. :-
'«_s‘E7."~"ér':...-..~. -:i1‘i-:3‘-7;;-3.3‘-"_-:;,__-.-‘,.,-_ ‘ ..
‘ ‘.___._.ss«:-r,;-A__,. .-,.-i.-'- - K. -.-.« .... ..."«-,,,,,t§:‘,-,.:'_. -
.u.. .....p. ,.. 5'.
.REL.ltTlO as ll'i't't'I"'I"I5l.(‘§.1_{li3— flint. _ A1141?’
D0€t€m8t.‘tls_/‘roi,rz the Department Q/‘Stale, (ac-
company-ing the P'rc':~:'ident’s Message.)
Mr. G".u.L/tiriis to M r. Camsmio.
Loivoox, August 26th, 1826.
The tindersigued, Envoy Ei‘t_t'raor_dinary
and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America, had not .seeii_the Order in
,Council, ofthe 927th of July last, on the day
{the 17th iiistz) tybenilie had "the honor of an
int‘ervie'w with Mr". Cairuitig, His Majesty’s
Principal Secretary ol'State for Foreign af-
-fairs. ' ‘
Had he been aware ofthe precise import of
the order in qtiestim. anti ofthe provisions of
the several acts ofParliament to ivhicli it re-
l.9l'5: the undersigned would 'have"tliouglit it
his duty to make the observation to which he
now begs leave to call Mr. Canning’s atteri-
tion.
It appears that his Majesty ’s' government
was vested with two distinct authorities, ap-
licabte to the intercourse between his iiiajes-
ty’.sColonie_s and the United States. _
By the 4th section ofthe act ofParlianieut,
ofthe 5th July, 1825, it waseiiacted the privi-
legesgranted by the law ofnavigation to for-_
eign ships to trade with the Britisli possession
abroad, should be litiiited, with respect ‘to
countries not having colonial possession, to
the vessels of such as should place the com.
merce and navigation of Great Britain, and
ofher possession abroad, upon the footing of
the most favored nation,unless his majesty,
by his Order in Council, should in airy case
deem it expedient to gr_ant the whole, or any
hall» 0f such privileges, to the ships of any
foreign coiiniry, although the said conditions
should not in all respects be fulfilled by such
country.
And. by two other acts pfPar'liatrtcnt, pass-
ed in the fourth or fifth years of reign of his
present Majesty, author_ity was given to levy
ad-'_iitional or coirntervailingtoiinage duties on
vessels, and grinds iiirported or exported in
vessels belonging to any foreign country in
‘win-‘li higher duties were levied on British
vessels, than on vessels of.sut_:li country, or on
Sum?-1!‘ coeds when imported or exported in
vessels of such country.
Bull! I-'.ttlll0rlllt.‘S have been resorted to in
the Order in Council ofthe 27th July last.——-
Cn the ground that the condition referred
lo iii the act ofParliaint=nt of5ih July, 189.5,
. having not in all respects been fulfilled by the
Governrirent ofthe United States, the privi.
l€t_;P§ so granted to foreign ships cannot
l§“'l““§ he °"J0.Y‘-‘fl by the sliips olflthc said
I-.1-C.‘4,‘lllll€SS specitilly granted by His Majes-
ty iu (.-ourrcil, the said privileges are again
lhuls granted by the Order in Council, lint
_\"i'll-I the express provision that the said priv-
l-"i-$95a_0T, in other words, the intercourse in
American vessels between the U, S_ and me
British Colonies, shall absolutely cease on the
15! of _Dcceuiber ncxt,.so far as respects South
A"""'C“s the W est_Iridie.s, the Bahama Isl
’”'d5! Bemllldas and Ivewfoundlaud, and, on
some other subsequent days,so far as I-e_;p¢i_-is
the British possession oriilre ‘Western Coast
‘ll Al-"“=1J.lltt‘r Cape oi Good Hope, Mauritius,
Ce.l'l°”s1\ew Hollanlligz ‘Iii? Dietrrati’s Land ;
And, i-i=rsniut'h as Brllish vessels, m.,,,.,i,,g
the port of the Ur-ited.States, frn_m B.-i;j_,|}
COl0lil€S, are charged with additional tonnage
ditty of ninety four cents per ton, and win; an
addition often per ct. on the import duty pay
able on the same goods when imported inAm_
vessels a countervailing duty, deemed equiv.
alent in amount. is, by the Ortlcr of Council,
lardttliiring the tinrc that the intercourse is
periiiitted to continue, oiiAmericair vessels,
anti oiigoods imported in American vessels
entering the ports oflris Majes:y’s possessions
in I\'orih and South America, and in the
‘ West Indies:
There is not, if the Uirdrrsigned is rightly
infortirctl, a single act of the government of
the United States which can, in the view rah-
en of the subject bv that of His Maiesty be
considered as not ftilfilling the condition con.
