "would go direct, and that two thirds at least, perhaps negotiations could not be resumed. It is, therefore, alto- "three-fourths, would be carried in American vessels: even gether gratuitous to say, the laws passed in consequence "under all these disadvantages it is certain that more than of the want of instructions. They are general laws, re"ten barrels of flour are exported to the colonies, in Amelating to the trade of the Colonies with all nations. And "rican vessels, for one in British." But the gentleman has here permit me to remark upon the extraordinary disclo- complained of this also: he says "that we pay four-fifths sure of the gentleman, with regard to these laws. He has of this duty" "that we pay $190, while they only pay stated that, at the last session, having learned from the ten; it is a mere financial calculation." He deprecates Secretary of State, that the British acts of Parliament this ruinous state of things. It appears that, in spite of were in his office, he went to see the President, and found this enormous duty, our vessels enjoyed the carrying trade: that he had not seen them. The impression made on the that they carried our productions to British markets, minds of those who heard him, was, that he intended to while British vessels, free from this duty, could not. These fix on the Secretary of State and the Executive a gross articles there sell, of course, for enough to pay cost, and culpable neglect of their duty; that the subject had freight, and charges; and, if British vessels did not pay excited no interest; that the President was ignorant of the same in our ports, the reason is obvious. The gentlethe existence of these laws; and that he had awakened man has gone much further, and said, "the act of 1822 the Government to the consideration of the subject. These was every thing we could wish." It was limited to a direct laws had then been in the possession of the Government trade, "but did we complain?" We paid a heavy duty three months. I would appeal to the candor of the gen- on flour, equal to 105 cents, and a similar duty on all other tleman himself; I would appeal to his knowledge of the articles, and that in cash; but that was all right, and he fact, that the paper cases containing the foreign corres- seems to exult in the triumph over the Government, in pondence, are regularly carried to the President; to the having failed to accomplish the removal of this duty on great interest he has always manifested in this subject; our flour, live stock, and lumber-what he pronounces to the indefatigable labor with which he devotes himself" to have been a very silly demand," and which they have to all the duties of his station; and I would ask him if he surrendered as "untenable." But, as it regards the artibelieves the President of the United States had no know-cles prohibited, he says it is a curious coincidence, that we ledge of those laws?

The gentleman has drawn a very uncandid argument from the term ports. He cannot be ignorant that those

prohibit the same articles by our duties. This is too palpable for serious refutation. He seems to suppose the trade petfectly reciprocal, because the same articles are

FEB. 23, 1827.]

The Colonial Trade Bill.

[SENATE.

our vessels with increased profit, and will be consumed in take the direction of New York; we shall bring all our the Colonies at very high advances, and with ruinous ef- productions within the sphere of our commerce, and confect upon their trade, as well as injury to their shipping. centrate it in the great Northern emporium. Even when The gentleman has animadverted upon the bill, and, in the interdict is removed, we shall find canals more safe speaking of its limitation to vessels by sea, he says "it than the dangerous rapids of the St. Lawrence; the ex"creates a terror in his mind he dare not express.' He pense less; the route to Europe and the West Indies has greatly exaggerated the danger, as well as miscon- shorter; a more steady and ample market; and a cheaper ceived the operation of the bill, and the nature of the supply for the consumption of the interior. We have trade. Mr. J. remarked that he had, on several occa- been heretofore induced to give great importance to the sions, said, that there was great diversity of opinion with right to navigate that river; but, if the hopes now creatregard to the extent of the interdict; that he had re-ed by the canals in operation are realized, it will equally ported the bill in this form, under the impression that it comport with the interests of individuals, and the protec corresponded with the bill of the House of Representa- tion of our own institutions, by drawing our productions tives; that he had since heard that they had stricken it into our own channels, and holding at command our own out, but of which they had not notified him; that he resources. The gentleman has said, that the point so considered that question as open to amendment. He had long contended for, had been given up. Mr. J. said, the distinctly stated to the House, that he was in favor of an Secretary of State had, in 1825, sought information from entire interdict, embracing all Canada, for the same rea- the highest sources; but, before any communication was son that he was in favor of the interdict. He desired to made with regard to the British proposition of 1824, the make it effectual, by cutting off any indirect supply of acts of Parliament arrived; so that, on that subject, whatthe Colonies, by which they could evade our laws and ever opinions were entertained here with regard to those sustain their new policy. He was moreover satisfied, proposals, no answer was given, and, consequently, no that, by closing all communication, our trade would not point was given up. But the British Government superbe materially affected. It would take a new and circui-seded the necessity of deciding that question by their acts tous course, in our vessels, to British Colonies. There of 1825, by which they opened the Colonial ports, and is, however, nothing in this bill to excite any terror in permitted American vessels to enter on the same terms the mind. It is nothing more than the laws of 1818 and as her own, and to carry her productions to any foreign 1820, which were two years in operation without any country whatever. The Government of the United States serious consequences. The laws were enforced and determined to accept the terms. It was all they could obeyed. They were severely felt in the Colonies, and expect or wish. They saw no further difficulty in relaled to the act of 1822, which opened the ports. It is tion to this subject. They thought this concession on the clear that the provisions of the bill will prevent any com- part of Great Britain was made in the spirit of those libemunication from any of the New England States with ral ideas she had lately professed. It was every where New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Their ports cannot be thought that the extent of this concession on the part of approached but by water, and in violation of this law; Great Britain was equivalent to the circuitous voyage and it is much easier to prevent the shipment of bulky and the removal of the discriminating duties. There was articles, like flour and lumber, than to protect the reve- then, and still are, men, who believe the right to make nue now from violations by smuggling. The temptation the triple voyage is a dangerous experiment to the shipto introduce goods now, to avoid the duties, is one hun- ping interest; but the better opinion seems to be, that dred-fold greater than to transport lumber and flour to we may engage in a fair competition with her, and that the ports of St. John's or Halifax. It is well known that we ought not to hesitate to meet her on fair and liberal the New England States have no flour for exportation, terms. This became the settled opinion of the Adminis. and that, if any flour was sent in this illicit and exposed tration, of which the gentleman was fully informed in the route, it would be the flour of the Middle States, which most unreserved communications with them. our vessels would carry there; which is better than the present state of things, by which we are forbidden to carry our productions, and the British vessels allowed to go with them direct to the Colonies. As to Canada, it will be seen that she will profit very little by the flour trade. The ports will be closed with ice by November, and will not be again open until May; her flour could not arrive before June in the Colonial markets, where it could not compete with the fresh flour daily arriving by other routes, with less charges of freight. But, by leaving Canada open for the present year, no injury could result, and next session will be time to close that, if it becomes ecessary. It is further to be observed, that the principal trade with Canada is in ashes, masts, spars, &c. which e not intended for the Colonial trade, but which go direct to England, and which it could not be our policy to prevent, and which, until the Oswego Canal is finished, cannot find an outlet in any other way. Although I prefer an absolute and entire interdict of all commerce coextensive with the object, yet, I confess that I see no danger in the bill, and am utterly at a loss to imagine the Crise of the terror which he cannot express. In the course of another year, this entire interdict will effect an important revolution in the commerce of the Lake country, and will be attended with effects highly favorable to the commerce and navigation of this country. As soon as the prohibition takes effect, and the Canal from Oswego the New York Canal opens the communication from Lake Ontario to the Hudson, all the trade of that country will

