dened by debt, and enjoying inexhaustible resources, desired only to enter into competition with the maritime powers of Europe upon equal terms. Possibly upon an unequal footing their advantages as a youthful nation might have enabled them to succeed, but their interest obviously pointed to the establishment of a system of equality and reciprocity, and their character as an independent power could not be satisfied with less. With this view they laid a discriminating tonnage duty in favor of American vessels; but offered to place the vessels of other powers upon the same footing as their own upon condition that American vessels were placed upon a like footing in the ports of those powers. This system, which at the same time proffered reciprocity and retaliation, was successful, and England, upon the termination of the late war, entered into a treaty of cominerce and navigation with the United States upon terms of reciprocity. This treaty did not extend to her colonial possessions, and an attempt was now made to render the intercourse with the West Indies subservient to the ancient system of monopoly and exclusion. The American merchants soon felt the disadvantages to which they were subjected in the direct trade, in consequence of being excluded from the circuitous voyage, and exposed to the competition of vessels on their return to England from the West India Islands. Strenuous efforts were accordingly made in the principal sea ports of the United States to call the attention of Congress to this state of things, and they finally succeeded in obtaining the passage of a law (April 15th, 1818,) closing the ports of the United States against British vessels, coming from ports, which were shut against American vessels, and compelling British vessels sailing from the United States to give bonds not to land their cargoes in those ports. This law not only put an end to the circuitous voyage, but also tended to impede the supplying the islands with American produce, except those colonies where the vessels of both nations were admitted. To counteract this, the British Government immediately opened, during pleasure, the ports of Halifax and St Johns to the vessels of friendly powers, for the introduction of articles adapted to the West India market. It thus expected to secure the greater share of the carrying trade by the indirect route to the West Indies, solely to British vessels. This revocation, during pleasure, was not deemed by the American Government as a sufficient modification of the navigation acts, and their ports continued to be shut to British vessels, coming from those ports. The distresses of the islands increasing, negotiations were commenced on the part of the British Government, the same year, with the view of arranging the terms of intercourse; but as it insisted upon laying a discriminating duty in favor of produce imported into the West Indies from the northern colonies, no arra ement was made, as the American Government refused to facilitate the object of its rival, in making those colonies places of deposit for the supply of her islands. The unsuccessful termination of this negotiation left the United States no alternative but that of relinquishing all share in the intercourse, or to meet the restrictions by countervailing restrictions. They chose the latter; and by the law of May 15th, 1820, all intercourse with the colonies in British vessels was prohibited, and the importation of all colonial produce was limited to a direct importation from the place of its production. This put a stop to the trade in British vessels, and shut the produce of the British West Indies from the American market. These retaliating measures operated so severely upon the British planters, that after two years of suffering the government at home resolved to make another effort for their relief. A law was accordingly introduced into Parliament (act of June 24th, 1822,) by which admission was permitted to foreign vessels into certain specified ports in the West Indies, with certain specified articles, the produce of the country where the vessels belonged. By this act a discriminating duty of ten per cent was laid on foreign produce for the purpose of encouraging the northern colonies, and British vessels had, in addition to the direct intercourse, the advantages of the circuitous voyage, which was only permitted to them. The Colonial Legislatures also imposed heavy discriminating duties, giving a decided advantage to British tonnage. In this change in its policy the Government aimed to encourage the trade between the northern colonies and the West Indies, to give to her tonnage engaged in the direct trade between the United States and England the advantage growing out of the combination of voyages, and to monopolize the colonial trade by heavy duties imposed upon American vessels by the legislatures of the islands. - To counteract these objects and at the same time to meet England, so far as the new system savored of liberality, a proclamation was issued by Mr Monroe, 1822, opening the ports of the United States to British vessels from the colonies, but confining the importations from the islands to the produce of the West Indies, and continuing the discriminating tonnage duty of one dollar per ton, which had been imposed as an equivalent to the colonial tonnage duties. The next Session of Congress a law was passed, March 1st, 1823, confining the British vessels to the direct trade between the United States and the colonies from which they came, in the same manner that the American vessels were confined by the colonial system to the direct trade between the United States and the colony at which they had arrived. These measures produced an order in Council, July, 1823, imposing a tonnage duty of 4s. 3d. on American vessels trading with ernment. Under these circum the colonies. American navigation was thus subjected to a disadvantage, but still the trade flourished; when the British Government deemed it expedient to adopt a new system, permitting the importation into certain ports in the West Indies of the produce of the country to which the vessel, bringing the same, belonged, with the exception of salt provisions, munitions of war, books, whale oil and the productions of the East and West Indies. The exportation of colonial produce was also permitted directly to the country to which the vessel belonged. The inland importation of all produce into Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia was also authorized. This law, which was passed July 5th, 1825, aimed to make the British islands depots for the supply of South America, and also to procure supplies for the West Indies through the northern colonies. It was altogether inoperative upon European and also upon American powers, except upon the United States, in reference to whose trade it seemed to have been framed, and with the view of terminating the colonial dispute in favor of England. It was, in some respects, a modification of the rigor of the old colonial system; but as it made an invidious distinction between powers possessing and those not possessing colonies, the American Government could not accede to its terms without departing from the commercial policy adopted upon the organization of the Gov stances it sought to arrange the matter by an agreement: preferring that mode to legislation, which