OF 
 
 Mr. J. S. JOHNSTON, of Lou. 
 
 ON THE BILL TO REGULATE 
 
 THE COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 THE UNITED STATES AND THE BRITISH COLONIES: 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 FEBRUARY 23 , 1827 . 
 
 WASHINGTON : 
 
 PRINTED BY GALES & SEATON. 
 
 1827 . 
 
337 
 
 v 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/speechofmrjsjohn00john_0 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 MR. JOSIAH S. JOHNSTON, 
 
 ON THE BILL 
 
 TO REGULATE THIS COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE 
 
 BETWEEN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES AND THE BRITISH COLONIES. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSTON said the bill under discussion, reported 
 by the Committee of Commerce, proposes to interdict the in- 
 tercourse between this country and the British ports in her 
 North American possessions, and West India and other Colo- 
 nies, after the 30 th September next, provided Great Britain 
 shall refuse to open those ports upon the terms therein offered. 
 The amendment proposes to strike out the interdiction, and 
 leave the terms for their acceptance ; but without any indica- 
 tion of the policy or principles which will govern the future 
 conduct of this Government. 
 
 The question then submitted to the Senate is, Whether, under 
 the existing state of things, we shall impose the interdict upon 
 British vessels arriving from the Colonies, corresponding with 
 their interdict upon American vessels ? 
 
 Mr. J. said, he found his labors and responsibility greatly 
 increased by the course pursued by the gentleman from Mary- 
 land. 
 
 He had distinctly understood from him, that he approved 
 the bill, and would support it ; that he should have the sanction 
 of his opinion and his aid in debate. You may judge my sur- 
 prise, when I saw that gentleman rise to strike out the inter- 
 dict from the bill, within a few minutes after conversing with 
 him ; and my astonishment is not diminished, by the extraor- 
 dinary course of attack upon the bill, the report, and the ad- 
 ministration, in a long, studied, and premeditated speech. 
 
 The gentleman seems to have undergone a very sudden and 
 entire revolution ; every thing is changed. The bill which he 
 approved, has become very menacing in its character, and will 
 be very offensive in its operation. The report is characterized 
 
4 
 
 as a sort of declaration of war. Now, after reading both, he 
 had said, he should support the bill, and he even said he had 
 seen the President, and that he found that he understood the 
 subject right. I was very happy to find myself sustained by 
 the high authority which he referred to ; but I did not antici- 
 tate that that interview with the Executive would end at last 
 in an open accusation of ignorance and negligence of the rights 
 and interests of the country. 
 
 The report is now pronounced very provoking, and will be 
 considered in England as the act of the Government. Mr. J. 
 said he believed these things are well understood in England. 
 They would know that this was merely the expose of a Com- 
 mittee, and that it derives all its authority from the truth of the 
 facts, and the force of the arguments. It was the object of the 
 report, to be temperate in its language, conciliatory in its man- 
 ner, moderate in its terms, liberal in its views- — but firm and 
 fixed in its purpose. The Committee had no morbid delicacy. 
 They stated in clear terms and perhaps strong language, the 
 rights of the country, and the pretensions of Great B ritain. But 
 they knew r the difference between rude and offensive epithets, 
 and the manly expression of the national feeling, with the force 
 and the dignity which the occasion required. 
 
 The gentleman has said, that the report and bill ought to 
 have been submitted to the Executive. To what can such doc- 
 trines lead, but to render this Government a machine to be mov- 
 ed up and let down by a spring, to be touched by the finger of 
 one man ? 
 
 There is now r an existing law, which imposes on the Presi- 
 dent the obligation of declaring that the Colonial ports are closed 
 to our vessels, and, on the annunciation of that fact, the laws of 
 1818 and 1820 revive by the force of law. The President, 
 anxious to do what the public interest and the public will re- 
 quire, has submitted the subject to Congress, to ascertain if it 
 is their disposition to change the existing state of the law ; and 
 now it is thought we should go back to inquire of him what 
 ought to be done. What aid can be derived from our local 
 knowledge, our opinions, or our advice ? Of w hat use is a le- 
 gislative body, if we shrink from our duty to avoid the responsi- 
 bility, and refer every thing to him. The pride of station, and 
 the dignity of a Senator, w ill not permit me to take my opinions 
 in that way, or to commit the fortune and destiny of the country 
 to any man ; and if we did, we should turn round hereafter 
 upon the President, as the gentleman has done in this debate, 
 and accuse him of being the author of our laws, and hold him re- 
 sponsible for the consequences. He now denies that he had any 
 knowledge of the law of 1823 ; that the bill was drawn by the 
 then Secretary of State, passed through Congress without dis- 
 
 r< 
 
5 
 
 cussion. Where was lie, when a subject of such importance 
 was passed ? and when did he find out that that law was so in- 
 judicious ? How does he account for this to his constituents ? 
 
