Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

18th CONGRESS, 2d SESSION.

Memorial of the Nashville Bar.-Convention with Russia. [Sen. & H. of R.

Tennessee, to dispense, altogether, with the Circuit attend their circuits, in the different states, which are Court. This was far from their intention. If the pre- held, we believe, twice a year in every state and district sent state of things remains, either Ohio or this state will in the Union, except in Tennessee. In that state, owing be deprived of the benefit of the attendance of a Judge to its division into two districts, wholly unconnected of the Supreme Court. But, arranged as the Courts with each other, so far as relates to the Federal Court, were before the last Congress, the Judge of the Sev- as much as if they were in different states, there is but enth Circuit never had it in his power to remain at Nash- one Circuit Court held in a year, for the transaction of ville during a whole session. He has always been ne- business. In the Circuit Courts of the United States, cessarily called off before the end of the term, to hold held in almost every state of the Union, perhaps in all court at some other place; which circumstance, alone, but three or four, the business on the dockets can be, has been productive of great inconvenience and delay. and is, completed in four or five days. Were the CirThe Circuit Court, for this district, commonly sits from cuit Courts held in each state or district but once a year, six to eight weeks; and it is believed, that no possible this would enable the Judges of the Supreme Court to arrangement of the sessions of the court, under the pre-hold their sessions for a much longer period of time, and sent system, can prevent an interference, so as not, ne- complete the business before them. The inconvenience cessarily, to deprive one or more circuits of the benefits of having but one Circuit Court in a year, would be ofa Judge of the Supreme Court. much less than that arising from the great delay, which now exists, in the disposition of the causes in the Supreme Court. The practical effect of the present system, both as to the Supreme and Circuit Courts, is, that the causes of the least importance, and where the amount in controversy is small, are now immediately disposed of, and, others are delayed, from year to year, without argument or decision.

To show to your honorable body the situation of the business in the Circuit Court for the district of West Tennessee, the following statement is submitted with regard to the number of suits depending therein: On the trial docket of said court, in 1819, there were one hundred and seventy suits; in 1820, there were one hundred and fifty-two; in 1821, there were two hundred and two; in 1822, there were one hundred and fortyeight; in 1823, one hundred and eighty-five; and in 1824, one hundred and sixty-one. The most of these suits were of importance, either as to amount or in principle. Many of them involve difficult questions in law or equity, upon the decision of which, depend large and valuable tracts of land, and, sometimes, the whole estates of individuals. The above number of suits is not the annual product of each year-they have been accumulating from time to time-have been sometimes continued for the want of a competent court, at others because they were not reached, until some of them are older than the professional career of almost every man at this bar. The delay of justice is almost equivalent to its denial; and when the extent of this district, and the distance from which witnesses are summoned, are taken into view, it will be seen that the expense of protracted litigation must be ruinous. No method occurs to us, that will have a tendency to prevent the highly injuri ous and fatal consequences which we have endeavored to point out, but a change or reformation in the judiciary system, or in the number of Judges; and to attain this end, we have made this appeal to the National Legislature.

Upon the most mature consideration that we have been able to give to the subject, we think the most acceptable plan would be, to form new additional circuits in the Western country, and to appoint three Circuit Judges, who shall likewise be Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Your memorialists cannot perceive the force of the objection which has been urged against this plan, that'ten will be too great a number of Judges for the Supreme Court of the United States. In England, no practical inconvenience is found from having twelve, or, in truth, including the Lord Chancellor, thirteen Judges for the decision of cases in a court of last resort; and we confidently refer to the results of experience in that country. No good reason can be given why ten Judges cannot transact business with equal ease, celerity, and abili ty, as seven; and should it so happen that, upon questions of great importance, an equal division of opinions should exist, in all probability, it would be better for the community that such question should remain undecided, and that the cause be decided by an affirmation of the Judgment of the court below. It may also be said, that the court, as at present constituted, cannot transact the business on the docket of the Supreme Court, and that increasing the number of Judges will not obviate, but rather add to, this difficulty. Why is not the business Bow transacted? Because the Judges are compelled to VOL. I.-9

We respectfully submit these our sentiments and views, hoping that they will be received by you in that spirit which ought to characterise an American Congress; and we trust that your enlightened body will remove the numerous inconveniences and great evils which Tennessee, in common with the other Western states, now suffers, from the organization of the present judicial system of the United States. G. W. CAMPBELL, Chairman.

