66

FEB. 23, 1827.]

The Colonial Trade Bill.

:

[SENATE.

Mr. JOHNSTON said, he had passed rapidly over the "the laws of trade and navigation permitted in British ships, "is denied to us by the retaliatory system of the United several topics which have been drawn into this debate. "States. Provisions, the growth of the United States, These details and this retrospect have been necessary; "travel to us, when introduced, by a double voyage, and they may be useful; but no talent can render them in"at an expense unnecessarily enhanced by this policy.teresting. A short recapitulation will present the subThe subjects of your Majesty are stinted in their sup-ject in a narrow point of view. For seven years from plies, and are taxed, while the benefit is conferred on the treaty of peace, Great Britain practised upon a prin"the ships of Spain and America and on Spanish ports. ciple untenable and inadmissible, to which our opposi"A new system of intercourse, upon the basis of mutual tion was a necessary and proper measure of self-defence. "benefit, permitting the importation in American bot-In 1822, both opened their ports, upon terms deemed re"toms of the products of the United States, and the ex- ciprocal, although under restrictions and discriminations. "port of our staple commodities in return, would afford They were deemed reciprocal because it was not known an important relief to the distresses of your Majesty's here that their duties and charges were equalized. And "Colonies, and open to British ships a trade from which no proof was offered to that effect, until after the meet. "they are now excluded." Such would now be the ing of the succeeding Congress, when the power of the condition of those Islands. It is painful to contemplate President over this subject ceased. In March, 1823, we it; but it is a necessary measure of self-defence and self- | passed our law opening a direct trade, exactly corresrespect. Let us not flatter ourselves with the impotent ponding with a similar limitation in their law; and, thereattempt to soothe Great Britain into compliance. She fore, perfecty equal and reciprocal. We continued the must feel the pressure, and yield to the necessity. But discriminating duty on their vessels, in consequence of is there nothing in this interdict which peculiarly calls for the excessive duties on our productions. But, on the reretaliation? It is marked by a total want of delicacy to ceipt of our law, (in June) they imposed a discriminatwards our Minister, and of respect to the country; and ing duty on our vessels, equal to, and intended to counThe trade was then placed on an equal is distinguished by peculiar circumstances of aggravation. tervail ours. Great Britain knew, that, after the laws of 1825 were re-footing; but it is clear that the discriminating duty did ceived here, there remained no longer any difficulty be- not operate injuriously to Great Britain. The American tween us, and that those laws would form a basis of a vessels, which carried four-fifths of all the productions of treaty equally acceptable to both countries. They might the West Indies, paid the duty there, and, consequently, have seen that in the President's message, which was the removal of the duty would have placed them in a clear and explicit: they would have seen that in the re- better situation, and would not have been more favorable port of the Committee of Commerce, and in the speech to the British navigation. As to the vessels arriving in of the gentleman from Maryland. There was no differ- our ports from the Colonies, it has been shown that even ence of opinion here with regard to the terms of the in- our vessels cannot profitably engage in it all the return voyages, owing to the condition of the Islands and their tercourse. From the moment it was known that the Co lonial ports were to be opened, and that we were permit- staples, are attended with certain loss, and one-half reted to carry their productions to any foreign place, and turn with specie and in ballast. So that, in fact, the disto pay only the same charges as British vessels, there criminating duty had no effect. In 1825, Great Britain was but one opinion here: that we ought to give her the removed her discriminating duty, and gave a wider range circuitous voyage, and admit her vessels on the same to our commerce, by permitting us to go from the Coloterms as our own. The only difference was as to the nies to any foreign place, by which she entitled herself mode. The Government thought the object could be to the corresponding right in our ports, and to the removbetter attained, and established on a more durable basis, al of our discriminating duties; and a treaty would by treaty, than by mere acts of legislation. The mode doubtless have been formed on this principle, if Great She knew Britain had not herself interrupted the trade by her in. must have been indifferent to Great Britain. that Mr. King was unable to conduct the negotiation; terdict, and the negotiations by her peremptory decision; that Mr. Gallatin had been appointed with the least de- which leaves us no alternative but submission or interdiclay; that she had herself invited us, in March, 1826, to tion: and I have shown that the latter is demanded by send an additional Minister; that Mr. Gallatin would be our interest, our principles, and our honor. It is hoped fally instructed, and would arrive in June, before the date that juster views, and more amicable sentiments, will lead of the Order in Council. They had seen the delay was to a speedy adjustment of the commercial rights and inaccidental and unavoidable. They had not expressed terests of both Nations, on terms equally satisfactory and any dissatisfaction with the state of the trade, or any im- beneficial. There are causes now operating, and elepatience at the delay. They made no communication to ments now combining in the political world, which will this Government, either with regard to the laws or the produce new principles of action and organization, and anticipated interdict; and two days after the arrival of lead to events of the greatest magnitude, and of deepest Our Minister, fully instructed to treat, upon terms per-import to Europe and America; in which it may be pecufectly liberal and equal, this interdict is thrown in his face, without explanation or apology. There is in this transaction an utter want of respect to the country, and a leviation from customary usage and courtesy, and withut example in the intercourse of friendly Nations. I cansot speak of the tone and bearing of the subsequent comununications, without indulging feelings which would Setray me into expressions which delicacy forbids me to ttter here. In looking back upon this transaction, I can see nothing to account for this sudden and unexpected change in her policy, or apologize for the abruptness with which she has closed the negotiation, and, consequently, thing to induce us to withhold the interdict. It is said he motive of her conduct lies deeper-that she has ether and higher aims. Whatever may be her real or arowed object, our principles demand of us to do to athers as they do to us,