‘f"‘i'Pl“l'3d ll)’ the RC! of Ptrrlianreiit of the
0”‘ Jul-l:r 15??-5. 715 not placiirg the commerce
and navigation of Great Britain, and of her
P0‘-5058100 abroad, upon the footing of the
trrost favored nation, excepting only the con-
tinuance ofthe discriminating tonnage duty
°f3l"‘_3‘3’ [0U1'C_8_nlS per ton on British vessels,
zit of the adtlition often per cent on the or-
‘fl"_l}’ d‘".l’ Charged on goods imported in
British vessels entering the ports ofthe U. S.
from the Briiisli Colonies. Both the Incas-
UF85 etltbr-iced by the Order in Council. the
countervailing duties and the discoirtiuuance
ofthe intercourse.arc founded on one. and the
S=tme_ fa.ct—'the continuance ofthe U. States’
d'5“"'"""““‘"8 duties. And the countervail-
lzllg ‘illllb d€6Ilt8d.eqi‘iivalent therein, which
‘35 _ Y the Order in Council been laid on A
mtrrcan vessels, and goods imported in A.
c:~ - - .
tn!-t(i3caln vessels entering the ports of the Brit-
. ti) oiiies, was alone sufficient to place the
iitisi and Americaii vessels, employed iii
the intercourse between those colonies and
the United States, on the footing of the tires!
perfect equality.
It does not belong to the tiiitlersignedto
qtteslioti the policy of the measures which
Great Britain may think proper to adopt re.
specting the trade with her Co]onie;_
lie °“lY lnrefss h_‘0ni_ the acts ofParliament
passed on that subject during the last four
,y‘ears,thliat the intercourse between the U.
States and the British Colonies in the IVest
Indies, South America, and other places. to
the extent atitlrorized by those acts, is consid-
Gfedi bi’ HIS Majesty s Governmeut,as benefi-
cial to those colonies and the British empire
at large.
With this conviction, Ext. the only ineqiraliiy
supposed toexist having been removed by the
countervailing dtities, the undersigned has
. been unalile to discover the motive for inter-
dieting altogether, after a short time, so far
as respects the British possessions in ihel-‘Vest
Indies; 50ml! America and several other
places, anrntercourse beneficialto both par-
ties and which might, in conformity with the
act‘ ofParlia_mcnt have, ifdeenred expedient,
licerrititlefiiiitely continued with those‘ colo-
nies iii the same manner as has been done, as
Te~‘l’_"Cl$ llte British possessions in North A-
rticrtca.
Wholly unable, tliercfore,to assign a cause
for the contenrplated suspension ofthe i-titer,
course in question. the undersigned appre-
"'tichd‘s that, foirlthe very reason that the object
in view cannot be understood it may be mis.
t;on_si’r-tied‘. .
l"i:H"i'ng no_ instruction on a contingency
which-' was notforeseeii, he can, at this tiiiie,
only express his regret, that tr lli8dSUl'6'\$‘lll0l”l
. ‘MA; ., - _
cannot be viewed favourably by his Govern-
’fii'eb't, ’5lf0Il_I(I “Rave bYen ‘adopted, at‘ the
moment— when he was authorized to rene“
the negotiations on that subject, and with 3
weil fotinded hope, from-the liberal tenor Of
his instructions, that an arrangement, funded
0" Dllllclplt’-5 Ufmufiial conveiiieiice to both
parties. might be concluded. . - ~
spect was due to causes not under the control
of the U. Slater,--principally to the State OI
‘health of Mr. King, which has ultimately
tit-privedtlrem _o'fliis services.