[blocks in formation]

America and His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russia, was concluded and signed at St. Petersburg, on the 5th (17th) day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four; which Convention, as translated from the French language, is, word for word, as follows:

Whereas a Convention between the United States of

In the name of the most Holy and Indivisible Trinity:

The President of the United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, wishing to cement the bonds of amity which unite them, and to secure between them the invariable maintenance of a perfect concord, by means of the present Convention, have named, as their Plenipotentiaries, to this effect, to wit: The President of the United States of America, HENRY MIDDLETON, a citizen of said States, and their Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary near his Imperial Majesty; and His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, his beloved and faithful CHARLES ROBERT Count of NESSELRODE, actual

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Privy Counsellor, Member of the Council of State, Se- Article 6th.-When this Convention shall have been cretary of State directing the administration of Foreign | duly ratified by the President of the United States, with Affairs, actual Chamberlain, Knight of the order of St. the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part, Alexander Nevsky, Grand Cross of the order of St. Wla- and on the other by His Majesty the Emperor of all the dir of the first class, Knight of that of the White Eagle Russias, the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washingof Poland, Grand Cross of the order of St. Stephen of Hunton in the space of ten months from the date below, or gary, Knight of the orders of the Holy Ghost and of St. sooner, if possible. In faith whereof the respective Michael, and Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor of Plenipotentiaries have signed this Convention, and thereFrance, Knight Grand Cross of the orders of the Black to affixed the seals of their arms. and of the Red Eagle of Prussia, of the Annunciation of Sardinia, of Charles III. of Spain, of St. Ferdinand and of Merit of Naples, of the Elephant of Denmark, of the Polar Star of Sweden, of the Crown of Wirtemberg, of the Guelphs of Hanover, of the Belgic Lion, of Fidelity of Baden, and of St. Constantine of Parma; and PIERRE de POLETICA, actual Counsellor of State, Knight of the order of St. Anne of the first class, and Grand Cross of the order of St. Wladimir of th second; who, after hav

Done at St. Petersburg, the 17th (5th) April, of the year of Grace one thousand eight hundred and twentyfour.

HENRY MIDDLETON.

LE COMTE C. DE NESSELRODE.
PIERRE DE POLETICA,

fied on both parts, and the respective ratifications of the And whereas the said Convention has been duly ratiing exchanged their full powers, found in good and due day of the present month, by Joux QUINCY ADAMS, Sesame were exchanged at Washington, on the eleventh form, have agreed upon, and signed, the following stipu-cretary of State of the United States, and the Baron de

lations:

Article 1st. It is agreed, that, in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean, or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the high contracting powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in fishing, or in the power of resorting to the coasts, upon points which may not already have been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving always the restrictions and conditions determined by the following articles:

Article 2d.—With the view of preventing the rights of navigation and of fishing, exercised upon the great ocean by the citizens and subjects of the high contracting powers, from becoming the pretext for an illicit trade, it is agreed that the citizens of the United States shall not resort to any point where there is a Russian establishment, without the permission of the governor or commander; and that, reciprocally, the subjects of Russia shall not resort, without permission, to any establishment of the United States upon the Northwest Coast.

Article 3d. It is moreover agreed, that, hereafter, there shall not be formed by the citizens of the United States, or under the authority of the said States, any establishment on the Northwest Coast of America, nor in any of the Islands adjacent, to the north of fifty-four degrees and forty minutes of north latitude; and that, in the same manner, there shall be none formed by Russian subjects, or under the authority of Russia, south of the same parallel.

Article 4th.-It is, nevertheless, understood, that, during a term of ten years, counting from the signature of the present Convention, the ships of both powers, or which belong to their citizens or subjects, respectively, may reciprocally frequent, without any hindrance what ever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbors, and creeks, upon the coast mentioned in the preceding article, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives of the

country.