YOL. III.-30

liarly interesting to Great Britain and this country to have no points of collision. Mr. J. concluded, that the interdict is in accordance with the known principles and practice of this Government. It imports nothing menacing or offensive, certainly, to those who have applied it to us, and he therefore hoped the amendment would not prevail.

Mr. HOLMES rose and stated, that he wished to offer an amendment to the bill, and wished to know whether it would be in order while the amendment offered by Mr. SMITH, of Md (as a substitute for the bill) was pending.

The VICE PRESIDENT decided that the motion would be in order.

Mr. HOLMES then, in moving his amendment to the bill, made some remarks on its aspect as reported. He believed that it was best, when one could not see where to go or what to do, to stand perfectly still. This, although a homely maxim, was undoubtedly a good one to

SENATE.]

The Colonial Trade Bill.

[FEB. 23, 1827.

by the gentleman from Maine, was not that which would touch the interest of England: that must be done by curtailing the consumption of her manufactures. He did not think that much of the flour of the United States went to the West Indies: the voyage was difficult, and it was far easier to go to Europe; and he thought that, if the gentleman from Louisiana was correct, in relation to our produce finding its way to the British Islands, through other possessions, there would be no diminution in the prices, in consequence of the restriction.

He

as a free port, and to that place the produce deposited at Eastport would be conveyed, to be shipped to the West Indies in British vessels.

be applied to the conduct of a statesman. But if, when in a dilemma, you determine to act, see that your means be equal to your attempt. It is proposed by the bill that limited restriction be applied, in the event of the refusal, on the part of Great Britain, to grant the terms which we desire, to the Colonial Trade. The Gentleman from Maryland, it is true, does not even name that restriction; but he admits that it is contemplated by him, should the British Government continue their prohibitory measures. But, let us see what will be the effect of this bill. The object of the measure is said to be to coerce the British Mr. HOLMES maintained the propriety of his amendinto a concession of what we think our right. And will it ment. He knew that the State of New York needed a do it? There can be no doubt on the question. It will market for her produce, and she had great facilities in not. The trade will be carried on through Canada; the her intercourse with Canada. But this was a great naproduce of this country will be gathered on the frontier, tional measure, and must be acted upon as such. and the West Indies will get it without our assistance. knew that the frontier part of his own State would wish Now, as far as my State is concerned, its interest certainly the bill as it was reported. But he wished the measure, is to have the West India trade concentrated on the lines. if adopted, to be effectual, and go the whole length. It So far as the interest of Maine is involved, the more com- was the duty of Congress to legislate for what would be plete the interdict by sea the better; because, if all the done by the British Government, as well as what had alports were not interdicted, the trade could still be carried ready been done. If this bill passed, the Island of Camon by sea. But, under the present propositions, the vipo Bello, only two miles from Eastport, would be opened cinity of Eastport to New Brunswick, and the ease with which a trade could be carried on from Eastport, that town lying upon Passamaquoddy bay, which would not come within the restriction fixed by the words "by sea," would enable the merchants of this country to make a depot of provisions at Eastport, whence they could be taken by British vessels to the West Indies; whence, return cargoes would be brought by the same vessels, of West India articles. This trade would be of great advantage to the citizens of the State; but would operate in a far different manner upon the country at large. This would be the effect of the limit fixed to the operation of the bill by the words "by sea." In the State of New York, the effect would be the same. By the means of internal navigation, the flour, and other produce of New York, would find its way to Canada and New Brunswick, and thence to the West Indies. It was plain to be seen, that, unless this traffic-by which we should still furnish to the Colonies our produce, while we denied it in our law-was cut off, it was not of the least importance to pass any bill at all with a view of taking retaliatory measures. Extend your interdict to all the trade if to any part of it, or your legislation becomes a mere mockery. It is idle to say that you close your trade, while you leave open a side door, through which it will be carried on. The bill upon the table reminds me of an anecdote I once heard, of two gentlemen who met in a narrow passage. One said to the other, in a blustering manner, "turn out, sir, and "let me pass, or I'll serve you as I did another person "just now." The other immediately turned out and allowed the blusterer to pass, but could not refrain from asking how it was that he had served the person of whom he spoke "Why, sir," was the reply, "he would not "turn out, and so I turned out myself." It is just so with us in relation to Great Britain; we talk loud about restrictions and interdicts, and what does it amount to? Why, if they will not turn out, we will. That is all; and if Congress pass the bill in its present form, it will be found that such, in fact, will be the effect of the measure. For my part, said Mr. HOLMES, I wish to know, when we are going into the restrictive system, why it is not better to go the whole length, than by a half-way measure defeat the very object we pretend to have in view? He then moved to strike out the words "by sea."