The reasons of the marked preference giv-
en by the Government of the United States
to an arraiigenient by treaty, instead of reg"-
lations adopted by both coirntries, are suffi-
5
all the parties concerned, essential for the se-
curity of comiiicreial or agricultural opera-
tions, that the intercourse should be placed On
a more perinaiicntand explicit footing than
it can be by reciprocal laws, liable to be niodi—
fied or revoked at any time, at the will of ei-
ther party, and_ not always easily understood
by those on whom they operate. And the ob-
stacles which have prevented the U. States
frotu accepting tlre'~intcrcourse contemplated
by the act of Parliament, which could only be
done in toto, $1. by complying with terms on
which they had not been consulted, may,- it is
believed, be easily removed by modifications
essentialto them, and which will not. ll l5
thought, he forind inconsistent with the inter-
esiofGreat Britain. -
The undersigned has taken a view only of
4 the general tenor ofthe Order in Council, and
does not think it necessary to advert to some
of its details. He believes the omission of ti
special mention ofthe trade with the British
provinces in the EastIudies,.inthat clause
which makes a special exception as respects
that with the British po~sessions in Europe to
be purely accidental. And he takes it for
granted, that it is not intended to extend the
coiinterv.iiliug duties to the intercourse by
land or inland navigation, between the U. S.
and the British possessiorrs in North America,
if it shall be foirnd, as the undersigned be-
lieves it to be the fact, that the discriiiiinating
rlirtics ofilie United States do not apply to
that intercourse.
The undersigned avails;liim.selfof the op-
portunity to pray Mr. Canniitg to accept the
assurance of his perfect corisideratioti.
ALBERT GALLATIN.
Mn. CANNING To Me. GALLATIN’
The undersigned. His -Majesty’s Principal
Secretary of State for Foreign Afl‘-tit's, has
the honor to acknowledge the official note of
the 226th ultimo, aderessed to him by Mr. Gal
latiu, Envoy Extraordinary and Illiuistei
Plenipotentiary of tlie,Uuitcd States ofA-
merica, on the subject ofair Order in Council,
issued by his Majesty on the 27th ofJuly.
The undersigned feels biiiisclf greatly in-
debted to Mr. Gallatiu for the full and frank
exposition, which that note cont.aitis, of his
own opiiiious, and of those of liisowii govern-
ment, tipotr the whole matter to which the Or-
tier in Council relates; and for the opportu-
niiy thereby afibrded to the tiudersigned for
entering into an explanation, eqtially unre-
served, ofilie opinions and inieiitioiis of his
'i\’lajesty’s government on that matter‘.
It will be highly atlvaritageotis to dispose
ar oricc ofa subject which stands apart from
all the other iiiiportaut subjects which Mr.
Gallatin is iititliorizt-d to discuss with the
British goveriiiuent-——a subject which is to he
argued oiipvinciples, and to be decided on
considerations peculiar to itself.
' Mr. Gallaiin will allow the undersigned to
take the liberty ofreiirarlting that this pecul-
iarity of character seems to have been over-
looked by Mr. Gallatin in his note ofthe 26th
ofAugust. 'I‘hroirglrout that note Iliere ap-
pears to be one pervading error. Mr. Gal-
latin treatstlrc question a.s ifit had turtied al-
together on this single point: “ what are the
equal and reciprrical coiidiiions under which
a trade between the United Suites and the
British West India Colonies should be carri-
ed on ?” assuming, as a sort of axiom, that
such trade is as open to the U. States as any
trade in the world, and never iiiquiriug wire-
iber some compensation might not bedtre from
the Uiiiied States to Great Britain, for the
concession ofa privilege, which it is her uti-
doubted right to give or-witliliold.
The iindersigned is prepared to show, that,
even ifthe liberty to trade with the Brlllsll W-
lndia colonies were gratuitously cQIt0€d€<l_h)’
England to the United States, still the f00lml1
on which the trade, so permitted, is carried
on by the U. States, is unequal and IIn_f=tlt‘- _
Btit as the objectioir, which the B|'ll|5ll g0~
vernment feels to the proposition f0|‘ Sllch
partial equalization of conditions as Ml? Gal‘
latiu’s instructions appearto be intended 10
establish, lies deeper than Mr. Gallatin’3 Pl°'
position goes, the undersigned thinks it right
to explain, in the first instance, the nature 300
grounds ofthat ftiiidamenial objection. ,
It is,as the undersigned has already saith
the unquestionable right, and it has, till willllll
these few years, been the invariable practices
of c0tl‘f‘ilrl(3S having colonies, to reserve I”.
themselves the trade with those colonies, an
to relax that reservation only under special
circumstairces, and on particular occasions.
