CHARLOTTE, X C. TlESBdY, JJJST.WT 9, 1827.
PURLISTIED WEEKLY
By LEMUEL BINGHAM,
At Three Dollars a year, paid in advance.
No paper will be tliscontinued, unless at the
discrt tion of the editor, until all arrearages are
paid.
Advertisements will be inserted at the usual
rates. Persons sending in advt rtisements, arc
requested to note on the margin the nimber of
Insertions, or they will be continued until forbid,
and cli.'irged accordingly.
OKFK lAL PAPEKS.
On uur Relations wit/-. Great iiritain.
From Mr. Clay to Mr. Gallatin.
(Accompaniii),- tlie President’s Message.)
To Al.nK.KT (tALT.A'lIN,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Tlenipo-
tcntiury of the Lnited States, l,ond«m.
l)KVAItTMK>T OF StATE, ^
lllh iN'ot' 1B26. 5
Sir : Agreeably to the intimation
give'll in my letter, under date the 31st
ult'.. I j»rocccd to communicate to
yp.; i c view whirl) has hecn taken here
of i: oiricial note of Ilis Britannic Ma-
jr*-,' ^ j)iii'rii)al Sccittai}. of State for given trade be found upon cxperi-
Ailiirs,addressed to you on the I ' r p. , i . ... *
1 111) Si-',.’; n.hc) last.
right, in both instances, rests upon the
same grounds, and that is, that, in all
commercial exchanges, national or in
dividual, the parties to them are equal,
and have the same independent power
of judging each for himself; and there
is much more reason, on account of the
greater duration of the interest, that the
right in question shotdd be exercised in
a permanent than a temporary trade.
All commerce is founded upon mu
tual convenience and advantage. And
this jjrincijde is equally applicable to a
commerce with colonial possessions, and
with the country to w’hich they belong,
or to any other country. In trading
with any coloin’es, we have no more
imagined that a privilege had been grat-
uitouslj^ conceded to us, than that we
had made such a concession to the col
onial power, in allowing its colonies to
trade with the United States. It cannot,
therefore, be admitted, that any other
compensation is due from the United
States to Great Britain for the jjermis-
sion to trade with her colonies, than
that which springs from the mutual ex
changes which arc the object of that and
of all comnierce. If the prosecution of
! ment unprofitable to either party,' that
I party will no longer pursue it; and w’e
It tiif Briii''li Goyernment had con-ijj.,,,y safely confide in the discernment of
tcnt('d itMil with simply announcing | repressor stimulate ad-
iri tl'iiil r.ote, its determination no Ion-‘ according to the loss or gain,
gcr t( tioat with that of the I . Slates, , vvhich may be incident to it. The Bri-
oii the itilei'couse with the British coi-,^|j,|, (lovernment, fully sensible of this
oni('^« however upex])ccted b}'us ^'^•ch j was supposed, in the re-
a (it lorniination would have been, "’tijccnt liberal commercial policy vvhich it
jni'^hihave felt ourselves houiitl silently i to have intended, by the ex-
to itfjuit^see it! the declared plf-^sure j j,^ye Juculealed
of His BritanriicMrtjesfy s Government, j its observance upon all nations.