Mr. SANFORD spoke at some length in opposition to the motion, which he thought misapplied. The bill was a navigation act, and was, therefore, distinct from a merely commercial subject. He considered the trade between the Canadas and the adjacent States as a trade between neighbors. The bill was not one to regulate internal commerce, but navigation by sea. The restriction proposed

He

Mr. TAZEWELL expressed himself in favor of the amendment proposed by Mr. HOLMES. He was glad that the motion had been made, because it had elicited the argument from the gentleman from New York, which, he had all along thought, lay at the bottom. As to the argument in relation to the intercourse of neighbors, Mr. T. observed, that Charleston was as much the neighbor of Bermuda, and Savannah of Nassau, and why should they not be allowed the same privileges as New York? wished to know why the other States were to sacrifice their interests to those of two or three States, on the borders of the Canadas-or why the trade with their neighbors was to be cut off from other States, and not from New York? This bill was not solely a navigation bill; nor could it be argued that it was distinct from commerce, or internal trade. The other interests were so closely connected with that of our navigation, that if one was touched, the rest must be affected. If this country were to go on pari passu with England, the intercourse should be interdicted altogether. The trade with Canada ought to be cut off, as well as that with the other Colonies: for, in a system of restriction, they were not to consult the interest of two States, to the disadvantage of the others, not placed by loco-position within the reach of this advantage. He called upon the Senate, in the name of justice, and of duty, not to cut off all the rest of the Union, for the benefit of the four States on the frontiers of Canada. He concluded by declaring, that, when he should hereafter express himself at large on this subject, he should show that the People whom he represented, were, in 1828, to be sacrificed to a great country, in which navigation and commerce were to be separated by some distinction, such as had been urged by the gentleman from New York.

Still,

Mr. JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, rose to explain some remarks of his which had been touched upon by Mr. TAZEWELL. He gave a detail of the circumstances attending the bill reported, and the reasons of the committee for retaining the words "by sea," to be decided upon by the Senate. He was himself in favor of going the whole length, and making the restriction perfect. he had been of opinion that, if the New York and New England markets were drained by the trade with Canada, there would be a void created, which might be filled by the other grain-growing States, as 800,000 barrels of flour were annually shipped to New York and New England. He hoped no deficiency in the bill would be charged to the motives of the committee. They had done all in their

power, were from different parts of the country, and had no interest but that of the country to serve in this measure. Mr. TAZEWELL disclaimed any intention to impugn the motives of the committee. He was aware of the difficulty of the subject; and had the bill been more defective than he thought it was, he should not have been surprised. He did not accede to the opinion of Mr. JOHNSTON as to the supply of flour to New York. Why should Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, not carry their produce to Quebec, or any other profitable market, as well as New York? Why should not New York eat its own bread stuffs, and allow the other States to share in the trade with Canada? This was the reason why Mr. T. was disposed to support the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Maine. He did not know but he should agree with the gentleman from Louisiana in going the whole length; but, if they did do so, there was, he thought, great fear that the same effects would result from it which had been formerly experienced: as it had been said of the former restrictive system "that the leakage saved the cask." If ever that state of things should return, whether the line of difference and dissension ran East or West, or North or South, it would be the dissolution of this Union. The People of this country would not be turned into spinning jennies when their "home was on the deep," nor be curbed from the exercise of those powers which the God of nature had given them.