When a relaxation ofthat nature has been
dictated and limited, by the necessities of the
mother coriiitry, or ofthe colonies, the foreign
countries taking advantage of it, may fairly
aver, that they owed nothing to the State
which had granted such relaxation. They
may even have felt themselves at liberty to
decline to accept a partial adtnission into the
ports ofthe colonies, thus evidently opened
from considerations oflocal or temporary con-
venience, unless they were allowed a general
liberty oftrade with those colonies, independ-
ently of such considerations.
The interdiction of the American Govern-
ment, in 18920, of any commerce with the Br.
West India colonies, until American shipping
should be permitted a ‘free entry into the Brit-
ish colonial ports, is to be justified qpon this
ground. A '
The obvious way of meeting that interdic
tion by Britain, would have been to open to
other cotiimercial and maritime Powers the
trade refused by the United States.
Circumstances not necessary to be detailed
here, rendered that expedient, at that time,
unadvisable.
_In 1829, the privilege of t'radi‘ng with the
B'ritish'West Indies was conceded to the ship-
ping'ofthe' United States, with‘ certain re-
stricrions‘ and limitatio‘iis",' under‘ which llll“'v
It is well known that the delay in that re- '
it-ietitly obvious. It is highly important for,
I
Great Britain still tvitlilieldfrom all the p0W'l
ers of Europe. ' _ ,
The concession to the United States was,
new countries ofAmerica_(not then recognis-
igation which could interfere with those of
lthe United States.‘ '*
It cannot, however, be supposed, it is nol
affirmed by Mr. Gallatin, that, by granting the
'iirivilLge, thus,’in effect, exclusively, to the
United States, in the firstinstance, G. Britain
precluded herself from extending itto other-
iiatiotis, whenever the course of events should
occasion a favorable occasion for doing so.--
jlilvents, which intervened between 1892 and
1825, created such an occasion. _
As little, can it be supposed, that,.becatise
GreatBritaiii submitted at a moment of ne-
kcessiiy,-tb terms which, though not unjust,
‘were iticonvenierit to her, she botind herself
to continue to stibniit to them when that ne-
cessity should have passed away. '
Scarcity may justify the deniandfor a high
price, and monopoly may give the power of
exacting it ; but there is surely no understood
compact between the buyer ‘and seller, that
the former shall not endeavour to make liiin-
selfindepentlerrt ofthe latter by opening the
market to general competition.
These obvious and , simple consideratioiis
led to tbeact of Parliament ofl825.
Our right either to open the ports of otir
Colonies, or to keep ilrem closed, as might
suit our own convenience; our right to grant
the indulgence of a trade with those colonies
to foreign powers, wholly or partially, tiri-
conditionally or conditionally, as we might
think proper, arid,-if coirditionally, on what
conditions we pleased, was clear. We were
not bound by any engagement to continue a
monopoly of such indulgence to one foreign
power against another. We had, for three
years, felt the inconvenience of strcli monop-
oly. We naturally sought, therefore, in our
new measure. to avoid the rectirreiice of the
like inconvenience.by making our indulgence
general to all nations; and, in order to liecp
the regulation of that indulgence in our
own hands. we granted it by spoiitaneous} le-
gislatioii,and not by positive treaty.
The question is now, therefore, no longer
what it was in 1820 or 1892, a question be-
tween Great Britain and the United States, of
America ‘; it is aquestion between G. Britain
and all the nations of the Old and the New
World ;to all of whom Great Britain has ten-
dcred access to her Colonies, on conditions
which many ofthem have practically accept-
ed. and more, perhaps, are ready to accept.
Having thus placed, as he hopes. in a clear
light, the general principles of Colonial trade,
and the principles and considerations upon
which Great Britain has acted in respect to
her own West India Colonies, the undersign-
ed now proceeds to consider the details of Mr.
