New Hampshire Statesman And Concord Register

POLITICAL

COLONIAL BILL.

The following are the remarks made by Mr. Webster, in the House of Representatives, on Friday night, the 2d of March, on the return of the bill to regulate the Colonial trade between the United States and the British Colonies in the West-Indies. These observations will be found to embrace correct views of the situation in which the country would have been placed, in case the bill from the Senate had been adopted, and also the change in that situation which would have been made by the adoption of the amendment in that bill, moved and adopted by the House. We are of opinion that the publication of these remarks will correct any misapprehension which may prevail on the subject.—National Journal.

Mr. Webster said, that he remained of the opinion which he had before, that it was better to pass no bill whatever, than to agree to the one before the House without amendment. He had hardly been able to persuade himself that the bill was fully understood, even by those who supported it; for, as to its legal operation, it appeared to him to have been greatly misrepresented.

The existing state of law was somewhat complex, and the bearing of this bill on that state of law was not to be comprehended without careful examination. He believed, in truth, it was greatly misunderstood. He would first state what he considered the situation of things would be, if the Senate's bill should pass without amendment, and would next show how that state of things would be produced by the provisions of the bill.

As to the first point, he agreed entirely with the honorable member from Connecticut, that if the Senate's bill should pass without amendment, and no arrangement should take place before the 31st December next, British vessels would, from that time, be admitted into the ports of the United States, without the payment of any discriminating duties whatever, while our vessels would be entirely excluded from all intercourse with the British West-Indies and other colonies. That this was the result of the enactments in the Senate's bill, would be and must be evident to every one who would read with attention the existing laws and the bill itself. Indeed, he knew not whether it had been denied in the House, that such was the necessary effect of the bill, though a different view appeared to have been taken elsewhere.

He would now endeavor to show how this effect arose; and for this purpose would ask the attention of the House to the particular provisions of the three existing laws which bore on this subject, viz. the acts of 1818, 1820 and 1823.

By the first of these, that of 1818, it was enacted that no British vessel should come to this country from such British colonial ports as were ordinarily shut against our own vessels. There are in the law other provisions, but they are all intended to render effectual this main enactment.

The act of 1820 is but what it professes to be, supplementary to the foregoing. Instead of using general words of description, in speaking of the Colonial ports, it enumerates them all, and subjects to forfeiture and confiscation, every British vessel, arriving by sea, from the British possessions on this continent, and the West-Indies. Neither this act, nor that of 1818, touches at all the intercourse with Canada. The interdicted vessel must be one that comes by sea; of course the lake navigation is not affected by these laws or either of them.

Now we were to bear in mind, that in addition to these two acts, a prior law—a law, indeed, as old as the Government; a law imposing a discriminating duty on all foreign vessels, except when such duty was abolished by treaty, or other mutual and reciprocal regulations. These discriminating duties had not their origin in the law of 1818, nor in the law of 1820, but in other and prior standing laws. The last enactment of this general provision was in 1816.

So far, then, there would be no difficulty in understanding the case. We had a standing law imposing discriminating duties on foreign vessels; this law was applicable to British vessels engaged in the Colonial trade. Then, by the acts of 1818 and 1820, we entirely prohibited British vessels from coming to our ports from the Colonies, because our own vessels were not permitted to visit their Colonies. These laws produced their effect. Early in 1822 it was foreseen that Great Britain would probably soon take off monopoly, and admit us to our share in the trade. And, accordingly, the act of May 6th, 1822, was passed, providing, in substance, that if she would open her ports to our vessels, the President might, by proclamation, open our ports to her vessels. She did so open her ports; and the President issued his proclamation, opening our ports to her vessels, in August of that year.

This opened the intercourse to vessels of both nations; but our discriminating duties still continued.

Then comes the act of March 1st, 1823: and it is upon the operation of this act that the greatest misconception seems to him to prevail. Gentlemen have it before them; I will look at it. This act, which is unlimited in its duration, suspends by express words the act of 1818, and the act of 1820, the suspension to continue so long as the act itself continues. In other words, it repeals the two former acts: subject, however, to be revived, when the repealing act itself should be repealed. This is the first section. He (Mr. W.) would pass over for the present that provision of this act which had caused so much discussion: he meant that which authorized the President to abolish the discriminating duties on British vessels, when Great Britain should abolish her discriminating duties on our produce. That part of the case he was not now considering.