 This doctrine must resolve this Government into a single 
 power. 
 
 The gentleman from Maryland has placed his amendment 
 ypon the ground that this country has been wrong in this mat- 
 ter, and that some act of conciliation is due from us. It will 
 be my duty to vindicate the conduct of this Government, to 
 justify the interdict, and to remark upon the conduct of the 
 British Government, in relation to the time, manner, and cir- 
 «umstance, of their interdict. 
 
 It has been a settled maxim in our policy, since the founda- 
 tion of the Government, to regulate our commercial intercourse 
 with all nations, upon terms of equality and reciprocity ; to 
 meet them in every act of friendship or hostility ; and to be 
 governed by an exact scale of justice. I beg leave to refer to 
 some of these principles. I read from Mr. Jefferson’s com- 
 mercial report in 1793, which contains the great system of re- 
 ciprocity for the government of our intercourse with foreign 
 nations. It corresponds with the principles of Mr. Madison’s 
 resolutions. They contain the true republican doctrines of 
 that day, and on which our commerce and navigation have been 
 founded. They have been confirmed by time and practice, and 
 have become the settled policy of the country, and from which 
 we cannot depart without an abandonment of our principles. 
 They will be found a sure guide in all times. 
 
 “But should any nation, contrary to our wishes, suppose 
 it may better find its advantage by continuing its system of 
 prohibitions, duties, and regulations, it behooves us to protect 
 our citizens, their commerce, and navigation, by counter pro- 
 hibitions, duties, and regulations, also. Free commerce and 
 navigation are not to be given in exchange for restrictions and 
 vexations : nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of them.” 
 
 “ Were the ocean, which is the common property of all, open 
 to the industry of all, so that every person and vessel should be 
 free to take employment wherever it could be found, the United 
 States would certainly not set the example of appropriating to 
 themselves, exclusively, any portion of the common stock of 
 occupation. They would rely on the enterprise and activity of 
 their citizens, for a due participation 1 " of the benefits of the sea- 
 faring business, and for keeping the marine class of citizens 
 equal to their object. But, if particular nations grasp at undue 
 shares, and, more especially, if they seize on the means of the 
 United States , to convert them into aliment for their own strength , 
 and withdraw them entirehj from the support of those to whom 
 they belong , defensive and protecting measures become necessa- 
 
6 
 
 ry on the part of the nation whose marine resources are thus 
 invaded.” 
 
 44 Where a nation imposes high duties on our productions, 
 or prohibits them altogether, it may be proper for us to do the 
 same by theirs.” 
 
 “ Where a nation refuses to receive in our vessels any pro- 
 ductions but our own, we may refuse to receive, in theirs, any 
 but their own productions. 
 
 44 Where a nation refuses to consider any vessel as ours which 
 has not been built within our territories, we should refuse to 
 consider as theirs, any vessel not built within their territories. 
 
 44 Where a nation refuses to our vessels the carriage even of 
 our own productions, to certain countries under their domina- 
 tion, we might refuse to theirs of every description, the carriage 
 of the same productions to the same countries.” 
 
 44 The establishment of some of these principles by Great 
 Britain, alone, has already lost us, in our commerce with that 
 country and its possessions, between eight and nine hundred 
 vessels, of near 40,000 tons burden, according to statements 
 from official materials, in which they have confidence. This in- 
 volves a proportional loss of seamen, shipwrights, and ship- 
 building. and is too serious a loss to admit forbearance of some 
 effectual remedy.” 
 
 44 ft is not to the moderation and justice of others we are to 
 trust for fair and equal access to market with our productions, 
 or for our due share in the transportation of them; but to our 
 own means of independence, and the firm will to use them.” 
 
 I have consulted these principles in the present case. I have 
 taken them for my guide. I believe it the imperious duty of 
 those who direct the councils of this nation to preserve the 
 rights, the char acter, and the dignity, of the nation, by an ad- 
 herence to known and approved principles, and by following 
 out to their results the maxims and truths of political science, 
 which time and opinion have sanctioned. 1 beg the gentle- 
 man from Maryland to look to great principles, not to tem- 
 porary expedients : to meet Great Britain in the true spirit 
 of the nation ; not by humiliating his country before her. Let 
 him remember that submission never set bounds to encroach- 
 ment ; that free trade is not to be given for restriction and 
 prohibition ; and acquiescence will not obtain a relaxation of 
 them. He will remember that these principles were violently 
 opposed in their day, and by arguments not unlike those he has 
 employed on this occasion. 
 