Gallatin’s note ofthe 26th of Augi
Ithas been» already said, that iii the year
I822, we’ opened, by act of Parliament, a
trade with our West India Colonies to Amer-
ictiu ships, under certain limitations and con-
ditions ‘
The United States were at ftillliberty to
accept or to decline tlroseterms.
In accepting the United States imposed, at
the satire time, onerous clrarges and restric-
tions upon all British vessels wlrich might
trade hctweeirthc. British West India colonies
and the United’-States. - One ofthese charges
is air alien duty both upon the ship and upon
her cargo.
After irrcffectiial endeavors, on our part, to
obtain the removal oftliis duty, we were coin-
pelled to lay a countervailing duty to the satire
amount, upon American ships in the Colo-
riial ports.
Mr. Gallaiin states, “that, by the imposi-
tion ofthis corintetvailing duty, British and
American vr-sse|s,eniployed in the intercourse
between the Britisli Colonies and the United
States, are placed on ri_/‘noting qftlic most per-
_/ect equality.” And llltthcr, “ that there is
not, it be is rightly informed, a ssngle act of
the Government ofthe United States which
can. in the view taken ofthe subject by that
of His Majesty, be considered as not fulfilling
the condition contemplated by the Act of
Parliament of the 5th of July, 1895, as not
placing the commerce and navigation of G-
Britain. and of her‘ possessions abroad, upon
lhefooling if the moslftnfored nation, except-
ing only the contiiitiatice ofthe discriminating
tonnage duty ofninety-four cents per ton on
British vessels, and of the addition often per
cent. on the ordinary duty charged on-goorls
imported in British vessels entering the» ports
ofthe U. States from the British Colonies-”
The atgumentsdrawn by Mr. Gallatin front
these statements, are three: lst, that the duty
on the side ofthe United States, and ofthe
countervailing duty on the side-oftjlreat Brit-
ain being equal, British ships trading between
the Colonies anti the United States, are as
much favored as American ships in the same
trade: Qdly, that, inasmuch as, with the ex-
ception ofthe discriminating duties in Amer-
ica, Great Britain is, in all other respects.
treated as ‘ the most favor_ed nation,’ there is
no just cause for the exercise, on the part of
Great Britain, ofthe power of interdiction
provided by the act of 1825 ; and, thirdly,
that, having in our hands two remedies for
one and the same grievance, we ought, at all
events, to have contented ourselves with ap-
plying either, btit not both, by the satne Order
in Council. ’
'I‘o begin with the last ofthese three points,
viz. the assumption that, “ having in our
hands two remedies for one grievairce, we
otiglit to have-been contented with applying,
either, btit not. both, by the same Order in
Coiiucil.”
The only measure which is new in the or-
der in council, is the interdiction ofthe trade
between the British West India Colonies and
the United States,after a specified period.—~
The duties on American shipping, uientioned
in that order. are not-new. They were im-
posed by an Order in Council, in l828, and
have-been constantly levied since that time.
They are again mentioned in the present Or-
der in Council, only for ‘the direction ofthe
i
Indies, who, iftliose duties had not ltcen men-
tioned as still existiiig, might have imagined
them to be superseded.
Tliehistory of these duties is simply this.
On the lst of Marcli, 1828, alaw was passed
by the United States, which directs an alien
duty to’ be levied ripon the Britishships and
,t-.argoes coming, from the British-\Vest India
Colonies, “, proof shall be given, to the
satisfaction ofthe President of the U. States-
weife conréht to enjoy it" ; but that‘ privilégd
thatno other or h‘igheir' duties of tonnage 0 ,_
British Custom House officers in the West ’
impost, and no other charges of any kiud,a:e‘all the restrictions of the American law of
exacted in the British Colonial ports upon the‘
vessels of the United States, and upon any
in effect, if not in words, exclusive : for the goods, wares, or mercharidize, therein s'mport- Westlndia colonic
ed from the United States, than upon British
like goods. wares and merchandize imported
in such. vessels rnom ELSEWHERE.” -
The British Government at first misappre-
liended the import of the term, “from else-
wfterfr” conceiving it to applytoforcign coun-
tries aloue: and not to British possessions in
North America; nor was it till after the in-
terchange of several official notes between
the. British Envoy at Washington and the
Atiierican Secretary of State, that the British
Goverumeiit was made to comprehend (or
rather was brought to believe) the full extent
ofthe concession required by the act of Cori-
gress, natnely that the produce ofthe‘United
SW83: when iriip_orted from the U. States in-
to the British West India..Colonie.s, should be
' placed on an equal f'ootingwitli t-belike pro-
duce Oflllc molher country herself and her
dependencies. ..