Mr. MACON thought the bill as reported would go counter to the Constitution, which declares that all duties and imposts shall be equal on the different States. It could not be believed that one part of the People would content themselves to be excluded from a trade which another was enjoying. He thought that the amendment must be adopted, or the whole given up.

[SENATE.

the internal traffic by the lakes; each of which were regulated by different rules. The latter was regulated by the laws of nature and necessity. There was nothing, in his opinion, in the idea of unjust preferences, which had been expressed. But, while on the subject of preferences, he would mention one which was very oppressive, which had often been complained of to Congress, and treated with indifference by them. On all imported articles, the duties imposed in this country, were ad valorem. In ev ery other part of the country, this duty was calculated upon the cost in the foreign country, while by law or construction, the People on the frontiers paid the duty on the prices in Canada; consequently, making the duty far higher to those who consumed commodities from Canada, than to any other portion of the community.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. HOLMES, and was adopted by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Barton, Benton, Berrien, Branch, Chambers, Chandler, Clayton, Cobb, Dickerson, Eaton, Harrison, Hayne, Holmes, Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnston, of Louisiana, King, McKinley, Macon, Randolph, Reed, Ridgely, Rowan, Ruggles, Silsbee, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South Carolina, Tazewell, Thomas, White, Willey, Williams, Woodbury-32.

NAYS-Messrs. Bateman, Bell, Edwards, Hendricks, Kane, Knight, Marks, Noble, Robbins, Sanford, Seymour, Van Buren-12.

Mr. HOLMES then moved further to amend the bill, by inserting the words "Upper and"-so as to extend the restriction to both Upper and Lower Canada. The motion was agreed to.

The bill, on motion of Mr. HOLMES, was further amended, by inserting the words "boat or other craft," after the word vessel, so as to exclude vessels of all dere-scriptions from carrying on the trade.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, had been fearful, in his marks the other day, lest he should expose our weakness. Ard the gentleman from New York had shown that weakness. He conceived the arguments of that gentleman to be against the Constitution, as it would give advantages to one State over the others, if the ports of New York on Lake Champlain were open, and those of Maryland shut by this act. He thought the gentleman from Maine deserving of praise for his magnanimity : for he certainly had foregone what was the interest of a portion of the People of his State, in making this motion. As to this being a navigation act alone, he thought we were called on by every means in our power to prevent Great Britain from monopolizing the navigation of the Colonies. But, by this bill it would be given to them; for they would be enabled to supply the West Indies with our produce for seven months in the year, from Canada. He thought he saw the object of the gentleman in the declaration that we could touch Great Britain only through her manufactures. But, should we increase the duties on British manufactures to advance our own, when an opportunity arrived of regaining the West India trade, we should not be able to remove the duties on British manufactures: for, however we might negotiate on the subject, neither branch of Congress would be willing to reduce the duties, to the disadvantage of our own manufactures. If the bill passed, New York, Vermont, and Maine, would enjoy a benefit, while all the other States would be depressed; this would cause a disunion of interests, which ought to be dreaded, as threatening to destroy the country. He saw that we had, by some means, got completely into the power of Great Britain. How we were to extricate our selves, he did not know. He saw, also, that, if a trade was carried on with Canada, the revenue would be impaired; and from this complicated evil, consequences arise which he dreaded to look at.

Mr. SANFORD, in reply, observed, that our commerce with Great Britain was of three kinds-that carried on with her European ports, that with her colonies, and

Mr. COBB moved also to add, 66 wagon, cart, or sleigh," so as to make the restriction apply to land as well as water carriage.

After a short conversation on this motion, between Messrs. HOLMES and HARRISON, Mr. COBB not pressing his motion,

The question occurred on striking out, in order to insert the substitute offered for the bill by Mr. SMITH; but before the vote was taken,

Mr. EATON moved an adjournment.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1827.

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS.