 We have heretofore acted on these principles. We have 
 met her exclusion by non-intercourse : and if we now relax, 
 if we fail to meet the crisis, if we do not now act on our 
 known principles — we abandon our rights, and trust to favor 
 
 * 
 
i 
 
 and conciliation to obtain wliat was never granted to modera- 
 tion. You will sacrifice the principles of our policy, degrade 
 the country, yield up the trade, and, with it the power of 
 controlling and coercing it — in the vain hope of operating on 
 British magnanimity. 
 
 Having now shown the principles on which our system is 
 founded, let us pursue the subject to see how the charge, which 
 the gentleman has brought upon his own country, is sustained ; 
 and, for this purpose, I hope I shall be pardoned for the tedi- 
 ousness of this dry detail. 
 
 Among the first measures adopted by this Government for 
 the protection of our navigation, was a duty of one dollar a ton 
 on foreign vessels, and 10 per cent, additional to the duties on 
 the merchandise imported in them. Our own vessels pay a 
 tonnage duty of six cents. There is, therefore, a discrimina- 
 tion of 94 cents a ton, and the 10 per cent, on the duties, which 
 foreign vessels pay over what is paid by American vessels. 
 But, as this country was desirous of placing her commerce 
 upon the most perfect equality with all nations who would 
 adopt the same principle} authority was given to the President, 
 by an act, in 1815, to remove this discrimination from the ves- 
 sels of all Nations who would remove theirs from our vessels ; 
 and, accordingly, the vessels of all nations that admit ours on 
 the same terms as their own, are admitted in our ports with 
 the same charges as our vessels. In the Convention of 
 1815, Great Britain accepted these terms, so far as regarded 
 her European possessions and four ports in the East Indies, but 
 was unwilling to extend them to the West Indies and the North 
 American possessions, and other places mentioned in this hill. 
 In regard to these last, the right was reserved to each party 
 to regulate the intercourse according to their own views of 
 their own interest. It is the policy of Great Britain, although 
 she has been obliged to abandon many of the pretensions which 
 she claimed, and on which her navigation system was founded, 
 still to maintain, not only the right to carry all the productions 
 of her own dominions, but to enjoy all the benefit of the inter- 
 course between her colonies and every other country, as if, 
 in the present state of the world, any nation, and especially a 
 maritime Nation, could permit her to trade with them upon 
 such principles ! And, as if the commerce which she rightfully 
 enjoys, through her extensive Colonial possessions, with a fair 
 participation in the commerce with every other country, was 
 not enough to satisfy her ambition, she claimed the right to 
 prohibit our intercourse with her Colonies, although the arti- 
 cles which constituted the commerce, were the productions of 
 this country, and of indispensable necessity to them. The injus- 
 tice of exercising this right, exclusively, and refusing any 
 
8 
 
 share to the people by whose labor the commerce was created, 
 was sensibly felt. Thedr ead of the agricultural interest of 
 any change which might endanger the loss of a market, they 
 then enjoyed, rendered it exceedingly difficult to bring the 
 public mind to the point of resistance. It was not until 
 1818 , that a partial restriction was obtained ; but, in 18 £ 0 , we 
 imposed an absolute non-intercourse, the effect of which was 
 to bring to the consideration of Great Britain the value of this 
 trade to her, by making her feel the inconvenience of its loss. 
 We then found we had the same right to say who should trade 
 with our ports, as she had to say who should not trade with 
 hers. It was soon found that little injury was experienced in 
 our markets ; that our productions were immediately carried 
 to all the other West Indies in our own vessels, and a new r 
 and active commerce opened to our citizens. 
 
