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

2d SESSION.

In the Baron de Nagell's note mention is made of three laws of the Netherlands, in relation to this subject, of the 12th of June, and 12th of July, 1821, and of the 10th of August, 1822 I will thank you to send me copies of all these acts in French, and also of the law of the 26th of August, 1822, and of the new tariff.

I am, with great respect, sir,

Your very humble and obedient servant,
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

ALEX. H. EVERETT, Esq.
Charge d'Affaires, U. S. to the Netherlands.

Mr. Everett to Mr. Adams-No. 107.

BRUSSELS, November 11, 1823.

SIR: Your despatches of the 8th and 9th of August, which came under the same cover, were received on the first of November. Agreeably to your instructions, I immediately addressed notes to the Baron de Nagell upon the subjects of both, copies of which are enclosed. I have requested an early answer respecting the discriminating duty; but there is very little chance of obtaining it in time for it to be known at Washington before the new law is passed.

The laws of July 12, 1821, and August 26, 1822, are the only ones quoted by the Baron de Nagell in his note of May 27. The appearance of a different date in one of the passages, in which they are alluded to, arose from an accidental error of the clerk in the original note, which, it seems, was retained in the hurry of writing, in my copies. The beginning of the fifth paragraph should read, D'apres les loix du 12 Juillet, 1821, et 26 Aout, dernier, instead of D'apres les loix du 12 Juin, 1821, et 10 Aout dernier. The law of the 12th of July, and the tariff of the 26th of August, were transmitted to the Department about the time of their adoption, viz: the former with my despatch, No. 80, and the latter with my letter, marked "private No. 18." The general law of the 26th of August was not sent with the tariff, not being then in print. I have now the honor of sending you copies of both, bound together in a volume. I have made inquiry for the law of July 12, but have not yet been able to procure it; and the copy I have on hand, is bound up in a volume with several other documents, which would be useless at the Department. As soon as I can obtain a copy, I shall certainly transmit it to you. In the mean time, if you should have occasion to consult this law, you may, perhaps, find upon the files the copy which was sent before. It is, however, a mere statement of general principles, preliminary to the laws of August 26, 1822, and contains no regulations whatever, intended for immediate practical effect.

You will observe, that, beside the general drawback of ten per cent. in favor of national vessels, there are discriminations to a similar effect upon seve al separate articles. The principal of these are tea, coffee, and sugar. The duty on teas is raised by the present tariff; but the discrimination has existed since the year 1817, and does not appear to have been considered as inconsistent with the equalizing system, probably because the article is not of the growth of the United States. The discrimination in regard to coffee, established by the general law, article 5, sec. 9, is new; but being in favor of the national colonial trade, is not, perhaps, a fair subject of complaint. The additional duty on sugar, imported in foreign vessels, is, however, à direct violation of the equalizing system; as are, also, those upon one or two other articles of less importance, such as salt, molasses, and wood for building, which, with the three mentioned above, are the only ones in which I have no ticed any special discrimination.

A decree has lately been published, offering a bounty of eight florins per ton, on all ships of above three hundred tons burden, built within the country for three years to come. This regulation, which is intended to

[H. of R.

encourage the building of national ships, and not the
trade in such ships after they are built, is, of course, no
violation of the equalizing system. I have thought,
since this decree made its appearance, that a bounty of
this kind must have been intended by the Baron de Na-
gell in his note of May 27; as the distinction between
the effect of a bounty on transportation in national ships,
and a formal discrimination in the duties, seems to be
really too absurd to be taken in earnest by any man of
common sense. If the Baron meant by his prime d'es
couragement, a bounty on ship building, it is true, as he
says, that such a bounty would form no subject of com
plaint: but this fact does not strengthen his argument,
because, such a bounty has no analogy whatever to the
drawback on goods imported in national ships. I shock,
perhaps, have introduced this idea in my note of the itt,
but I had written and transmitted it before the decret
was in print.

I have the honor to be, with high respect, sir,
Your most obedient, and very humble servant,
A. H. EVERETT.
Hon. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,

Secretary of State.