When such was at length ascertained to be
the trite constriiciiun ofthe American act of
Congress of 1828, those countervailing duties
were imposed on the trade of the U. States
by the British government, which are now
irrercly continued till the first of December
next, in the West Indies, and indefirritely. in
the ports of British North America. .-
Ii is to be observed that, by the act of Par-
llflmemv Of U39‘-Z, (3 Geo. IV. cap. 44,) the
British Goverutn_ent"wals enabled to iuterdict
all intercourse between the Uiiiied States and
the British West India colonies, utrder any
such circumstances as those wlrich had al-
ready arisen in the United Suites.
The milder measure ofa retaliatory duty
was preferred, for two reasons. First, we
were convinced that a claim so extraordinary
as that put forward by the iirtcrpretation given
10 the 86! Ofcungress of 1823, ‘would not, be
persevered in after explanation; and secondly
we had assurance that a full opportunity of
that explanation would arise in the course: of
the negotiation which was then about to be
opened between the two goverrinientsoti this,
among other points, in which their respective
interests were coircetned.
That negotiation took placcin London in
the spring of 3894. On the partofthe Brit-
ish governnieut air offer was made to arrange
this matter irpoii teriiis highly favorable to the
United States, bitt the American Plenipoten-
tiary intrenched himself within the letter of
the American law,and declared any proposal
inadmissible which was not acr,-onipanied with
the concession required by the final interpre-
tation ofthat law. -
Things remaining in this state, and the
British proposiiioti having been unnoticed for
iriiie tnonthsbefure tli'eAmerican governineut,
sed.
The American Legislatqre had cognizance
of thatact from the coininenceiiieirt of its
last session. It had also cognizance‘ of the
specific proposals offeretl by the British Go-
vernment in 1824. Farther, there was bro’t
under its consideration, by one of its mem-
bers, :i resolution for repealing the discrimin-
ating duties.
The Session, however, ended, tviihoui the
enactment ofaiiy law for repealing or relax-
ing the restrictions of the act of Congress, of
l8£3. and with the reje_ciion after debate, of
the resolution for the repeal ofthe discriiirin-
aiing duties.
To come next to Mr. Gallatin’s allegation,
that the discriminating duties are our only
cause of complaint ; -that,-in other respects,
Great Britain is placed by the United States
on the footing of the most favoured nation, in
her iritercourse between her West India Col-
onics and the United States.
Mr. Gallatiu, in making this averment, ap-
pears to overlook another enactuieiit, contain-
ed in the same act ofCongress which imposed
the discriminating duties ; an enactment
hardly less injurious to the commerce and
navigation of G, Britain.- Thai enactment,
in substance, provides, that no Britislr ship
entering an American port frorii the United
Kingdom, or from any other British possess-
ion, except directlyfrom the West India col-
onies, shall be allowed to clear from any part
ofthe U. S. for any ofthose colotiies.
Ifit is to be maintained that, because the
British act ofl822, permits only a direct trade
between our colonies and the United States
in American ships, the prohibition of a trade
through’ the United States between the mo-
ther cotiiitry and her colonies is, therefore,
fair reciprocity, that positioti-‘re-solves itselfin
effect into the first o_ftlie'three arguments into
which Mr. Gallatin’s staterrient has been di-
vided,ati_d may be comprehended in the same
answer. It furnishes a striking illustration of
the general misconception which has alreadv
been noticed as pervading Mr.Gallatin’s iirité,
in respect to the character ofcoloriial trade.
To_allow a foreign ship to enter colonial
ports at all. and upon -any terms, is a boon;
to witbliold from a ship ofa cotiotry having
colonies, trading from the motha country to
a foreign State, under a regular treaty be-
tween the two countries. the right ofclearing
for another port belonging to that mother
cotintry in another-part of the world, is an
injury.