 Let us see, then, if, up to the period of 1822 , when Great 
 Britain opened her ports, there could be any matter of com- 
 plaint. For three years, from 1815 to 1818 , she enjoyed ex- 
 clusively the trade. From that time to 1820 , her interdict re- 
 mained, and we made only a partial attempt to retaliate. In 
 that year, we were compelled to meet her by prohibitory re- 
 gulations. In the state of non -intercourse which for two years 
 succeeded, there is nothing but an effort to do ourselves justice, 
 and ta place our country upon an equality. The pretension of 
 intruding into our ports, while our vessels are excluded from 
 her ports, cannot be justified on any ground, nor tolerated on 
 any principle. If Great Britain has a right to regulate the 
 trade with her colonial ports, we have also the right to regu- 
 late the trade in our own productions. It is sufficient to say, 
 that we offered her the utmost freedom of commercial inter- 
 course, which she rejected, and met only by an absolute refu- 
 sal to permit our vessels to enter her ports. The gentleman 
 from Maryland (Mr. Smith) justifies her on the ground of 
 right, and asserts that this trade is a mere boon — a favor 
 “ which his Majesty grants. 5 * A boon is something without 
 equivalent; and I know, said Mr. J., too well, the principle 
 which governs nations, to believe that Great Britain opens her 
 ports, or divides her commerce with any nation, as a matter of 
 favor. It is a matter of interest or necessity. We do not com- 
 plain that she closes her Colonial ports, but of that want of de- 
 licacy and reciprocity which permits her to do, in ours, what 
 she refuses us to do in her own. 
 
 Up to this period, then, it seems there can be no ground of 
 censure against the American Government. 
 
 It is sufficient for me to remark, without attempting to ac- 
 count for the motives or principles which governed her, that, 
 rn two years, she opened her ports. She had tried the experiment 
 
0 
 
 how far agriculture could be sacrificed to navigation; and 
 how far and how long the Colonies could endure the pressure. 
 They were oppressed by debt, and scarcely able to bear up 
 under the direct competition of the other islands, more favora- 
 bly situated. Their lands inferior, expenses greater, profits 
 small and precarious, property sunk in value, and incapable 
 of sustaining any additional weight. 
 
 In 1822, she partially opened her ports to us. She selected 
 a few articles of primary necessity, which we were permitted 
 to carry to her. She selected flour, biscuit, rice, live stock, 
 and lumber, the particular articles which we were to furnish 
 her, upon which to impose a duty equal to 20 per cent, on the 
 price in our market ; and this trade was limited to a direct 
 trade. In consideration of this restricted trade, our ports 
 were opened to a direct intercourse with her Colonies, for 
 all their productions. But, although she was careful to limit 
 us to a direct trade, she immediately demanded not to be her- 
 self limited to the direct trade. Reciprocity was our only ob- 
 ject. We intended to yield nothing, but to meet her fairly in 
 every concession and restriction she might think it her interest 
 to adopt. The claims of Great Britain were not so much in the 
 spirit of encroachment, as in the spirit with which she watches 
 and guards her interests, and the sagacity and ardor with which 
 she pursues them. It is evident, that, having reluctantly 
 yielded any part of the trade with her Colonies, she was not 
 inattentive to the terms on which it was conceded. She look- 
 ed, in this case, with that jealous vigilance to her interests, 
 which has ever marked her course. She demanded, also, that 
 the existing discriminating duty should be removed from their 
 vessels, although, by their act, no discriminations or charges 
 were removed, nor any evidence furnished that none existed ; 
 and the British Minister was unwilling to give assurances ou 
 the subject. But the President not having power to repeal an ex- 
 isting law, unless they had furnished the evidence that no higher 
 duties or charges existed in the colonial ports, on American ves- 
 sels and merchandise, than on their own, a communication was 
 immediately made to the British Minister, which Mr. J. said 
 he would read, in order to shew the frankness and good dispo- 
 sition of this Government, in relation to this subject. [Here 
 Mr. J. read the last paragraph of Mr. Adams’s letter of 11th 
 November, 1822.] It must not be forgotten that, during all the 
 discussions on this subject, that there was a constant desire 
 manifested on our part to open the trade, and to meet them on 
 terms of reciprocity. 
 
 This subject came before Congress, and the act of 1823 was 
 passed with great unanimity. That law gave the President 
 power to remove the discriminating duty, on condition, in effect, 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 that no higher duties were imposed on our articles, than those 
 coming from any other place. Here the ground was directly 
 taken by the American Government, “all the branches con- 
 curring, that our discriminating duty was only a fair equi- 
 valent for the limited trade which she gave us, in a few articles 
 burthened with a heavy duty. Each party was the judge of 
 its own interests, and both, perhaps, equally well informed, 
 and equally anxious to protect them. 
 