This act of 1823, then opened the trade to British vessels coming from the Colonies to our ports. It did not enforce the discriminating duties: it found them already existing and it left them as it found them. It opened the trade, subject to those duties. It opened the trade to British vessels, because England had opened the trade to our vessels. But as England might again close that trade against our vessels, so it was necessary to make some proper provisions, that, in such an event, if it should occur, our trade might be again closed against her vessels. For this purpose, the 6th section was...
Introduced, which is in the following words:

"And be it further enacted, That this act, unless repealed, altered, or amended by Congress, shall be and continue in force so long as the above enumerated British Colonial ports shall be open to the admission of vessels of the United States, conformably to the provisions of the British act of Parliament of the 24th of June last, being the 44th chapter of the acts of the third year of Geo. 4th. But, if, at any time, the trade and intercourse between the United States, and all, or any of the above enumerated British Colonial ports, authorized by the said act of Parliament, shall be prohibited by a British order in Council, or by act of Parliament, then, from the day of the date of such order in Council, or by act of Parliament, or from the time that the same shall commence to be in force, proclamation to that effect having been made by the President of the United States, each and every provision of this act, so far as the same shall apply to the intercourse between the United States and the above enumerated British Colonial ports, in British vessels, shall cease to operate in their favor; and each and every provision of the act concerning navigation, approved on the 18th April, 1818, and of the act supplementary thereto, approved on the 15th May, 1820, shall revive and be in full force."

Such, then, is the existing state of law at this moment. We now know that an order in Council, prohibiting our vessels from visiting the British ports, (and that is the "trade and intercourse" intended by the act,) has actually issued: and it is in the power of the President, at any time, at his discretion, to issue his Proclamation stating that fact, and from that moment the acts of 1818 and 1820 would be revived, and all British vessels again excluded from our ports. Now he (Mr W.) wished the House, bearing in mind this existing state of law, to examine the bill from the Senate.

Its first provision is, that all discriminating duties on British vessels and their cargoes, coming from the Colonies, from and after the 31st December next, shall cease, any thing in the act of 1823 to the contrary notwithstanding. These last words had no legal meaning whatever. The discriminating duties, as he had already observed, were not laid by the act of 1823, but by previous laws. This reference, therefore, to the law of 1823, is wholly misplaced. That act, as he had already repeatedly stated, found the discriminating duties existing, and it only did not remove them, but left them still existing, as any one will see who will turn to the third section of that act itself.

But this bill, now under consideration, said Mr W. does repeal the discriminating duties by whatever act laid; the repeal to take place on the 31st of December next. This is the precise effect, and the whole effect, of the first section. From that time there will exist, if this bill pass, no discriminating duties till Congress pass another law. Then, as to the second section. It is in these words:

"And be it further enacted. That the act passed on the 1st March, 1823, entitled 'An act to regulate the commercial intercourse between the United States and certain British ports' the act passed the 15th day of May, 1820, entitled An act supplementary to an act entitled' An act concerning navigation;' and the act entitled An act concerning navigation,' passed on the 18th of April, 1818, shall be, and are hereby suspended, until the 31st day of December next, except so much thereof, as imposes discriminating duties on the tonnage of foreign vessels and their cargoes."

Now, the whole effect of this section is simply this, viz. to take away or suspend the President's power of issuing the proclamation, prohibiting British vessels from coming into our ports until the 31st day of December, and to continue things as they are now, till that time. It first suspends the act of 1823. If it had stopped here, the acts of 1818 and 1820 would have been revived and in force during the suspension; but it proceeds to suspend those acts also, so that the trade will be left open to British vessels, and there will be no power in the President to stop it.

What then will be our situation when the 1st of January comes? Why, it will be this: the laws of 1818 and of 1820 will no longer be suspended by virtue of the bill now before us: then the act of 1823 will be again in force, and those former laws will be suspended by force of that law—so that we shall be precisely where we are now, except that the discriminating duties will be then absolutely and altogether repealed by the operation of the first section of this bill.

The British will still be able to come here, and to come here even without the payment of alien duties, until and unless the President shall issue his proclamation, or Congress pass some further law: although we shall then have been excluded from the British ports for a whole twelve month.—

All this, sir, (said Mr W.) must be manifest to any one who will read the bill.

To this course he was decidedly opposed. He thought the House could not be too prompt in repeating the declaration which this Government had ever maintained, that we would have no commerce with countries or places where our own ships were not permitted to go. To give up this principle would be, in his judgment, to abandon one of the highest interests of the country: to doubt about it, was to hesitate on that interest. While he would propose the most reasonable terms to the English Government, and while he would give the most ample time for a deliberate consideration of these terms, he would, at the same time, express the settled resolution of this Government, in the form of law, that if reasonable terms were not acceded to, the intercourse must cease. On this point he would leave our great commercial rivals nothing to hope. It was the more necessary, he thought, to incorporate this provision into the bill itself, since the English Government, he must confess much to his surprise, had recently manifested a disposition to decline negotiation on the subject. If, then, the matter is to be settled by legislation, the sooner it is so settled the better.