The gentleman has gone out of his way to pass a general and indiscriminate censure upon the several Adminis trations of the country, neither warranted by the facts nor illustrative of his argument. He says "we have lost

in all our treaties with Great Britain." He has entered into detail, and ascribes it openly to the want of infor"mation." It happens, however, that these treaties have been negotiated by a succession of the ablest men-the elder Mr. Adams, Mr. Jay, Mr. Monroe, the President, Mr. Clay, Mr. Gallatin, and others. We have also had at that Court Mr. Pinckney, a profound scholar, an able jurist, an orator, and a statesman; and yet the want of information is publicly ascribed, in this place, as the apology for the treaties, by which it is alleged we have lost on every occasion with Great Britain. Perhaps no country has furnished such an illustrious example of great ability in the diplomatic line. We have in that list names the most distinguished in the age in which we live, and almost all who have added to the glory of the country. We have Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Ellsworth, Jay, Marshall, Monroe, King, Pinckney, Adams, Clay, Crawford, Gallatin, and many others of great distinction. Four of them have attained the highest honors of their country; three have stood at the head of the Federal Judiciary; and all of them, except one, in the highest ranks of that profession, to which the gentleman found it necessary to make particular alfusion. This severe reflection, altogether undeserved and unnecessary, upon the result of our diplomatic intercourse with Great Britain, is an

SENATE.]

statesman.

and necessary effect of this measure. If it is viewed as a menace, it has existed since 1823, and would require an act of legislation to prevent its operation. But, with a desire to prevent any collison, and to avoid offensive retaliation, we propose to suspend the operation of this law, and to postpone the execution of the interdict, until the 30th of September, and longer, if you will. Great Britain will see in this, our moderation; we offer her the most liberal terms; all that she has ever demanded. The causes of any delay will be explained; full time is afforded to determine on her course, but with a perfect knowledge that the interdict is only suspended. We all agree that the terms are liberal, that we have nothing more to tender to her; that we will not permit any nation to trade to our ports from any ports closed against us; and that, if she refuses, the interdict must follow. It is a question of time; my own opinion was, and it is unchanged, that the interdiction should have followed instantly upon theirs; their Colonies would have instantly felt its effect; while our trade would have suffered little from the derangement. Our vessels would have merely changed the direction of their voyage.