 It is acknowledged, that Great Britain had the right to open 
 her ports, under any reservations ; it was ours, equally, to 
 judge of them, and to prescribe the equivalent : whether her 
 terms were liberal, or ours were equal ; whether both were too 
 guar ded, are matters of speculation. They were the delibe- 
 rate acts of the two Governments. Great Britain had reserved 
 the right to close her ports, and our law was passed under a 
 direct menace that the right would be exercised ; and we also 
 reserved to ourselves, the right to close our ports, when she 
 should close hers. Not having closed them, she virtually ac- 
 cepted the provisions of our law, by laying a duty equal to our 
 discriminating duty, upon American vessels, in order to coun- 
 tervail ours ; a measure, which was adopted, says Mr. Hus- 
 kisson, “ because it was the mildest, and because a disposition 
 was manifested to negotiate.” 
 
 The vessels of both nations paid the same discriminating 
 duty. They paid it in our ports : we in their’s. All our ports 
 were open to their productions, paying the same duties as the 
 same articles from any foreign country : their’s were open to 
 us, on the same terms : both were limited to the direct trade. 
 The mind cannot perceive a greater degree of equality, in 
 terms. If we derived an undue share of the trade, it must be 
 owing to circumstances — vessels better adapted to the trade, 
 greater economy, a higher degree of activity and enterprise ex- 
 cited by competition, local position, and other causes. 
 
 But, the gentleman from Maryland, although he is now laboring 
 to put us in the wrong, said, last session, that this state of things 
 was most beneficial to Great Britain. Mr. J. read from his 
 speech of last session : “But how are they (the ports) open ? 
 Why, by our paying the enormous duty of 94 cents per ton, &c. 
 on our vessels, and, I shall not be surprized, if they should con- 
 sent that they should be kept open, by order in council, forever, 
 on these terms. We pay to their revenue g 1 90, when they pay to 
 our’s only g 10 ; it is a simple financial operation.” He says, 
 also, (page 12,) “The retaliatory duty falls so heavily, that I 
 am surprised they (our articles) are not carried in British ships 
 alone.” He says, (page 9) the act of Parliament of 1822, 
 “ opened their trade upon terms more liberal than heretofore, 
 yet reserving many advantages. 5 ’ 
 
 I do not rely, said Mr. J. upon those opinions to prove that 
 
11 
 
 the terms on which the trade was opened, were equal ; but it is a 
 fair argument against the gentleman himself : and, if the terms 
 seemed so favorable to him last year, how can he now put his own 
 Government in the wrong ? How can he say we demanded too 
 much, and accuse the Administration of sacrificing the interests 
 of the country ? He was surprised, last year, how we carried a 
 barrel of flour under the heavy discriminating duty imposed on 
 our vessels. His object then seemed to be, as it now is, to put 
 this Government in the wrong ; but then all the existing regula- 
 tions were injurious, not to Great Britain, but to ourselves ; but 
 now it is necessary to shew that the terms on which we opened 
 the trade were unequal and disadvantageous to Great Britain, in 
 order to justify the interdict 9 and the argument is changed. Then 
 the gentleman said, the “countervailing duty fell on our agricul- 
 turists,” threatened our navigation with the loss of trade, and 
 was, altogether, most unwise legislation. If the terms were 
 so unfavorable to ourselves, how can he now justify the inter- 
 dict on that ground ? I avail myself of these opinions, (which I 
 shall shew to be erroneous before I sit down, ) merely to answer 
 him — “equal and opposing forces counteract each other.” 
 Then it was the gentleman’s object to laud British states- 
 men. He said of one of them, (Mr. Huskisson, certainly of 
 very liberal principles and enlarged views,) “That great 
 man, and his colleagues, form the most able, the most wise, 
 and most useful administration, that has ever existed in Great 
 Britain. They are doing great good to commerce, great and 
 useful services to the nation, and opening the eyes of the world 
 to the advantages of a free trade” Yes ! Great Britain open - 
 ing the eyes of the world to the advantages of a free trade!/ 
 
 Then, it was the gentleman’s object to exhibit the ruinous policy 
 of this country, in regulating the Colonial trade; now, he finds 
 the British Government justified in interdicting the trade alto- 
 gether, because the act of 1 823 was a most unwise measure, 
 and of which she had a right to complain. 
 