That right has been denied to G. Britain
by the.United States; not. perhaps, in con-
tradiction tothe letter, but undoubtedly in
deviation from the spirit ofthe treaty of l8l5.
It is a right which existed, and was enjoyed
liefore the treaty ofl815 was framed 5 at a
period, that is, wlieir no claim to airy trade
with our colonies had been even wliispered by
the United States ; and it cotild not, there-
fore, be, by arty just reasoning, cunnectetl
with that trade, or tirade dependent upon it.
It is a right wliicb friendly nations, trafficking
with _one another, are so mtich in the habit of
allowing to each other, that it is exercised as
matter ofeoutse, unless specificallv withliold
en. The colonial trade,-on the contrary, by
the practice ofall nations having colonies as a
truly a interdicted unless as aruatter of fact.
unless especially granted. .
It nitist not be forgotten that this enact-
ment‘ founded professedly on the liiiiitaiious
of the British Act of Parliament of 189.2. is
t:ontinued='ftij'i_irtee‘n months after the passing
of the Briti,sb_’Act of 18-25, by wliicn the liiii-
-itatiotis.-.of .1822 were done away. Since
which -5th of January, 18%, an American
‘ship trading to a_‘Briiish West India Colony,
may clear out from thence to any part ofthe
~woi_'ld, the United Kingdom and its depend-
encies alone gexcepted. - But the Brit_islr snip
jn the Atizericau port still retn'rti,ns subjcctto
the act of Parliament ofJuly, 18225, was pas:
1823, prohib,it_ing a trade through the United-
Srates, between the mother country and the
S. ‘ st‘ _—
bis note of the 26th August,
Mr. Gallatin, in
ed by his Majesty.) had no commerce or nav- vessels entering tliesatiie ports, and upon the states: that “ it is well known that the delay ‘
in renewing the negotiation upon the subject
of colonial iritercotirse, on principles of mutu-
al accommodation,-is due to’causes notiinder
the control oftlie'United States, principally
to the state ofthe liealtb of Mr. King.” _,_
Upon this point the undersigned has only to
observe, that nointimation that Mr. King had
received instriict'io_ns whichfwould have ena-
bled himto resume the negotiation, was ever
before communicated to tile British Govern-
ment. On the contrary the only commurii'ca-
tion at all relating to this matter which has
ever reached him in any authentic sbape,was
in a despatcli fr. Mr. Vaughan, dated the 92°.’
March last, wherein that Minister states, that
“ Mr. Clay had informed him that he should
be able to furnish Mr. King with his instruc-
tions bi;/‘ore the end qf the tnrmtli qf May, to
-enable him to re-commence the negotiaiiorr.”
But, whatever may be the da'e or tenor of
the instructions gander which _Mr. Gallatin
acts, he will have collected from this note
'that,after all that has passed trpon the subject
of colonial intercourse and especially after
the advised omission by the Goveriinieiit
and Legislature of the U. S. to nieet(as other
nations have done) the simple and direct pro-
vision oftlre act ofl8£5, the British Govern-
ment cannot consent to enter iriio any renew-
ed negotiation upon the intercoiirse bet'r'v.eeu
the U. S and British colonies, so long as-‘the
‘pretension recorded in the act of .1 82.5,, and
there applied to British COlfllll(‘S alo , re-
mains part ofthe law ofthe United S" A s.
But the British Go'veriiment furtlier'9wes-
the spirit of frankness which it wishes to"cul-
tivate in all its relations with the U. Statcs,to
declare, that after having been compelled to
apply to airy country the interdict prescribed
by the act of1825, the British Governmerit
cannot hold itself botind to remove the inter-
diet, as a matter of course, whenever it may
happen to suitthe coiiveiiieiicc ofthe Foreign
Government to reconsider lilE‘-,lll(‘.ZlSltl'(‘S by
wliicb the application of that iiiterdict was
occasioned. - -
It is not made matter of complaint, by: the
British Government that the United States
have declined conditions. which other nations
have thought worthy oftlicir acceptance.