TUYLL, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten tiary of his Imperial Majesty, on the part of their respective Governments:

Now, therefore, be it known, that I, JAMES MONROE, President of the United States, have caused the sad Convention to be made public, to the end that the same, and every clause and article thereof, may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed Done at the City of Washington, this twelfth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thou[L. S.] sand eight hundred and twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States the fortyninth. JAMES MONROE.

By the President:

JOHN QUICY ADAMS,
Secretary of State.
LETTER

From the Secretary of State, transmitting inform
ation in relation to the Commercial Relations,
(as they at present exist,) between the United
States and the kingdom of the Netherlands.
February 11, 1825.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, 10th February, 1825. The Secretary of State, in obedience to a resolution of the House of Representatives, of the 21st of January last, directing him to communicate to that House any information he may have in this Department, "showing whether the duties levied on the tonnage of the vessels of the United States, entering the ports of the kingdom of the Netherlands, and on the merchandise with which they may be loaded, exceed those paid by the vesels belonging to the said kingdom," has the honor to submit to the House of Representatives copies of the corres pondence in this Departinent, having relation to that subject.

Article 5th.-All spirituous liquors, fire-arms, other arms, powder, and munitions of war of every kind, are always excepted from this same commerce permitted by the preceding article; and the two powers engage, reciprocally, neither to sell, or suffer them to be sold to the natives, by their respective citizens and subjects, nor by any person who may be under their authority. It is likewise stipulated that this restriction shall never afford a pretext, nor be advanced, in any case, to authorize either search or detention of the vessels, seizure of the Extracts of a letter (No. 102) from Mr. Everett, to Mr.

merchandise, or, in fine, any measure of constraint whatever, towards the merchants or the crews who may carry on this commerce; the high contracting Powers recipro cally reserving to themselves to determine upon the penalties to be incurred, and to inflict the punishments in case of the contravention of this article, by their respective citizens or subjects.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

Adams, dated

BRUSSELS, 17th March, 1823. "I have the honor to enclose copies of two notes, which I have lately had occasion to address to Baron de Nagell, and of his answer to them."

"The reply to my application in regard to the difference in the duties imposed upon goods imported in

18th CONGRESS,

2d SESSION.

Commercial Relations between the U. States and the Netherlands.

national and foreign vessels, is merely an acknowledgment of the receipt of the note. As the principal object of the new financial system is to encourage the commerce and navigation of this country, it is perhaps hardly to be expected that the exception which I have suggested in favor of the United States, will be admitted. If it is not, a partial repeal of the law of the 20th of April, 1818, will probably be thought necessary. But, as this measure cannot be taken till the meeting of the next Congress, there will be ample time in the interval to receive the definitive answer of this Government." "A separate discriminating duty in favor of national vessels has also been imposed, since the commencement of this year, upon the importation of coffee from Batavia, which is to be in force until the end of 1824."

Mr. Everett to the Baron de Nagell.

BRUSSELS, March 7, 1823.

[ocr errors]

[H. of R.

to the enaction of our law of April 20, 1818, the immediate and necessary consequence will be, the repeal of that law, as far as it applies to the vessels of the Netherlands.

I must, therefore, take the liberty of requesting your Excellency to inform me, whether it is the intention of the Government of this country, that the new principles, introduced by the late tariff, shall be applied to the American trade. The Government of the United States has no wish to interpose, in any way, with the policy of the Netherlands; and has never sought, or accepted, exclusive or onerous commercial advantages in the ports of any nation. The liberal system which has lately prevailed, in the intercourse between the two countries, was regarded as mutually beneficial, and as conformable to the general spirit of the administration of both. I assure your Excellency, that my Government would regret to find itself compelled to depart from this system; and I venture to hope that you will furnish me with such explanations as may shew that a measure of that kind will not be necessary.

I have the honor to be, with high respect, Sir,
Your Excellency's obedient servant,
A. H. EVERETT.