Mr. Everett to Baron de Nagell.

BRUSSELS, November 5, 1822 SIR: I have the honer to inform your Excellency to i I have just received the instructions of my Goveranc in regard to the subjects treated of in my note of the 76 x of last March. I am directed to communicate to po for the information of His Majesty, the President's view respecting that affair.

My object in the note just mentioned, was to reme strate against certain parts of the new financial be which appeared to me to infringe the system of impo tiality, that has formed for some time past the bas of the commercial relations between the United Sus ! and the Netherlands; and, I specified particularly, th tenth article of the law of the 20th of August, which establishes a drawback of ten per cent. of whole amount of duties in favor of goods imported t Dutch vessels. Your Excellency did me the hon state in reply, in your note of the 27th of May, that the distinctions were justifiable on the ground of the p triotic design, which was no other than to afford a si able encouragement to the shipping of the country-. You remarked, that a drawback in favor of the cit was not equivalent in principle, to a formal discras tion against foreigners, but rather to a bountysure not inconsistent, in the view of His Majesty's be vernment, with a system of perfect impartiality beta citizens and foreigners; and you added in conclus that, supposing the article in question to be ready r consistent with such a system, the Government of t United States would still possess no right to dea their repeal, inasmuch as they had already, by their of March 3, 1819, revoked their own foriner laws in t vor of the commerce of the Netherlands.

As your Excellency insisted a good deal upon this point, and expressed some surprise that I had not alo ed in my note to this act of 1819, I thought it my d to inform you at the time, by my answer of May 31, the law in question was intended merely to determ the period at which the subject should be taken up að in Congress, and that the Government of the Us States had no design of abandoning the established s tem. I added, that the distinction pointed out by Exc: llency between the different modes of favoring shipping of a country, did not appear to me to be suc just, and that, if foreigners really paid ten per cent. p/ than subjects, it was of little importance to them, who?, er they did it in one form or another. Confining mis to these remarks, I referred the matter to my Go ment for decision, and transmitted to Washington correspondence that had passed.

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

I have now the honor of informing your Excellency, by direction of the President, that he has learned with much regret, the intention of His Majesty's Government to alter the liberal system which has been in force for some time past, and which was considered as beneficial to both parties, and conformable to their general principles of administration.

[H. of R.

part of your note of the 27th of May, I am directed to remark further, that the President is disposed to believe and to hope that the change of system which has taken place, has been owing, chiefly, to a misunderstanding of the object of the act of March 3, 1819. In regard to this point, I am now authorized to assure you, explicitly, in the name of my Government, as I have done before in my own, that the object of the act was, simply to fix a time when the subject should be re-considered in Congress, and that the Government has no intention, whatever, to abandon the system. The acts and negotiations that have taken place, since its adoption, and the messages addressed, by the President, to Congress, in particular that of December, 1821, attest the steady disposition of the administration, in all its branches, to maintain this course. The laws, which expire at the end of the year, will be doubtless re-enacted, with such modifications as may appear expedient: and if one of these modifications should be the omission of the name of the Netherlands from the list of privileged nations, the change will be owing, entirely, to the new regulations contained in the Dutch law, of August 26, 1822.

As to the reasoning, by which your Excellency justifies this change, in your note of the 27th of May, my Government confirms in general, the remarks which I had made in reply to it, in my communication of the 31st of the same month. The President cannot admit the correctness of the distinction between the effect of a bounty or a drawback, and that of a formal discrimination. He thinks, on the contrary, that impartiality is at an end whenever the foreigner finds himself in any way less advantageously situated than the native; and is rather surprised, that the Government of the Netherlands | should question a principle which appears so perfectly evident. And, as your Excellency seems to have taken it for granted, that the Government of the U. States would not have considered a bounty on the transportation of goods in Dutch vessels, as any violation of the equalizing system, I am authorized to assure you explicitly, that, in the view of the American Government, such a measure would be entirely inadmissible, being equivalent in principle, as it is in effect, to a formal discrimina-provisional decision, announced in your Excellency's

tion.