Two i^uriies, at least, are necessary to | The idea, that t!ic admission into Col-
the cui'durt of any negotiation; and if
one absolutely !eclinestreating, theoth-
er, oi ! . 'ess't\, must .djide by his de-
cisic)' . iint tl'e British Governmcit,
cot • with n erely commnnic;!-
tii.c ti'Ct *’f its resolution, no longer
to n g'.ili.ite with the United States, for
an arrangement of tl'.e colonial trade,
whirl' might reconcile the interest and
wishe> uf both parlies, brings forward
new jirM C'ples, to some of which w'e
cannot subscrilH’, and seeks to cast up
on us the blame of tlie want of success
whiei Has attcmled past endeavors to
effect that obje'*1, which we cannot‘ad
mit. 'I'he frankness which has ever
characterized all our correspondence
with the British Government, requires
our objections to those principles,
;ii . our dissentfrom such an imputation,
be respectfully stated. In doing
1 i!l begin with a brief statement
gePtrul propositions which
divided into an equal number of similar
parts, or that the United Kingdom, be
ing constituted by the union of three
kingdoms, would be justified in deman
ding, upon that ground, from any pow
er, composed only of a single kingdom,
more than it granted, in all commer
cial intercourse between difl'erent Pow
ers, the question resolves itself into one
o/" profit and loss. If it be the interest
of the parties, that the trade shouM be
allowed, it is altogether immaterial how
those territories are‘governed or divid
ed ; both have an equal right to judge
of the conditions of the intercourse. It
would be most strange if the fact of a
foreign State (Sweden for examj)le) pos
sessing a Colony, no rtiatter how unim
portant, entitle such State to treat on
difTerent principles with Great Britain,
in respect to an intercourse w’ith her
Colonies, frofu th" United States.
Neither can it be admitted that thf
possession of Colonies entitles the no
tion holding them, to the exclusive e*.-
enjoyment of the circuitous navigali»M;
between the parent country, and a for
eign country, through a.'.y or all o!
those Colonies, upon th^ gmund of
being the prosecution of a Colonial trade,
W’hich is understood to have been taken
by Great-Britain. If the connexion be
tween the United Kiniidom and its
numerous Colonies is to be regarded in
the light of that of p oontiiuious coast,
it must be allowed that this coast has
very great extent. It pas'^es around
Cape Horn, doubles the Cape of Good
Hope, crosses the Atlantic Ocean, pen
etrates al.nost every sea, touches eve
ry continent, and encircles the Globe.
A Colonial Coasting trade of this u-
niversa! reach, presents none of the
onial j)orts of foreign vessels is a boon i properties of an or\linary coasting inuie,
granted by the parent country, that is, 'except that of the identity of sovereign
a benefnclion without equivalent, is as I power. Tlie foundation on w liich nations
new’as it is extraordinary. In that in- are supposed to reserve to thcMiselves,
tercourse which has been allowed by | exclusively, their own coasting trade, is
the British Government between its ! not merely that of monopoly, but [>rin-
colo'nies and the United States, never | cipally bccause the}* are thereby better
fullj' opened, somctiinesentirely closed, 1 enabled to check ail inva>»oiis of iheir
and when reluctantly admitted, fcllered | own laws—a reason which is inapj)lica-
by numerous re.strictions, we recognise; Lie to t'ue widely dispersed condition
any thing but a boon. T!ie leading mo-i of the British Colonial possessions,
tive wHic\i appears to have arluated the I. Ki^terlaining sach opinions as have
Britibh Government, in respect to iheli,^.^.,^ herein stated.
ther events, markets have been opened
to us, which may be found ample sub
stitutes to those W’hich it is her pleasure
to close against us.
As to the monopoly which it is al
leged, we have enjoyed, it should be
observed, that therelative positionofthe |
British West India Colonies to the U.