The Senate took up the following resolution, accompanying the report of Mr. HOLMES, from the Select Committee on French Spoliations:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to procure the evidence and documents relating to the claims of our citizens against France, previously to the Convention of the 30th September, 1800, and to cause an abstract of the claims, and of the evidence and documents, to be laid before the Senate, at the commencement of the first session of the next Congress."

On the question of agreeing to the resolution, Mr. MACON requested information, and Mr. HOLMES explained. Mr. CHANDLER said, he hoped the resolution would be so amended as not to pledge Congress in future to pay those claims.

Mr. TAZEWELL opposed the resolution, as not only asking information from the Executive, but, as taken in connexion with the report binding the Government to pay some millions of money, which, it appeared, was chiefly claimed by Insurance Companies. He thought it not only unjust, but improper, to give any countenance to these

SENATE.]

The Colonial Trade Bill.

[FEB. 24, 1827.

had not had time to examine, they should pass a resolution to sustain that report, and give it the sanction of the Senate. He should, therefore, vote for laying the resolution on the table.

claims. They had been for two or three sessions before Congress, and the Committees had each time, until now, moved to be discharged from their consideration. He had been a member of one of the Select Committees on the subject, and had at one of the meetings heard read Mr. KING observed, that this was a subject of great something similar to this report. His opinion was then, importance, on many considerations, and ought, on neias it was now, that the claims were not binding on this ther side, to be prejudged. The report was not only long Government. If this resolution was agreed to, it would and argumentative, but it had been only this morning laid be for the benefit of the State printer, or some other on the tables of the Senators, who could not have examinprinter, who would have a good job in printing the do- ed it. He did not wish to act precipitately, and he would cuments which would be obtained from the Executive; therefore move to lay the report and resolution upon the but he was convinced it would go no further. He, there-table, and make it the order of the day for Tuesday next. fore, moved to lay it on the table.

Mr. KING'S motion was then adopted.

COLONIAL TRADE BILL.

The unfinished business of yesterday was then taken up, and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to regulate the intercourse between the United States and the Colonies of Great Britain. The amendment offered by Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, still pending.

Mr. HOLMES said, he believed the argument in favor of these claims, set forth in the report, could be sustained. It was true that the subject had twice before been referred to a committee; but a detailed report had never before been made upon them. The committee which had now reported in their favor, was, with the exception of himself, composed of the most distinguished members of other committees; and, it might be supposed, were capable of forming an opinion upon the subject. With regard to the facts, Mr. H. was well satisfied that the claimants were entitled to something; and that the United States did release these claims in negotiating with France, for a valuable consideration, and had paid the claimants nothing. It was not intended to go into argument on the justice of the claims this session; the only object was to obtain the papers as evidence, which had been put into the hands of the Government, and which it was due to the claimants to produce and investigate. Some of these documents were in the State Department, and others in the hands of our Agent at Paris; and a resolution of the Se-have not the inclination, nor has the Senate the time to nate was necessary to obtain them. He hoped that the motion to lay on the table would not prevail, and should call for the yeas and nays on the question. Should it not succeed, and were he forced to argue the question, he would then move to postpone the resolution to some more convenient day.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said, I rise, Mr. President, to make a few observations in answer to the ingenious course that the Chairman (Mr. JonssSTON) has thought proper to adopt. I confess that he has shewn great ingenuity in his endeavor "to make the worse appear the better reason." But I think, Mr. President, I have some reason to complain. He has drawn inferences which I did not mean; has misquoted what I said lately, and of what I had said on a former occasion, has quoted that part which suited his purpose, and left out that which would have explained; and has drawn conclusions never meant by me. I must be excused from pursuing him in all. I spare. I, therefore, shall confine myself to points which I consider of some importance. A great part of what the gentleman has said has already been answered by me, and other gentlemen will, perhaps, give their views.