The American Government is, however, inclined to hope, that this retaliatory measure will not be necessary; and that, if the act of March 3, 1819, has been explained to the satisfaction of His Majesty, he will re-consider the note, of the 31st of May, and restore to the American trade the privileges which it has heretofore enjoyed.Should this be the case, I will thank your Excellency to give me as early information of the fact as may be convenient, that I may transmit it immediately to Washington. The subject will, probably, be taken up in Congress before the close of the year; and it is desirable that the king's final decision should be known previously to the passage of the new law.

Your Excellency will permit me to remark, in conclusion, that the privilege enjoyed by the Dutch flag, of covering the products of Germany and Switzerland, has, also, been extended to the flags of Prussia and the Hanse Towns. As the ports of the Netherlands are more conveniently situated for shipping these products to the United States, it is believed that the greater part of this commerce now takes that direction. If, however, the privilege in question, should be revoked, as respects the Netherlands, and continued to the other above mentioned powers, there would then be an advantage of ten per cent. in conveying the products of the interior of Europe to the United States, through the ports of Prussia and the Hanse Towns, rather than those of this country: and this difference, in the present state of commerce, would decide the preference. The subjects of the Netherlands will, therefore, lose, by the effects of the new system, not only a considerable advantage in the carriage of their own products, but the profits of a pretty important and lucrative branch of trade which they must now nearly I have the honor to be, with high respect, sir, Your Excellency's very obedient servant, A. H. EVERETT.

The patriotic intention of His Majesty's Government, in adopting these measures, is highly honorable to the character of the king and his ministers; but cannot, certainly, be understood to reconcile contraries, or to prove that discriminations in favor of native citizens are consistent with a system of impartiality between citizen and foreigner. The encouragement of the national industry is, doubtless, with enlightened governments, the principal object of all commercial regulations; and, in seeking to effect this object, each government adopts the policy which appears to suit best with its particular position. Some nations attempt to include the competition of foreigners, by [placing] them higher than citizens', and by granting bounties to the latter; while others, on the contrary, endeavor to make their dominion the marts of general commerce, and hold out every possible inducement to foreigners to frequent their ports. This latter policy was formerly preferred in the Netherlands, at the time when Bourges, Antwerp, and Amsterdam, figured, in succession, with so much brilliancy, at the head of the industry and commerce in Europe: and it seems, in fact, to agree very well with the situation of a country of limited extent and dense population-watered by numerous rivers, that connect it with the more productive parts of Europe, and embosomed in seas that afford an easy intercourse with all the rest of the world. Both these systems, however, have their peculiar advantages; and each supposes alike, on the part of the administration, the intention to encourage national indus-monopolize. try, and promote the public good. But, were it even admitted that the exclusive policy were more advantage. ous, and, consequently, more patriotic than the liberal one, it would still be not the less certain that the two are essentially different; and that partial measures, however patriotic they may be, can never be impartial.Your Excellency remarks, in your note of the 27th of May, that the bounties and drawbacks allowed to the subjects of the Netherlands, furnish the American Government with no just ground of complaint, because these measures are intended to protect and encourage the shipping of the country. But however just and laudablement. But, as the time of my departure is now pretty this design may be, in itself, the partial measures adopt ed in pursuance of it are, unquestionably, fair subjects of complaint with any foreign nation which has a valid claim to be treated on a footing of impartiality.

Having submitted to your Excellency, by order of my Government, these additional observations upon the first

Mr. Everett to Mr. Adams.-(No. 110.)

BRUSSELS, February 21, 1824. Sin: I learn from the public papers that a new law has been enacted on the subject of the discriminating duties, and presume that I shall receive a copy of it from you, with instructions to communicate it to this Govern

near, I thought it advisable, in order to give them an opportunity to deliberate upon the matter before I go, not to wait for this, but to address a note at once to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have accordingly sent one, of which I have the honor to enclose a copy. If I should hereafter receive any orders from you upon the

18th CONGRESS, Commercial Relations between the U. States and the Netherlands. [H. of R.

subject. I shall give them, of course, the most punctual ¦ merce of the Netherlands, from that of the 20th April, attention, and take any further measures that they may prescribe.