States, and the nature of their respec
tive climates and productions, are emi
nently favorable to a mutually benefi
cial commerce between tliem. From
their })roximity to the United States,
they find their convenience in drawing
from us those perishable and bulky ar
ticles which thej’ want, rather than from
more distant countries. If the West In
dia Islands were situated on the Ktyo-
pean instead of the American side of the
Atlantic Ocean, andKuror' could supply
aschetplv and abundantly tin-same des-
criptic/n of articles asti.e United Slates,
fiK UritisH W. 1. colonies would pre-
f*: obtaining their necessary supplies
fiEuro])e. The United State> con-
'iibnte to other West India Colonies,
i:. as great exletit, and share in the navr
igation between them as laig«“ly as they
do in their intercourse with those of
Great Britain. This is the eii(‘t ofthe
law of proximity. If it be a monopoly,
it has emanated from no human power,
but from a much higher sourer. Far
for the regulation of that trade. AnJ,
to guard agaiusit all misconcep!f)n, is
moreover expressly provided, in the
treaty itself, “that the intercour‘«c be
tween the United States and His Britan
nic Majesty’s possessions in the VVest
Indies,'and on the continent of North
America, shall not be affected by any of
the provisions of this article, btit each
party’ shall remain in the complete pos
session of its rights with respect to such
an intercourse.” With what prr ietj’’,
then, can it be affirmed, that “to with
hold from the ship of a country leaving
Colonies, trading from the mother cjun-
try to a foreign State, under a regular
ticaty belw’efMi the tw’o countries, tho
right of clearing for another port belong
ing to that mother country, ir. ariolher
part of the world, is an injur} ”—an in
jury un(touhlcitty deviation from
the spirit of the treaty Tiu- ’ ( gular
treaty roferreil to, excludes, by i».> pos
itive terms/ all regulation of tin* inter
course hetween the Uiuted Slati s and
the British Colonies in the VV’^esf ludies.
And yet it is contended, that (Ji’e;il Brit
ain has the right, according to the spirit
of llu; treaty, not only to the benefit of
the applicalion of its provisions, to u
sid)ject \Nhich it alone profe.ss* s ti) regu
lates but to have them applied also t.oa-
nother buhjoct, which is exprcs.^tv lc-
clared not to l)e regulated, and iii to
which, both narties an left in the “com-
regard
to
the
exchange of American and Coloni.tl | „r commercial ixg7;!ation, the
profluce, has been to sell hei e, v. LlU ; |st;.K-has al-
could be sold, if sold at all, no where; j ronceived tli;.i dr.' iiadf bt i» i,
else so profitably, and to buy of us ex- .-r,d ii,,> iM iliM* L oKm'•( i, v.u'p»’o
actly so much as she could obtain no | .jjj vvhich are applica-
w’here else, at least so profitably. j |,[p y,,. ,,;iicr trade, and that it was
On our side, whenever the trade 1'^^ ♦ t;onsf'(jucnliy ,i fit subject of arrant"'.-
been open, there have been no restrie- ^ hy treaty, or in any manm ! by
tions, as to tiie obit;cls ot exportation | ^ny other trade might he ”f!;;n-
fronr the United States to the British I Great Britain may/ undoubted--
Colonics. An enumeration here of the ly, if slie pleases, deny to herself the
« : 01 !
supposed to be incontestible
It is tho undoubted right of every 1 numerous prohibitions and restriciions
nation 1o prohibit or allow foreign on the B'-itish side, upon articles both of
conunerce with all, or any jinrt, of its Colonial and American j)roduce, would
doniii'ions, wherever situated, and , extend this paper to a most unreasona-
whatever may be their denominations, i ble length. And with respect to the
parci'.tal or colonial, or the modes of' transportation of the subjects of the
govf rrment in the respective parts. It limited trade, the aim of the British
may pre.^cribe for itself ihr cotiditions Government has been, by all its regula-
o» w' inh the foreign trade is tolerated ; tions, to engross a disproportionate
but ’'^•'^e conditions are not obligatory | share.
upon otli(!r nations, unless tl.ey, in some j This intention was clearly developed
form, assent to them. Ali such condi-l-j^ ^|,p treaty of 1701, and has been ad-
tioiis, in respect to foreign Powers, ] hcred to, with steady perseverance, »’u-
jn.lhe tiature of proposals which they ' tij^ thirty-t'vo intervening years,
are as free to accept or decliiie, as the'§^,^]j intercourse deserves to be char-
otho?'party was to lender them. If a j any other way than that of a
Ilat^v1 i as cohniies, it nuist tiiu|uestion-. boon tolhel'nited States.