:

The Chairman has said, that he understood that "I approved the bill, and would support it." He is mistaken. Mr. WHITE wished to know what utility the resolution I told him that I would propose some amendments. I did would effect. A large volume of documents, of a similar approve the bill on a casual first reading of it, but I never nature, was printed last year; and he doubted whether told the gentleman that I would support it; that was his any one of the committee could have had time to investi- inference. I have already said, that, on a close examinagate them thoroughly. It was a good Winter's work to tion of the bill and its consequences, I have changed my read and understand those already printed. Those now mind my reasons have been given. The Chairman called for, were to show, whether the whole or a part of says, that “I have attacked the report, the bill, and the the claims should be paid. But he thought the first ques- Administration." I was invited by the Chairman to extion to be settled, was, whether Congress would pay anyamine the report, and I have done so, politely, I hope of them-then the claimants would produce their own truly, I think. It bore hard on what I had said on a forevidence; and, if the documents in the State Department mer occasion; and, therefore, in the remarks which I were necessary, they could procure them. He thought made upon it, I have but discharged a duty which I the method proposed by the resolution an irregular one. owed to myself. Besides, I thought it incorrect, and The subject had been acted upon before; and had been calculated to mislead. I did attack the bill, and I trust reported upon unfavorably by the Senate and the House the Senate will believe that the view I have taken of it is of Representatives. If a new decision was now to be correct. But I deny that I have attacked the present made, he hoped time for making it would be allowed. Administration; that is, if the President be the Adminis He renewed the motion to lay upon the table. tration. That gentleman has, through the whole of this business, treated me with frankness. I deny that I have made any personal attack on Mr. Clay. Yet, I admit that I have attacked his instructions; to which I was triumphantly challenged by him in his own house before a large company. I accepted the challenge. When he said, pettishly," that he could propound twenty questions to me, not one of which I could answer," I underwent the challenge, and having found the "questions" (as I supposed) in his instructions, I have answered them, I hope, to the satisfaction of the Senate, certainly to my own. The Chairman says that I had said, "the report and bill ought to have been submitted to the Executive." I did not say so, Mr. President. I did say, that "I wished they had been." The reason I gave was, that I thought they would have been amended. The gentleman has thought proper to boast of the independence of a Sena

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, was averse to going into discussion upon this or any other subject, while they had but six days more to act in, and while a contention was still kept up between the subjects now before the Senate, for preference. It was certainly too serious a question to be debated at this late period; and he was not prepared to go into the investigation of claims which had lain dormant a quarter of a century, and which amounted to nearly half of the National Debt. The primary question was, whether any of the claims should be paid; and, if it was decided that they should be, then it would be necessary to appoint Commissioners for their settlement, as was done in the Spanish claims. There must be a principle on which to decide them; and to that the Commissioners would be bound to resort. He had no idea that, after a long and argumentative report, which the Senate

FEB. 24, 1827.]

The Colonial Trade Bill.

[SENATE.