SIR: I have the honor to inform your Excellency that the privileges granted to the Dutch flag, in the ports of the United States, by the act of the 20th of April, 1818, Extract of a letter from Mr. Everett to Mr. Adams, (No. which expired at the close of the last year, have been renewed by the late law of January 9. As soon as I receive an authentic copy of the new act, I shall take the liberty of sending it to you. You will find in the Brussels Journal of the 16th inst. a French translation, which

18th CONGRESS,

On the Public Debt.-On the Slave Trade.

not be regularly included in the estimate of the Secretary of the Treasury at the close of the last year; but must, nevertheless, be considered as part of the debt, with a view to future years.

This sum of $88,545,003 38, is redeemable as follows:

In 1825, $7,654,570 93 of six per cent.

1826, 19,002,356 62 six per cent. of 1813.
1827, 13,001,437 63 six per cent of 1814.
1828, 9,490,099 10 six per cents.
1831, 00,018,901 59

[H. of R.

The convention was approved by the Senate, with certain qualifications, to all of which, except one, Great Britain sub modo, acceded; her Government having instructed its Minister in Washington to tender to the acceptance of the United States a treaty agreeing, in every particular, except one, with the terms approved by the Senate. This exception, the message of the Presi dent to the House of Representatives, presumes "not to be of sufficient magnitude to defeat an object so near to the heart of both nations," as the abolition of the African slave trade, "and so desirable to the friends of hu 1832, 6,673,900 72 of which $1,018,000 72 are manity throughout the world." But the President furat 5 per cent, and $5,000,000 at 4 pr. ct.ther adds, "that, as objections to the principle recom. 1833, 6,673,055 31 all at 4 per cent. except mended by the House of Representatives, or, at least, to $18,901 59 at 5 per cent. the consequences inseparable from it, and which are understood to apply to the law, have been raised, which may deserve a reconsideration of the whole subject, he has thought proper to suspend the conclusion of a new convention, until the definitive sentiments of Congress can be ascertained."

1834, 1,654,153 73 at 4 per cent. 1835, 4,735,296 30 at 5 per cent.

7,000,000 00 at pleasure, being the subscription to the capital of the Bank of the United States, at 5 per cent. 13,296,231 45 at pleasure, being the 3 per

cents.

$88,545,003 38

By this statement it appears, that, in the years 1829 and 1830, no part of the public debt will be reimburseable, excepting the seven millions to the Bank, and the three per cents.; but, as these bear a less interest than that portion of the 6 per cents. of 1813, redeemable on the 1st of January, 1826, and which cannot, for the want of means, be reimbursed before the years 1829 and 1830, it is believed to be advisable to provide for that portion, by a new stock, at a reduced rate of interest, and payable at those periods.

The committee, therefore, recommend a new loan, or an exchange, to the amount of $12,000,000, at a rate of interest not exceeding 4 per cent. reimburseable in equal portions, in the years 1829 and 1830; and for that purpose report a bill.

REPORT

Your committee are therefore required to review the grounds of the law of 1820, and the resolution of 1823, to which the rejected, or, as they rather hope, the suspended convention, referred. The former was the joint act of both branches of Congress, approved by the President; the latter, although adopted with extraordinary unanimity, was the single act of the House of Representatives.

Upon the principle or intention of the act of Congress of 1820, making the slave trade punishable as piracy, the history of the act may reflect some light.

Of the Committee to whom was referred so much
of the President's Message, of the 7th of De-a
cember last, as relates to the Suppression o the
Slave Trade.-Feb. 16, 1825.

A bill from the Senate, entitled "An act to continue in force the act to protect the commerce of the United States, and punish the crime of piracy, and, also, to make further provision to punish the crime of piracy," came to the House of Representatives on the 27th of April, 1820, and was, on the same day, referred to a committee of the whole, to which had been referred a bill of similar purport and title, that had originated in the House of Representatives.