ab!v reserve to itself, exclusively*, the | It cannot be admitted, that the fact
rigis’ ( f trading with them. | that the United Stales have no colonies,
BmI it cannot be admitted that, in re-i varies the principles applicable to an in-
gard to foreiiin Powers, thcrei is an} tercourse with tiie Biitish Colonies. In
thiair in th(‘ nature aiul Cftndilion of coi-1 the consideration ol the conditions on
o: ies, or in tl-e relation which subsists i which a foreign tr;uhi s'nall be toleraU'd,
beUvren them and the country to which i it is of i;o cojiseqnence what name, or
tlu'V h« lo!,g, which distinguishes the j what government a Slate may clionse to
of regulating their commerce j bestow’on the several part
])ower
of its do-
fronj i!i;tl which is exercised over the I minions. Some oi tIu; ten ilori^ s ol the
parent country, 'i’hat ))arent country Uniteii States are goyernedJ>y jjecidiar
m:i'. liMve its motive’s of ji^alousy or pol
icy Inv a rigorous exclusion o( all inter-
euui^r bf 'ueen its colonies and foreign
ers. Bni the moment It chooses to re
lax and opt'ii its colonial ports to a for-
tii--’) tra.l'", whether the relaxation is ^
mi'vci. h '
local forms, allogether dincrent ironi
those of the Slates (d'the Confvder.icv,
but W'e have never contended tiiat this
anomaly ought to affect the regulalion
of our couHDcrcial intercouse w;th for
eign Powers. A country having i.j
a temporarv or permanent, colonies i'iay he so situated as to nOord
interest, or necessity, ihe right is ,ac-j the same kind of productions as hot!) an-
nnired by foreign Slales to examine and . other country and ils C()lonic.s. Aid
jiidge for themselvc's the coiuiilions oh , there may be a greater diilerence in tnf
which tliey :-re proposed to be iidmilted, j nature and vahic oi the productions o;
and to reject or accej)t them according-, two diireretitcounlries, neitiier ol w’hici'
Iv. 'riiis right of ioreign nations is | have colonies, than exists hciween those
ronceded, in the official note whicl; I i of a country and ils colniiits, and ano-
am considering, wIkmi the colonial pow-j thcr which has_no colonies. It might
f-r i‘ urg^'d, by the p'l'essure ol immedi-j as \vi !l he argued tl'i.il t!ie l.if:t ol twen-
-ale V.tothr(»v\ ;.p ti, lor a time, ii>- ty-four
Cfilo :u.t ],(,it>, l>i;t i' ’'.r.i* '’. \v! C! it ,nlitif
ehooscs to open th?n yern'.['i:Ci:!.l\. '•'li'j [;i!l oli.vr ro'.vci^
Slati.'s ef'i'!iv(i''ii.g tins 1 ni n,
it Id dco’ami cor-ce-sums I'roin
!:o.':e t-':ir.terv i not
advantage of consulting with foreign
Powers, through the accusloii'e'i or
gans of intercourse, as to the coi diiions
on which, with mutual benefit, the trade
may be carried on. But if she choost? to
restrict herself to the suigle mode ol
regulating it by act ofP.-riiiin i d, it can
not be admitted either tiiat such res
triction is a nect ssa> y consequence from
the nature of Colonies, or, as wiH be
hereafter sImwu, that it is in accordance
witii the practice ofthe British Govern
ment itself.
Tlie lirilish Secretary of Stale allege^
that, in 1822, the British Government
opened the (Colonial intercouix to ns,
ami wilheld it from all otlicr Powers;
that, in effect, wi thereby ac(jiiired a
mono))oly in the supply of the consump
tion of the British West Inilies; hut that
Great Britain did not preclude herself
from tiie right to (.|>en hf r colonial ports
to other nations whenever il miglit suit
her purposes. e did not ask ih.il
(Ir^at-Brilain should slrul lier c donial
ports to other Powers. 'I’he occlusion
was, no d(-uhf, in consequence of the
estimate wliich she made o'f l.er own in-
lerests, wilhoiil aii}’ ii.tcnlitm to confer
lukiivi' up'jii US, as th'"’ (^*
the act of I j, is
accor.Iiiig lo a similar esiun.ite. e
havf; no I ighl to c{)n'.i)hiin, and noser
!'ia\'e coniph:ineu, Ihat (li'-al-lh'it on
seeks t’nr liie UniLe( ivingdom and l' )!’