It is, on the other band, not the fault ofthe
British G_OV€l’nm€l]l, iftbe U. States have
suffered the time to pass by, at which it might
have been an object ofgreaier Inlporllllltle-‘IO
this cotintry to induce the United States to
come into their proposals. '
Tire United zitirtes exert-isetl, upon’ this
point, a free judgment; and they can, on
their part, have no reiisoti to complain‘ that
Great Britain after allowing ample time for
maturin_g that judgment, is contented to a-
bide the result oftbeir decision.
The underrsigned requests Mr. Gallatin to'-
accept the assurances of his high consider-
ation. GEORGE CANNLVG.
,[To'b'c Contii2ucd.]
CONGRESS.
DEC. l5.-—In‘tbe Senate, ‘yesterday, the”
bill inirodticed on Wednesday, by tVIl_’-::.DlCl{—
erson, “ to provide for the distribution of a
part. oftheReveniies ofthe United States,
among the several states ofthe Union',’.’ was
read a third.time.' and referred to'a select
cominitiee ofsevcn tiiembers.
Mr. Johnson, of Kentucky, brought before
the Senate the embarrassed situation of the
Columbia College, and urged the expediency
of relieving the Institution by a release of the
debt due from it to the Government.
In the House, several bills were reported,-
read and committed ; among others, the bill
for the preservation and repair of the Cum-
bcrland Road ; and a bill relative to the
Northern boundary ofthe state of Illinois.——
The various hills which, on the preceding;
day, passed througli conrmittee, were read a-
third time and passed. _
Mr.'I‘omlinson of Coon. from the Com-'
mittee on Commeice,reported a bill to an-
thorise the importation -of Brandy in casks of
a capacity not less than 15 gallons, and the
‘exportation ofthe same for the benefit ofthe
drawback and- dirty, wbicli was read twice,
"committed, and made the order of the day for’
to morrow. ’
On motion ofMr. Bartlett, of N. I~I.:.it. was
Resolved, That the comuiittec on the Li-
brary be instructed to inquire into the expe-
diency of adopting measures to procure from
the different publicOfIices in England, copies
ofsuch papers and documents as may be of
value, in relation to the history ofour country".
DEC.16.-—-In the Senate, the resoliitiou
yesterday submitted by Mr. Johnson, of Ky.
proposing an inquiry into the expediency of
relieving the Colombian-College in ll"? DIS‘
trict of Columbia, by the release Ola deb‘ 011°
from the College to the Government. ‘V8513-
keniip and agreed to.‘ The res0lUll"_" .Ir"‘-'5‘
terday stibniitted by Mr. Reed, of Mlssl-WPPI.
proposing an inquiry into the extent Of llte
constitutional powers ofthe government 0"‘-‘V
the public lands, and into the experllcmy “I
appropriating a portion ofthe s-imc_ for "llle
purpose ofinternal improveinents ivtllttn llle
states and territories where the lands "0. W3“
taken up for consideration. Mr. Reed 5f‘l"'
ported the resolution by a bricfbut iiitf3.'_0SlI-'15:
statement of facts respectiiig the sitrraltml Of
some western states and territories, and the
peculiar situation in which the -new Slitlefit
stand to the General Government. Mr- Bar-
ton did not think that rsonstitiitional qiresltonfi
were fit subjects for reports and argtrtrienls 05
committees ; and, at liisstiggestioti, the rest)-
lution was so modified as to submit to the
committee an inquiry into the questioii,ofex—'
pediency onlyl’ The question being takerron
agreeing to the l’eS0ll){l()-:1, so modified, it Was
decided in_the negative. Ayes IE2, noes 16-
,. In the House, several bills were tehnrletlv.
read and committed. , Atnong the resolutions
offered was one by Mr, M’Lean, of Ohio,
calling for. information from the ‘Var De-
partment asto. any_ disposition to emigrate
which may have been evinced by the Indian
tribes, and the best tnode of overcoming any
obstacles to their removal west of the Missis-
‘ v.
isippi. A resolution \v'a'§' also ol’fered by Mr-
Drayton, ofSouth Carolina, air the subject of‘
air equal extension ofthe judiciary system to‘
all the,-States of the Uniori. Mr. Mitchell, of
S. 'C..-laid a resolution on the table calling for.
£0‘ theamouut and description ofmeitcti-ant‘:is§§
lannually stripped to the W. I. islands; audi eh
\
. I
information from the sec’r_v ofthe treasury I
Norwalk Chronicler