SIR: The new Tariff, which has recently gone into operation, contains several articles affecting the commercial relations between this country and the United States. I think it my duty to invite your Excellency's attention to these articles, and to point out the manner in which they will operate upon the American trade. Your Excellency will recollect that the Government Extract of a letter (No. 105) from Mr. Everett to My

of the United States, by the law of the 20th of April, 1818, extended to the ships of the Netherlands, arriving in the ports of the Republic, nearly the same privileges that are enjoyed by our own. They pay the same tonnage duty, and also the same duties on their cargoes, as far as these consist of articles, being of the growth or manufacture of the Netherlands, or of such neighboring countries as usually ship their products from the Dutch ports. These privileges were granted to the commerce of the Netherlands in consequence of the adoption, in this kingdom, of the law of October 3, 1816, which abolished the discriminating tonnage duty, and of the understanding that there was no other discriminating duties in force. If any change were to take pl ce in the laws of this kingdom, in either of these respects, the natural consequence would be a corresponding change in those of the United States.

I regret to find that the new financial system appears to contemplate some important alterations of this description. Several articles of the tarif establish a difference of duties in favor of goods imported in Dutch vessels: and the law of 26th August, 1822, creates, in the form of a drawback, a general discrimination to the same effect; the 10th article being as follows: One tenth of the duties paid upon the importation, or exportation, of all goods, shall be returned when the same are imported, or exported in Dutch vessels, excepting those articles, of which the importation and exportation in Dutch vessels, are otherwise specifically favored by the tariff.

It has always been the wish of the Government of the United States, to lend its aid in placing the commerce of the world upon the most liberal footing. With this view, it was proposed to all the powers of Europe, soon after the close of the late wars, to abolish, mutually, all discriminating duties on tonnage; and the proposition having been, in substance, accepted by the Government of the Netherlands, the arrangement took effect between the two countries. As it was also understood that no other discriminating duties existed, a similar regulation was established in favor of goods imported in Dutch vessels, into the United States. It is obvious, however, that these privileges cannot be continued upon any other principle than that of reciprocity. It would not suit, either with the honor or interest of the United States, that the merchants of the Netherlands should enjoy, in our ports, the same advantages with native citizens, while our merchants were subjected in this country to unfavorable discriminations. If this Government is resolved to abandon the equalizing system, which led

Adams, dated

BRUSSELS, June 1, 1823.

"I transmit, herewith, copies of an answer from Baron de Nagell, to my note of the 7th of March, respecting the discriminating duty established by the new provincial system, and of my reply."

Baron de Nagell to Mr. Everett.

[TRANSLATION.]

The undersigned, Minister of Foreign Affairs, being eager to lay before the King the note which Mr. Everett, Charge d' Affaires of the United States of America, sent him, of the 7th of this month, has the honor of informing him, that the observations which it contains on the new system of imposts of the kingdom of the Netherlands, as far as it applies to the commerce of the United States, shall be immediately taken into grave consideration.

The undersigned flatters himself with being shortly enabled to give to Mr. Everett the desired explanations on this subject, and embraces this occasion to renew to him the assurance of his distinguished consideration. A. W. C. de NAGELL.

Brussels, 10th March, 1823.

Baron de Nagell to Mr. Everett.
[TRANSLATION.]

The new system of duties introduced into the Kingdom of the Netherlands, having naturally appeared to the Government of the United States of America to produce a change in the commercial relations between the two countries, Mr. Everett had thought it his duty to demand, by the note which he had done him the honor of addressing to the undersigned Minister of Foreign Affairs on the 7th of March last, explanations proper to tran quilize in this regard the Government of the United States, or to direct its future conduct.

The King has just authorized the undersigned to give here the explanations desired.

The 10th article of the law which precedes the new tariff of duties of entry and clearance, is the argument upon which Mr. Everett founds his representations. The article grants a drawback of ten per cent. of the duties on merchandise imported or exported by the vessels of the Netherlands; now, as, by an act of Congress of the United States, of 20th April, 1818, all difference of treatment between the ships of the Netherlands and

[ocr errors]

18th CONGRESS,
2d SESSION.
America has been abolished, founded upon this, that in
the kingdom of the Netherlands the flag of the United
States enjoyed the same advantages as the national
flag; the new disposition of the tariff appears to Mr.
Everett to be in opposition to the principle of reci-
procity.