Its Colonies lh(? best markets lor sale
and purrlia--^-, any nu.re than we antici
pate aiiv complaint from her, ii', when
we are dri\’en from her Colonial p-oils,
we shfudd exerris.'; the like lilun-ty. If
sh(‘ lias reasun to felicitate herself that,
1 \- the course of (‘vents, .s|-,e is enabled
to tiravv tVom other sources those suj)-
plie> \vliich her Colonies had been in the
habit of obtaining from Itu; I,. Slates,
we I..ivf>, , perhaps, occasion l(u-ef|nal
bv tiic r'ixe or o
Irom repining at thti (lispeosatiun of
Providence, tiat ions contented with the . . ^
portion of his bounty which lias been plete posse.ssion” ol all their right^. And
allotted to each other, would do well [this is insisted upon, in behalf of (.iroat
to acquiesce, w ilh cheerful submission, I Britain, without any corresponding pri-
in the arrangements of the Univer.s* , | viicge on the part of the Lnited States,
which, in his wisdom, he has thought j If Hi«' treaty be competent to carry a
proper to order. j Biilish vessel through the British West
The United States have never made i India ports to the United Stites, and
it a subject of serious complaint that, j'’ice versa, whilst under similar circuin-
lor the indulgence which their laws fiave slanct's, those ports arc to remain shut^
granted of unrestricted liberty of im-; by British authority, against a vessel of
portalion or exportation of whatever isi the United States, it would equally en-
j)i’oduoed or mamifiictured in the Ignited j title sucft British vessel Ir^ pass through
Slates, or in the British Colonies, re-j the ports of any and every country up-
spectivelv, they have been met in re- o'l tlie globe, to and from tne U. States,
liirn, wiih long catalogue ofprohibi- ; I’hc T'tdted Slates might, willnml any
lion.s iM'.d re'li iclions, including some of 1 violation of the f'onvention of 181,>, in-
Ihe stjple eoiuiiioilities on both m(!os,— tri’diet all_ intercourse with the Bi ilisli
Altlinugii ihey !iave desired the ahjjli- I'st Indies, direct or circuitous. Aud
lion of those restrictions, they hcve left 1 surely the right to adopt the stronger
it toii;eso!e and nndistuibe(feonsidera-[ «nd n^ore comprehensive, inchnles the
tion of the Virilish Government, w helh-j choice of the weaker measure, that ot
ertheprospf iity of iheir Colonie!*, them-! 'lone, by British ves
sel ves, w ould not be best proouited by : scis, what Great Britain prohibits, under
ti.r ;,,,piicalion to the intereour.se ofi anah gous circum.stances, American ves-
iho.e iJwral princijiies r,hich>have ob-' 'e'ls from doing. It is alleged that that
laiiieti the sanction of tin; present «n-! right, from the enjoyment ofw’hic.h vve
lightened age. , The Gove? nment of the j aie interdicted by British regula'ion, '
United States iias contented iisel' with | nevertheless cxihted in Great Britiin
nisisting that, circumscribed as the tiadej antecedently to any treaty, and at a pe-
iias been according to the pleasure of the I i'*‘>d when no claim to any trade vvith ,
Bnti'li Government, the regulation of [British colonies had even been wdiisper-
the navigation employed in it should be J by the United St.ates. As a right
fi)unded on principles of reciprocity, so: it never exi.sted one moment, since the
as to allow fair competition between the
ve«'-els of the two counti ies.
independence of the United States. If
the privilege were exercised, it was
Th,: position n»w .■,s.sun,..l, lliat Coio- f™'" ".odcralio... an,l by lla.ii- suf-
n.,1 ir.'(le will, f„rd«n Slates is not a fit
vul,j,.ct for M .;ol.atio„ will, those Stales, ."f “">'
1„„ exciusively to ti.e Un.te.l States ,lul not cUim a rec'|Mocal
■ I intercourse with the British C/olouics.