Now the main amendments proposed by his friend from Connecticut, was in these words: "And if no such proclamation is not issued on or before the said 31st day of December next, then from and after that day the aforesaid act of the 18th of April, 1818, and the aforesaid act of the 15th of May, 1820, shall revive and be in full force, and the aforesaid act of the 1st March, 1823, as also the first section of this act, shall be repealed and annulled."

The object of this would be, that if no arrangements should take place by treaty, before the 31st of December next, nor any act of Parliament or Order in Council should meet the propositions contained in this bill, the acts of 1818 and 1820 would be in force, and British vessels from the colonies would be excluded from our ports, as ours are now excluded from hers. It will not rest, as it ought not longer to rest, in the President's discretion, to exclude them or not, by proclamation. The sense of Congress will be expressed, and the English Government will know, once for all, what it has to expect. That ground, which, most assuredly, we must ultimately take, should be taken now. He thought December ber too remote a period, and that the intercourse of British vessels from the colonies ought to be stopped much sooner, as soon as, indeed, as fair notice could be given. But that day being named in the bill, he would acquiesce in it, if the bill should be so amended as to declare that then, even then, distant as the period was, the trade should cease, unless we were allowed to partake in it. As to the bill in its present shape, he saw nothing in it but concession—plain unmixed concession. The British Government has now, for some months, excluded our vessels altogether from her Colonial ports. We have been in session three months, and have not met that exclusion by a corresponding exclusion on our part, or by any other measure. If we rise without passing any law, it will be in the President's power to adopt a corresponding measure. But this bill, by suspending the act of 1823, which gives that power, proposes to take away the power. We shall rise then having done nothing ourselves, and having taken away all power from the President to do any thing.

But this is not all, nor indeed is it the worst. We propose to go further. Having thus left the trade to the exclusive enjoyment of British vessels, paying only the alien duties until December: this bill then provides, that after December those duties themselves shall cease; and unless and until the President shall issue his proclamation, British vessels will not only enjoy exclusive monopoly of the trade, but will absolutely enjoy that trade without the payment of any discriminating duties whatever; for it was distinctly to be borne in mind, that by the Senate's bill, the trade, though not open to us, will not cease in British vessels, after December, unless a proclamation issue. It is to produce this very effect; it is to provide that the trade shall then cease, unless we are allowed to partake in it that this amendment is proposed.

For his part, he thought the amendment indispensable. He could not agree to the bill without it. He thought such a measure would indicate, not candour and moderation, but imbecility or distraction, in our public councils. He thought it would imply a doubt and hesitation, in a point where no American statesman ought to feel doubt or hesitation for a moment. For his part he held the opinion firmly, that, looking to the naval strength of the country, and looking to the severe and arduous competition which the American shipping now had to sustain; all commercial regulations ought to be adopted with a careful and correct regard to the shipping interest, as between commerce and navigation, if either must yield something of its convenience. he had no hesitation to say on which side that concession should be made. He would never consent, under any circumstances, that any branch of the commerce of this country should be exclusively enjoyed by the ships of other nations.

If others could doubt on that point, he could not: and he should strenuously resist any approach towards yielding it. This bill appeared to him to make such an approach. He believed nothing was to be gained by that excessive candor which borders on weakness. He thought our true policy was to maintain the principles which we ever had maintained; to insist on all the true interests of our shipping and navigation; to say at once, that if we cannot go to others, others shall not come to us; to propose fair and equal terms, and to say at the same time, and by the same act, that if those terms be not accepted, the intercourse must terminate. Thus making known our moderation, our reasonable forbearance and delay, but making known also, at the same time, our firm determination to insist on equality of right, in a matter interesting not only to the prosperity and wealth of the nation, but to its power and glory. Under these impressions, he hoped the house would insist on this amendment; and without its adoption, he should certainly vote against the bill.

The gentleman from Georgia, (Mr Forsyth) and other gentlemen, had said that by insisting on the amendment the bill might be lost, and that the President would then be bound, by peremptory duty, to close the trade by proclamation. He (Mr W.) still found it difficult to persuade himself that the other House, on reflection, would not agree to this amendment. He would put it fairly to their choice. He would leave the option with them. If they preferred an immediate closing of the trade, to the bill as amended, be it so. It was for their consideration. For his own part, he could only say that he thought the bill, in its present shape, was misunderstood by those who supported it, and incompatible with the interest and honor of the country.

Mr W. then adverted to the other branch of Mr Tomlinson's amendment, which was to alter the phraseology of the third section of the Senate's bill, and thought the amendment useful, and indeed necessary.