tor, &c. &c. Still, (highly as I think of that gentleman) Secretary for my view of the trade, which I gave him I cannot help thinking that a little good advice can do with pleasure, and I think it met him on his return from him, or any of us, no harm: especially when we may Kentucky. I had no expectation that the instructions commit the Executive with a foreign Nation. I have al- on that point could have gone by Mr. King. I have, I ways considered it my duty to my country, and a respect think, made no charge on the Secretary on that subject. due to the Executive on such occasions, to confer with I am sure I meant to make none, and the Chairman might them; without, in my own opinion, lessening my dignity have spared his charge of want of candor, as applied to as an independent Senator, which I claim to be, and me. All I did know was from Mr. Clay; that they had which (I think) I have shown I am. I have endeavored not gone when I conversed with him in January, 1826. to show wherein we have committed an error, by which I can easily conceive that a gentleman, going into the we may have lost one of our very best branches of com State Department, must have many inquiries to make; merce, and one of our best customers. In doing so, I much to examine, before he acts on an important subhave acted as a real friend of my country. It is for that ject. And I have said nothing on that point that can be we are placed here-and I should have been wanting in tortured into a censure on the Secretary for not having my duty if I had glossed over our errors. So long as the given instructions on the Colonial question to Mr. King British prohibited the Colonial trade to the United States, before he left the United States. The observations, I voted for equal prohibition. But when Great Britain therefore, of the Chairman, have been perfectly gratui offered us, in her act of 1825, all that we had asked, and tous on his part. The Chairman has drawn his own consome advantages that we had never asked, I then thought clusions on the fact stated by me, "That the President we ought not to have hesitated to close with their pro-" had not seen the acts of Parliament until I had sent posal; and (as was my duty to my country) I said so in them to him." He says, "Those laws had been in the my place. And this is what, I think, is acting as an inde- " possession of Government three months. I would appendent Senator. The Chairman has read the celebrat- “ peal to the candor of the gentleman himself. I would ed report of Mr. Jefferson, to every word of which I sub-appeal to his knowledge of the fact, that the paper scribe. And I can say that my whole political life has "cases containing the foreign correspondence, are rebeen in unison with it. Do you want proof? Look at "gularly carried to the President; and I would ask him, the act of 1815. It was my own. And, Mr President," if he believes that the President had no knowledge of my desire to accept the fair terms of Great Britain, lately" those laws." I will answer the gentleman by stating offered, was perfectly in accordance with it. Our ne- the fact. I did not know how long those laws of Great glecting to do so was, to say the least of it, unfortunate. Britain had been in the Department, until he had told us. In 1822, (the Chairman says) she (Great Britain) se I know nothing of the paper cases, or the manner of conlected a few articles of primary importance, which we ducting the business of the Department. But to the were permitted to carry to her. Is this candid? Is it principal question. I had, at different times, been presscorrect in point of fact? A few articles! What is the ing the President to open our ports by Proclamation, fact? By that act she admitted every article, the pro-and having quoted those acts of Parliament, he asked duce of the forest or the land, with two exceptions only, me what acts I alluded to. I answered, those of June to wit: beef and pork. Even bacon was admitted by and July, 1825. I have never seen them, said he : How the act. The articles admitted, amounted to more than did you get them? I received them from the State one hundred ; and those prohibited to only two; and even Department; have had them printed, and can send of those two, more than thirty-five thousand barrels were you a copy. He requested me to do so; and I sent exported to the Colonies in 1825. "She demanded, him, the same day, copies of each of those laws. The "(in same act of 1822) says the Chairman, that our alien Chairman says: "That he (Mr. S.) seems to sup"duties should be repealed, although, by their act, no "pose the trade perfectly reciprocal, because the same "discriminating duties on her part were repealed." The "articles are prohibited. The articles they prohibit, we answer is plain. There were no discriminating duties to "can furnish. The articles he supposes prohibited here, repeal; of course her act was silent on that point. Why "they cannot furnish." Mr. President, this is really a did not the Chairman show us that there had been dis- new discovery made by the Chairman. We, by prohicriminating duties in the Colonies If there had been bitory duties, prohibit the importation of beef, pork, fish, any, our Government has had from 1822 to 1827 to dis- and fish oil; and these, the Chairman says, the British cover them, and should have been able to prove that cannot furnish. Does this require an answer? Why, there were. I have stated that there were none, so often, Sir, take off your prohibitory duties, and our ports will that I am ashamed, almost, to have to answer that objec- soon be filled with their fish and fish oil, to the ruin of our tion again. The Chairman said, "how can he (Mr. S.) fisheries. The Chairman has said that "He (Mr. S.) has "say that we demanded too much, (meaning in 1823,)|“attempted to fix upon the Cabinet (meaning that of Mr. "and accuse the Administration of sacrificing the inte- "Monroe,) a miserable sophism.' He says, that the law "rest of the country? He was surprised, last year, how "of 1815, authorized the President to remove the discri"we carried a barrel of flour under the heavy discrimi- "minating duties from those nations who should repeal "nating duties." I did say that the late Administration "theirs. The answer is, that this is a misreading of the asked too much; and I proved it, by the present Admin-"law." He (the Chairman) then gives his own reading, stration's having wisely relinquished all that the former to wit: "By the law of 1815, the repeal of the discrimihad demanded. I did not say, last year, that I was surprised how we carried a barrel of flour under those heavy discriminating duties. What I did say, was, "There are "several valuable articles necessary to the West Indies, "which can only be drawn from the United States, the "retaliation duties on which, fall heavily on the mer"chant and cultivator. I am surprised they are not car"ried in British ships alone." I enumerated the articles, and flour is not one of them. The Chairman asks me, "If I do not know that the delay in the instructions on "the Colonial trade arose from the desire of obtaining in"formation from myself and others on the subject?" In auswer, I can only say, that I was applied to by the

"nating duties is to take effect whenever the President "shall be satisfied that the discriminating or countervail"ing duties of such foreign nations, so far as they operate "to the disadvantage of the United States, have been abo"lished." Mr. President, I spoke without book-I made no quotation. But where is the false reading on my part? None that I can conceive; unless, that what I said was in a few words-his, a long quotation: for, in this case, I presume he does not mean that there is any difference between the word in the law "abolished," and that I used, repealed." Mr. President, I have said, that the construction given by Mr. Monroe's administration to the act of 1815, that where a nation had no discriminating

66