Upon the 8th of May following, the Committee on the Suppression of the Slave Trade reported an amendment of two additional sections to the Senate's bill; also, bill to incorporate the American Society for Colonizing joint resolutions, two of which related to the objects of the free People of Color of the United States, and three that Society; but the first of which, in behalf of both The Committee on the Suppression of the Slave Trade, Houses of Congress, requested the President "to conto whom was referred so much of the President's messult and negotiate with all the governments where minis. sage, of the 7th December last, as relates to that sub-ters of the United States are, or shall be accredited, on ject, have, according to order, had the same under consideration, and respectfully REPORT:

That, pursuant to the almost unanimous request of the House of Representatives, expressed by their resolution of the 28th February, 1823, the President of the United States concluded a convention with Great Bri tain, on the 13th March, in the following year, by which the African slave trade was denounced to be piracy under the laws of both countries; the United States having so declared it, by their antecedent act of the 15th of May, 1820, and it being understood between the contracting parties, as a preliminary to the ratification of the convention by the United States, that Great Britain should, by an act of Parliament, concur in a similar declaration.

With great promptitude, and in accordance with this agreement, such an act was passed, declaring the African slave trade to be piracy, and annexing to it the penalty denounced against this crime by the common law of nations. A copy of this act was transmitted, by the British Government, to the Executive of the United States, and the convention submitted, by the President, to the Senate, for their advice and consent. Vol. I.-10.

the means of effecting an entire and immediate abolition of the African Slave Trade." The amendatory sections denounced the guilt and penalty of piracy against any citizen of the United States, of the crew or company of any foreign vessel, and any person whatever of the crew or company of any American vessel, who shall be engaged in this traffic.

The amendments, bill, and resolutions, along with the explanatory report, which accompanied them, were referred to the committee of the whole abovementioned; and on the 11th of the same month, the House proceeded to consider them. After a discussion in the committee, the piracy bill, and its amendments having been adopted, were reported, and both were concurred in by the House. The following day, the bill, as amended, being then on its passage, a motion was debated and negatived, to recommit the bill to a select committee, with an instruction to strike out the last section of the amend. ment. The bill then passed, and was ordered to be returned, as amended, to the Senate.

On the same day, a motion prevailed to discharge the committee of the whole from the further consideration of the bill, and the resolutions which accompanied the report; and the particular resolution, already recited, being under consideration, to try the sense of the House

on its merits, it was moved to lay it on the table. The yeas and nays having been ordered on this motion, it was rejected by a majority of 78 to 35 members. It having been again proposed to postpone the resolution, till the ensuing or second session of the same Congress, and this proposal being also determined in the negative, the resolution was engrossed, read the third time, passed, and ordered to be transmitted to the Senate on the same day with the piracy bill.

The amendments of this bill underwent like scrutiny, and debate, in the Senate, and were finally concurred in, the day after they were received from the House of Representatives, without any division apparent on the journal of that House.

[H. of R.

pal maritime powers of Europe, in relation to the same topic, the committee referred to the decision of Sir William Scott, in the case of the French ship Le Louis, to demonstrate that Great Britain claimed no right of search, in peace, but such as the consent of other nations should accord to her by treaty; and sought it by a fair exchange, in this tranquil mode, only for the beneficent purpose of a more enlarged humanity.

The resolution which had been received by the Sened the execution of her promise at Vienna, to Europe ate, at a different hour of the same day, was read a second time on the 15th of May, was further taken up and considered, as in committee of the whole, reported to the House without amendment, and ordered, without debate, to pass to a third reading. But this being the last day of the session of Congress, and a single member objecting "that it was against one of the rules of the Senate to read it a third time on the same day, without unanimous consent," it remained on the table of

Certain facts, disclosed by the diplomatic correspond. ence of France and England, during the pendency of that case, in the British Court of Admiralty, were calcu lated to guard the sympathies of America from being misguided by the language of the former power. The painful truth was elicited, that France had evadand mankind. That she had, long after the date of that promise, tolerated, if she had not cherished, several branches of a traffic, which she had concurred in denouncing to be the opprobrium of Christendom, and which she had subsequently bound herself, by the higher obligations of a solemn treaty, to abolish, as inconsistent with the laws of God and Nature.

that body, on its final adjournment, after an ineffectual effort to suspend one of their rules, against which many of the friends of the resolution felt themselves compel led, by their invariable usage, to vote in union with its

enemies.