Commercial Relations between the U. States and the Netherlands.

The answer is found in the aim of this disposition, which does not appear to have been well understood. By the laws of the 12th June 1821, and 10th August last, the duties remain without distinction, the same for foreign ships and for national. This restitution of a tenth for the merchandise imported by the ships of the Netherlands, has done no more (as the 11th article of the law of the 12th July, 1821, expresses it,) than to give encouragement and proper aid to the works of the nation. This restitution therefore supplies the place of the premiums of encouragement which the Government might have granted to every ship built in the Netherlands; a disposition which certainly never could have given room to the American Government to complain of an inequality of treatment in respect to the ships. If the Government of the United States had found it good to grant a similar premium to the American ships, surely the King could have found in that no cause of remonstrance. His Majesty would have only seen in it a bounty intended to encourage, or to favor, the manufactures of the nation.

Although the Government of the Netherlands might confine itself to this explanation, the undersigned has, nevertheless, been charged to take advantage of this occasion to examine the question more thoroughly. In approaching it with frankness, it will be easy to find, in the conduct of the United States, the justification of what is charged upon the Government of the Nether

lands.

After the negotiations begun at the Hague, by the respective commissioners for a treaty of commerce, were interrupted, the act of Congress of 20th April, 1818, was passed. In the course of these negotiations, observation was made to the American commissioners of the liberality of the Government of the Netherlands in its relations with America, and an attempt was made to convince them that at all times the American flag had been more favored here than the flag of the Netherlands had been in America.

[H. of R.

and to know which of the two Governments has made the commencement.

The discussion of the causes which can have determined the American Government to revoke, from the beginning of the following session of Congress, the act of 20th April, 1818, is unknown to the Government of the Netherlands. No conjecture will be permitted, if the measure, in place of being specially directed against the commerce of the Netherlands, do not rather announce a complete alteration of system.

The deliberations of Congress in the Fall, will resolve this problem; but, in the mean time, the certain pros pect of losing the advantages assured by the act beforementioned, to our commerce or to our navigation, alone serves as a sufficient cause for preventing the Gover ment of the Netherlands from establishing any exception in the new tariff in favor of the American flag.

The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. Eve-
rett the assurance of his distinguished consideration.
A. W. C. de NAGELL, A
Brussels, 27th May, 1823.

Mr. Everett to the Baron de Nagell.

BRUSSELS, May 31, 1823.

SIR: have just received your Excellency's answer to the note which I had the honor of addressing to you on the 7th March, upon the subject of some of the provi sions of the new tariff, and learn, with regret, from this communication, that it is the King's intention to enforce these provisions against the commerce of the United States. I shall immediately transmit your reply to my Government, who will judge how far the new policy of this country is justified by the arguments you allege in its favor, and what measure it may be expedient for them to adopt under the circumstances of the case.

Without pretending to anticipate the decision of the President and Congress of the United States, upon this subject, I think it my duty to add here a few short remarks, relating chiefly to the latter part of your Excel lency's note, in which you dwell upon the effect of the act of March 3, 1819. You appear to consider this act as a definitive repeal of the two former laws on the same subject, and looking at it from this point of view you naturally conclude that it forms of itself a complete Such are apparently the reports of the American Ple- reply to the reasoning in my note, and that, because I did nipotentiaries, as well as the representations of the not mention it, I could not be aware of its existence. Charge d'Affaires of His Majesty at Washington, which The act is a document of public notoriety, and is printed produced this act of 20th April, 1818, by which that of in the collection of the laws of the United States, with 3d March, 1815, concerning the general, but conditional the other laws which I had occasion to quote. It produc abolition of discriminating duties has been rendered ap- ed no material effect upon the relations between the plicable, and even amplified, to the flag of the Nether- countries, and did not therefore require to be mentioned lands. As long as this state of things exists, the explain the course of my remarks upon the subject. I rather nations demanded in the official letter of Mr. Everett, regret, however, that I had not attended to it, and exmay appear proper. plained its operation, inasmuch as the construction given to it by your Excellency, though erroneous, was natural enough in a foreigner unacquainted with the forms of our legislation, and seems to have had an unfavorable influence upon the whole tenor of your reply.