experience had shown to be productive of hostile feelings. A new negotiation was accordingly commenced, which terminated unsuccessfully, but which fully developed the views and principles of the respective parties. The British Government asserted that any participation in the colonial trade by a foreign power was a boon that the trade was peculiar to itself, and to be regulated solely by the laws of the parties possessing the colonies, and that a counteractive measure, confining British vessels to the direct voyage between the colonies and the United States, was an injury and a deviation from the spirit of the Convention of 1815. The American Government admitted the right of England to make regulations, opening either in whole or part, the colonial trade; but contended that it was a right not peculiarly applicable to that trade, but one which applied equally to the trade with her European possessions, and that when the trade between the United States and the colonies was to be opened, it belonged to the United States as well as to England to establish the footing on which the intercourse was to be placed. The principles upon which the exclusion from the colonial trade was justified, were not applicable to an American power. They applied solely to European nations, and were derived not from the nature of things, but were of arbitrary invention, and intended to protect artificial interests and an unjust monopoly of the commerce and resources of the western continent. The American Government, however, was so desirous of adjusting this controversy amicably, that it in one particular swerved from the strict principle for which it had contended, and authorized Mr Gallatin to waive the question respecting the discriminating duty in favor of the produce of the northern colonies, with the exception of the produce of the United States descending the St Lawrence and Sorrel. In other respects, the intercourse was to be placed on a footing strictly reciprocal, and the American Government also offered to abolish all restriction, and to permit the vessels of both parties to participate upon equal terms in all intercourse between their respective dominions and other parts of the world. Before Mr Gallatin (to whom this negotiation was committed) had presented his credentials, an order of Council was issued, closingt he colonial ports against American vessels; and the British minister (Mr Canning) then at the head of affairs, always unfriendly to American interests, refused to open any negotiation with the view to an arrangement of the controversy. The unsatisfactory termination of this dispute gave to the opposition a good opportunity to arraign the conduct of the last administration before the public, and it was not neglected. It was accused of an undue fondness for diplo macy; of an inimical feeling towards England, and of neglecting the public business. The loss of the colonial trade was imputed entirely to mismanagement, and the new administration came into power under strong assurances on the part of its friends, that no effort would be spared to induce England to open the West India ports to American vessels. Accordingly, shortly after the inauguration of General Jackson, Mr Louis McLane was appointed minister to England, with special instructions on this point. The Secretary of State in these instructions after narrating the events, which led to the suspension of the direct intercourse, stated that there were three grounds on which the United States were assailable 1st, in their 'too long and too tenaciously resisting the right of Great Britain to impose protecting duties in her colonies; 2d, in confining British vessels to the direct voyage after the passage of the act of Parliament of 1825; and 3d, in omitting to accept of the terms offered by that act.' Mr McLane was instructed to obviate the unfavorable impression produced by these circumstances, and to enable him so to do, he was authorized to say to the British Government, that the United States would recede from those grounds, by abolishing the discriminating duties on British vessels coming from the colonies; by repealing the provisions of the act of 1823; and by acceding to the terms of the act of Parliament of 1825. The instructions then proceeded to say, that the British Government ought not to object to enter ing into this arrangement on account of the omission of the Government of the United States to accept of those terms, when formerly offered that Mr McLane knew of the course taken by the party now in power, in reference to the policy of the late administration on that question, and he was authorized to state to the British Government, that the pretensions of that administration had not been sustained by the people of the United States, and were not to be regarded as the views of the Government.* Thus authorized, Mr McLane entered upon the duties of his mission, and shortly after his arrival, he communicated to the Earl of Aberdeen the grounds upon which he desired to open the negotiation. To this communication no reply was made, except one generally professing a friendly feeling and a desire to amicably adjust the business. The verbal conferences between the negotiators however continued, and the Cabinet at Washington felt so desirous of regaining the trade, that towards the close of the session, the following message was sent to Congress by the President. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the U. S. 'GENTLEMEN: I think it my duty to inform you that I am daily expecting the definitive answer of the British Government to a proposition which has been submitted to it by this, upon the subject of the Colonial Trade. "This communication has been delayed by a confideut belief that the answer referred to would have been received early enough to have admitted of its submission to you in sufficient season for the final action of Congress at its present session; and is now induced by an apprehension that, although the packet by which it was intended to be sent is hourly expected, its arrival may, nevertheless, be delayed until after your adjournment. Should this branch of the negotiation committed to our Minister be sucessful, the present interdict would, nevertheless, be necessarily continued until the next session of Congress, as the President has, in no event, authority to remove it. Although no decision has been made, at the date of our last advices from Mr McLane, yet, from the general character of the interviews between him and those of his Majesty's Ministers, whose particular duty it was to confer with him on the subject, there is sufficient reason to expect a favorable result, to justify me in submitting to you the propriety of providing for a decision in the recess. 6 This may be done by authorizing the President, in case an arrangement can be effected upon such terms as Congress would approve, to carry the same into effect on our part by proclamation, or, if it should be thought advisable to execute the views of Congress by like means, in the event of an unfavorable decision. Any information in the possession of the Executive, which you may deem necessary to guide your deliberations and which it may, under existing circumstances, be proper te communicate, shall be promptly laid before you, if required. ANDREW JACKSON. Washington, 26th May, 1830. **Vide Public Documents, p. 77. |