One of the objections to the resolution, in the Senate, was founded upon the peculiar relation of that branch of the National Legislature to the Executive, in the ratification of treaties; which seemed, in the opinion of those who urged this argument, to interdict their concurrence in a request of the President to institute any negotia

tions whatever.

A cotemporary exposition of the object of the amendments of the piracy bill, and the resolution, which the House of Representatives adopted, by so large a majority, will be found in the report, which accompanied them, from the committee on the suppression of the slave trade, on the 8th May, 1822. Those objects, it will be seen, were in perfect accordance with each other. They were designed to introduce, by treaty, into the code of international law, a principle, deemed by the committee essential to the abolition of the African slave trade, that it should be denounced and treated as piracy by the civilized world.

Succeeding events in the councils of the French naWhat authority can be accorded to the moral influence tion have not impaired the force of this testimony. of a Government which insults the humanity of a generous and gallant people, by pleading, in apology for the breach of its plighted faith, that its subjects required the indulgence of this guilty traffic!

The Emperor Napoleon, who re-established this commerce on the ruins of the French Republic, also abolished it again, when he sought to conciliate the people of France, during that transient reign, which immediately preceded his final overthrow.

Congress adjourned without acting on this report. By an instruction to the Committee on the Suppres sion of the Slave Trade, of the 15th of January, 1822, the same subject was a third time brought directly be The instruction fore the House of Representatives. called the attention of the committee to the present condition of the African slave trade; to the defects of any of the existing laws for its suppression, and to their ap propriate remedies. In the report made in obedience to this instruction, on the 12th of April 1822, the committee state, that, after having consuited all the evidence within their reach, they are brought to the mournful conclusion, that the traffic prevailed to a greater extent The resolution being joint, and having failed in the than ever, and with increased malignity; that its total Senate, for the reason already stated, the subject of it suppression, or even sensible diminution, cannot be exwas revived in the House of Representatives, at a very pected from the separate and disunited efforts of one or early period of the succeeding session of Congress, by a more states, so long as a single flag remains to cover it call for information from the Executive, which, being re- from detection and punishment. They renew, therefore, ceived, was referred to a committee of the same title as the only practicable and efficient remedy, the conwith the last. Their report, after reviewing all the an-currence of the United States with the maritime powers tecedent measures of the United States for the suppres. of Europe, in a modified and reciprocal exercise of the sion of the slave trade, urgently recommended the co- right of search. operation of the American and British navy against this traffic, under the guarded provisions of a common treaty, authorizing the practice of a qualified and reciprocal right of search.

66

In closing their report, the committee add, in effect, that they cannot doubt that the people of America "have the intelligence to distinguish between the right "of searching a neutral on the high seas, in time of war, "claimed by some belligerants, and that mutual, restricted, and peaceful concession, by treaty, suggested by your committee, and which is demanded in the name of suffering humanity." The committee had before intimated, that the remedy which they recom

This report closed with a resolution, requesting" the President of the United States to enter into such arrangements as he might deem suitable and proper, with one or more of the maritime powers of Europe, for the" effectual abolition of the African slave trade."

The United States had, by the treaty of Ghent, enter-mended to the House of Representatives, presupposed ed into a formal stipulation with Great Britain, "that the exercise of the authority of another department of both the contracting parties shall use their best endea the Government, and that objections to the exercise of vors to accomplish the entire abolition of this traffic " this authority, in the mode which they had presumed to The failure of the only joint attempt which had been suggest, had hitherto existed in that department. Their made by England and America, at the date of this re-report closed with a resolution differing in no other report, to give effect to this provision, being ascribed, in spect from that of the preceding session, than that it did part, to a jealousy of the views of the former, corrobo- not require the concurrence of the Senate, for the rearated by the language and conduct of one of the princi- son already suggested.