The two countries again unsuccessful'
an exciusiV'; bciiefil
pening ol them by
lilt ion'of the parent country, is eritirely
new. It Is not sustained by the j>rac-
lici jf other powers having Colonies.—
it is not sustained by the j>racticc of
(Jrcat Britain herscdf; and this brings
me to the consideration of what has
i>,isscf! between tiie two Governments in
rohtion to tliis Ira ie.
'I'hey negotiatef! on that subject, to
go no furtiier back, in the year 17-f»l.
'I’heir ne:oliations resulted in the l2lh
article of the tn'iit) of Amily, ('crn-
mcrcc*', ap.d Navi'^jtion, wliich was then
com luded. 'I'he very fact of treating,
[jetv\('tii tw'o indejie.ident states, im
plies the right In eacli of considei ing and
determining the mutual propositions
vvhicti may be oll’ered, 'I'he two Pow
ers agiiin negotiated on the samesul)ject
in 1*7;), and Ix cause the (Government
of the l/nited Slates diti not conceive
that the concessions of (jreat Britain,
contained in the I2th artich; ofthe trea
ty c)f 17Mt, w(‘re equivalent to the con-
ce'-.>ions on their side, it was annulled,
'fhey agnin negotial(!d in IS].5, and ac-
Inallv entered Inlo slipulilions whicli,
as }-on well know, form a part of Ihe
(.‘onven'ioo ofthe I'.iir-il of.lul}', of that
year, for the regulalion (d’ the ]{riti.sh
Mast liif!'! trade; hut, not i)e-ing a!)le to
come to any aj;ri‘fii;ent, in regard lo the
British West India trr.!e, il was left to
l.he two connlries to riigulale this subject
by tlieir respective hnvs. On that oc
casion,- it \s’.is s-tated Ijy Lord Ca>tle-
rcagh, t’.iat ll.e P)rilish Government
wouM i:ot reg'’i\i as unfriendly, ;m\'
ir.' risure whic.h the United Slates mi'>hi
|i'..'iiik i‘ to into opGia’lvn j
ly negotiated, in relation to the C'olo-
nial trade, in 1817, vvhe^ri Lord Castlc-
reagh submitted a draft of four articles,
which did not prove acceptalile, ami in
181S and lfilf>, and finally in 182 1.
VVhut was the footing on w’hich the in-
tercour.se had been placed, by the law*:
of the two countries, at the period of
opening the last negotiation, you will
s;e by adverting to tho instructions oif
my predecessor, under date 23d June,
with a copy of which j’ou havo
been furnished. The long and arduous
discussions which took place between
Mr. Kush and Messrs. Iluskisson and
S. Canning, in 182 1, brought the par-
lli.'s very near togelhe:’. Kach exchan
ged with the other the proposal with
which he would be satisfied, but as they
could not then agree upon either, it
was concluded to suspend the negotia
tion, wdth a distinct understandii'sr on
both siiles, that it should be aga'n re
sumed on some convenient day,’ [see
protocol of the 2'th conference, page
I 'M of Ihe printed pamj)hlet.] From a
comparison of the American and Brit
ish [)roposals [see the former annexed
to the j)rolocol of the third conference,
marked A, page 133 of the sauie pamph
let, and Iho British counter-project,
marked L. page 142—see also the Brii-
ish pa[)cr marked'W, page 135,] it will
be seen—
1. That both parties willing lo
aholivh all discri’n.lv,ating duties on
11101-side.
on ioit paee.) ,