But can Mr. Everett be ignorant that his Government is upon the point of revoking the prolongation of these advantages? and that an act of the 3d March, 1819, decrees that the two acts before cited (that of 3d March, 1815, and of 20th April, 1818,) shall cease to be in force at the date of 1st January, 1824? and that, in consequence, the equalization of duties of entry and clearance, and the duties of tonnage of vessels under the flag of the Netherlands, in the different ports of the United States, will no more continue after that time?His note would cause the presumption that he had no knowledge of it; otherwise, we may be allowed to believe that he would not have addressed it. It is, doubtless, a matter of surprise, that he has not been informed of a disposition which so essentially changes the state of affairs; but, although it do not belong to this article, it is sufficient that it is impossible for the Government of the Netherlands to call in question the existence of this revocation, for having a ground upon which the commercial relations with the United States are to be found,

The object of this act, which wears the shape of a repeal of the two former ones, was to fix a time when the subject should be taken up again in Congress. A limitation of this sort is with us, annexed to almost all new laws of much importance, and often makes a part of them. It furnishes, therefore, in this case, no proof of an intention to change the system and as the laws and negotiations of the United States, subsequent to its adoption, prove on the contrary their disposition to adhere to it, there is little or no reason to doubt that the result of a reconsideration of the subject, will be to re-enact the law, with such alterations as may appear expedient.Among these alterations will probably be, the repeal of the privileges granted by the act, to any powers which may have subsequently withdrawn the corresponding privileges, formerly allowed by them to the citizens of

18th CONGRESS, Commercial Relations between the U. States and the Netherlands.

2d

[H. of R.

The object requiring most immediate attention is your correspondence with the Baron de Nagell, concerning the law of the Netherlands, of the 26th of August, 1822, establishing a drawback of one-tenth of the duties upon merchandise exported or imported in national vessels, and referring to other favors to the national flag, in the general law, and in the tariff.

the United States. Hence, the only effect of this act,
upon the relations between those states and the Nether-
lands, will be to fix the time when the American Go-
vernment will probably remodel their system, in con-
formity to that which may be in force here: and if the
King is really desirous to continue those relations upon
their present footing, the act of March 3, 1819, instead
of operating as an objection to the allowance of an ex-
emption to American vessels, from the effect of the new
tariff, would serve, on the contrary, as a reason for tak-is
ing such a measure with the least possible delay.