:

appropriate counterpart to the high drawn panegyric pronounced last Winter upon the British Cabinet. The treaty of 1794 was negotiated by Mr. Jay-a patriot and a It was approved by the Senate, and ratified by President Washington. Much opposition was created, at the time, to the terms of the treaty, in consequence of our political relations and feelings towards the two great belligerents; but a more favorable opinion has since been pronounced. The right of trading with the Colonies in the West Indies was conceded, in vessels of seventy tons, and with a promise that, at the end of the war, they would extend the privilege. This proves that the right to trade with the Colonies was a subject of treaty stipulation, and of negotiation, as early as 1794. This, the gentleman says, was an important concession, and ought to have been accepted. But there were men then, who thought these terms unequal, and rejected the 12th article. It was not then considered a boon, granted without equivalent; but as a question, how far the limited trade to the Islands was a just equivalent for the free admission into our ports. By the same treaty, our vessels had admission into all the East India ports, but paid a discriminating duty. By the Convention of 1815, we were admitted into four of the By the amendment, our ports are left open during the largest ports, which were quite sufficient for our com- whole of this year to British vessels; they will consemerce, and on the same terms, and paying the same du- quently supply their Colonies, and deprive our vessels of ties and charges as British vessels. This treaty was every that trade, as well as the trade which would have naturalwhere acceptable; and there is no doubt that the pre- ly risen up on the suppression of the direct trade. Our sent trade, freed from discriminating duties, is more bene- vessels will, therefore, be thrown out of employment, or ficial than a trade with all the East India ports, paying compelled to find some new object of pursuit. On the that duty. I see nothing in all this, to justify the broad first of January, their Colonies will be supplied for six assertions, of want of information, and of losing in all months; at the expiration of which period, they will reour treaties with Great Britain; and there is a striking in-ceive the supplies of Canada, and two years will elapse consistency in employing this argument now, in order to before they will, in any way, feel the effect of the interinduce us to yield still more to the claims of Great Britain. dict in the mean time, our vessels, engaged in this But, Sir, said Mr. J. I remember to have heard it said, trade, will have been thrown out of service, or entered at the time, that we were peculiarly happy in the selec- on other pursuits, and considerable time will be required tion of the Ministers at Ghent. It was a matter of some to enter again into the competition with those regularly pride to our country, but of which it is invidious now to established in it. In fine, the postponement for one speak. But it was a subject of remark in the British Par-year, is nearly equivalent to the entire loss, and is equally liament. The Marquis of Wellesley said, "that, in his an abandonment of our principles and our interest. "opinion, the American Commissioners had shown the The interdict merely proposes to do, prospectively, what "most astonishing superiority over the British, during Great Britain has already done: it proposes to postpone "the whole of the correspondence." the operation of a positive law, for six months, from moI have now traced the two Governments through all the tives of respect to her. This is not enough. We must transactions connected with this subject. I can find humiliate the country, confess our errors, withdraw our nothing to diminish my confidence in the justice and li- interdict, and make our submission. Great Britain has berality of my own Government; and I do not envy the placed herself where she was in 1818-claiming to carry gentleman the ungracious task he has undertaken of put on all the trade from this country to her Colonies. We ting his own country in the wrong-a task that must be stand with our ports open, as by the law of 1823; and painful to his pride and patriotism, in proportion as he we propose to do now what we did under like circummay esteem himself successful in the effort. It is said stances in 1818 and 1820. The proposition of the amendthat an interdict contains a menace, and that Great Bri- ment is to refuse to take the same ground, and to act tain will not act under such a measure of coercion. The upon the same principles. It is a retrograde movementinterdiction is the natural state of things, and the neces- a sacrifice of principle to temporary expedients; and is sary consequence of her own acts. We have been per- marked by a want of consistency and firmness. petually excluded from the Colonies by the ordinary laws ports were left open from 1815 to 1818. It produced no of navigation, which was by no means offensive to us. relaxation of her stern policy. We were compelled then When she has opened these ports, it has been known to to resort to defensive measures; and what was the result be an exception to a system of exclusion. It has been of that experiment? It produced the deepest distress, equally well settled, that our ports are open, and our trade and threatened the ruin of the Colonies. Memorials free, unless an exception is adopted, to operate on those were, in 1822, addressed to Parliament, representing in who deny us the same privileges. The principle by the strongest terms the condition to which they were rewhich we have been governed is, "that, where any na-duced. They attributed their distress chiefly to the in"tion may refuse to the vessels of the United States a terruption of their commerce with the United States, the "carriage of the produce or manufactures thereof, while loss of an extensive market for exchange, and the ad"such produce or manufactures are admitted by it in its vanced price of provisions. They say the sugar Colo"own vessels, it would be just to make the restrictions nies are dependent on the United States for supplies of "reciprocal." Great Britain has, while repealing her dry provisions, staves, and lumber. The Assembly of navigation laws, and opening the Colonial ports to the Jamaica said, "our supplies from the United States, of rest of the world, reverted to the exclusion of our vessels. “lumber and provisions, which are essentially serviceable She knew that, by a standing law of this country, the Pre-" to aid the natural defects, or the failures of our climate sident had power, and it was made his duty, to close our "and soil, are straightened by the total interruption of ports whenever they closed theirs. It was the natural "thrat trade. The regulated and limited commerce which

Our