The view you have taken of both parts of the agreement, in the Baron de Nagell's note of the 27th of May, approved, and leaves me little to say in addition to it. From the strenuous manner in which the Baron urges Such are the remarks which I have thought it my duty the act of Congress of the 3d March, 1819, in justificato communicate to your Excellency, in relation to the tion of the new discriminations in the law of the Netheract of March 3, 1819. The other part of your answer, lands, it is apparent that he places little reliance upon which treats more directly the points in question, would the other part of his note. The object of all discriminalso admit of some objections. You intimate that, pro- ating duties is to favor the national shipping and shipvided the duties levied upon foreigners and native citi-building interest; and whether in the shape of additionzens, are nominally the same, a Government may allow al impost, of tonnage, of drawback, or of bounty, they a drawback in favor of the latter, without subjecting it- are alike felt in the competition of navigation, and alike self to the charge of partiality. This distinction seems, incompatible with the principle of equal privilege and however, to be more formal than real: and if the fo- burden. It will be proper, therefore, explicitly to state, reigner actually pays in any way ten per cent. more than that the case hypothetically stated by the Baron de Nathe citizen, it would be rather difficult to prove that they gell, of a bounty upon ship-building, is considered by are placed upon an equal footing; or in other words, this Government as much within the principle of disthat they pay the same. Your Excellency also remarks, criminating duties as a direct tonnage duty, and equally that the discrimination established by the new law, in at variance with the system of equalization established favor of the subjects of the Netherlands, is justifiable, on with a mutual understanding between the United States account of its object, which was to encourage the navi- and the Netherlands, by reciprocal acts of legislation. gation of the country. in regard to this point, I must The limitation prescribed by the act of Congress of take the liberty to suggest, that the end, supposing it to 3d March, 1819, was, as you have observed, no intimajustify the means, does not change their character, nor, tion on their part, to abandon the system. The act of in this instance, prove that a discrimination in favor of 3d March, 1815, was an experimental offer, made to all citizens is consistent with perfect impartiality between the maritime nations: it was, in the course of the same citizens and foreigners. The American Government had year, accepted by Great Britain, confirmed in the form in view the same object, viz. the encouragement of the of a convention. A similar effort was made with the navigation of their country, in establishing a discriminat- Netherlands in 1817, but without success; but the prining tonnage duty in favor of our own vessels: but they ciple of equalization was established by corresponding certainly never thought of maintaining that the foreign-legislative acts. The Hanseatic cities and Prussia, sucers, against whom this discrimination operates, are as fa- cessively acceded to the same system, and, as well as the vorably treated in our ports as the citizens of the United Netherlands, required an extension of the equalizing States; or of claiming, under this pretence, an impartial principle offered by the act of Congress of 3d March, treatment for the latter in the ports of such foreigners. 1815, to merchandise of the growth, produce, or manuI must, however, beg your Excellency, in conclusion, facture, of countries, other than that to which the vessel not to consider these new remarks as intended for the pur- should belong; but, usually, first exported from thence. pose of urging very strenuously upon the Government In conceding this extension of their first offer to the ciof the Netherlands, a compliance with the proposition ties of Hamburgh and Bremen, and to Prussia, after h-vcontained in my note of the 7th of March. My principal ing yielded it to the Netherlands, Congress thought pro. object has been to explain one or two points in that com- per to fix a time for a deliberate revision of the whole munication, which you seem to have misunderstood.- system; and, therefore, limited the duration of all the The people of the United States are too well satisfied laws relating to it, to the first of January, 1824. But with the goodly heritage which the bounty of Providence neither Congress, nor the Executive Government, have bas allotted to them; and too abundantly supplied from manifested any intention to abandon the system. The their own territories with the best products of almost all President has, on the contrary, more than once, expressclimates, to solicit very anxiously of any foreign power ed the favorable view in which it is considered by him, the concession of favors, commercial or political. In and particularly in his message to Congress, at the openproposing to other nations to open to them, on a footing ing of the session, on the 3d December, 1821. of equality, the immense and various resources of our vast Republic, they conceive themselves to be acting for the good of those nations and of humanity, as well as for If the King does not deem it expedient for himself or his subjects to accept this offer, the Government of the United States, without complaining of his refusal, and without suffering much from it, will, doubt less, regret that the views of so enlightened a monarch upon a great question in political economy,should be different from their own.

their own.

I have the honor to be, with the highest respect, sir,
Your Excellency's very ob't. ser'vt.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

The whole subject will, undoubtedly, be one of the first objects of deliberation at the ensuing session of Congress. There is no reason to doubt that the existing equalization with regard to the Netherlands would be continued, but for the change which has been made on their part. A declaration from that Government that the discriminations against which you have made representations, have not been, and will not be, applicable to the United States, so long as the vessels of the Netherlands, in the ports of the United States, shall continue to enjoy the equalization secured to them by the acts of Congress of 3d March, 1815, and 20th April, 1818, will supercede, without doubt, all change of the existing regu lations here, favorable to the navigation of that country. It is very desirable that you should obtain such a declaration in time to forward it, so that it may be received here by the first Monday in December, when the session of Congress will commence, or as soon after as possible. The act of Congress on the revision of the system, will probably pass in the course of that month.

« ZurückWeiter »