 Up to this period, then, both nations had regulated this trade 
 according to their respective views of their own interests ; 
 perhaps their regulations were somewhat unequal in opera- 
 tion ; but they were as nearly equal in terms, and reciprocal 
 in privileges and charges, as they could be made. If 
 there was any inequality in their operation, it must be 
 ascribed to causes inherent in the nature of things, which 
 the legislature cannot control. Laws cannot be made that 
 will divide equally the navigation and commerce of two 
 countries ; those who, by skill, industry, and economy, can 
 carry for less price, will obtain the trade ; if we have any ad- 
 vantage it is that. Against such a law of nature there is no 
 way to legislate, but by interdiction. Suppose Great Britain 
 
12 
 
 undertakes to protect her navigation in the colonial trade ; 
 what is the effect ? Her staple is sugar, which depends on a 
 foreign market, where it meets with an active competition with 
 the sugars of the other islands. If she pays a dollar a barrel 
 duty on flour, and a like duty on every other article of consump- 
 tion, for the benefit of Canada, while the other sugar colonies 
 do not pay it, and we can carry those articles to them free of 
 duty, and their sugars to Europe cheaper than the British are 
 carried, does it not follow that the British sugars will be more 
 heavily charged ? and that, being in a glutted market, (and all 
 the sugar markets are glutted,) they must sink to the price at 
 which the cheaper sugars can be sold ? This will fall on the 
 islands ; they will be sacrificed to the primary policy of navi- 
 gation, and to the like necessity of protecting Canada against 
 foreign competition, at the expense of the other Colonies. 
 
 This state of things cannot exist in the present intelligent 
 and active condition of the world. We had no rightto ask Great 
 Britain to take off the duty on flour and lumber, which operat- 
 ed injuriously to our agriculture; and we did not. But it was 
 a policy which we thought the interests of the West India Co- 
 lonies required. But of that she is the judge. We thought 
 the new lights, which British statesmen have since thrown 
 upon free trade, would have made this error visible. 
 
 Mr. Johnston said he concluded that, up to that time, there 
 was no error, except a common error of restriction on both 
 sides; mutual error, arising from too much attention to the 
 means of protection by law, of that w hich should be left only to 
 the fair and open competition of skill and enterprise. The cord 
 was drawn too tight. If the gentleman from Maryland has not 
 made good his charge, let us pursue the subject, and see how 
 the charge of neglect is sustained. 
 
 In 1824, the two Governments had a full conference in Lon- 
 don on the Colonial relations. The British Government refused 
 to yield either the duty on our productions, or to treat of the St. 
 Lawrence question in this negotiation, with which it was most 
 naturally connected, but most pertinaciously adhered to the 
 exercise of her rights on both, while she insisted on the repeal 
 of the discriminating duty. The propositions were mutually 
 exchanged, and their’s were referred to this country. It was 
 still the same question ; and nothing had occurred to induce a 
 change of opinion, or any change in the terms on which the 
 trade was then established. 
 
 The occupations of the Department, during the necessary en- 
 gagements of a short session of Congress, did not afford time 
 for reflection and consultation, even if it had been proper to 
 decide on these propositions which were to affect the legislative 
 enactments of the country, pending a change of Administration, 
 which took place in March, 1825. 
 
13 
 
 When the Secretary of State came into office, he had great 
 labor in making himself acquainted with the diplomatic rela- 
 tions, and preparing instructions for different negotiations. 
 With Great Britain we had several points of great importance, 
 on all of which instructions were to be furnished to our Minis- 
 ter, about to proceed to London. The documents were numer- 
 ous, the duty highly responsible, and the greatest care and at- 
 tention necessary to present our rights justly and fairly before 
 him. They embraced the slave convention, the Northeastern 
 boundary, the Northwestern coast, the navigation of the St. 
 Lawrence, the colonial question, and some smaller points. In- 
 structions were furnished on some of these subjects, and full 
 powers given to treat of all. The Minister was directed to 
 proceed to the negotiation of the slave convention first, being 
 of most pressing urgency, as the Commission had found itself 
 unable to proceed ; and he was informed that instructions would 
 follow for the adjustment of the Colonial question. 
 
 And here the gentleman will pardon me for saying, he 
 has been wanting in candor and liberality. He knew that, 
 when the present Secretary came into office, it became his duty 
 to decide on the British proposition of 1824, and to frame his 
 instructions accordingly. It was desirable to both countries 
 that the question should be put at rest, but it was important to 
 maintain the just rights of the nation ; and, unwilling to act on 
 his own judgment alone, or to compromit the public interest, 
 he addressed a circular letter to the most distinguished com- 
 mercial men, and among them to the gentleman himself ; and 1 
 ask him if he does not know that the delay in drawing the in- 
 structions on this subject, arose from the desire of obtaining 
 this information ? and from the desire, too, of being able to 
 meet the views of the British Government? and from the im- 
 portant interests which his decision involved ? I could appeal 
 to the gentleman late a member from Massachusetts, (Mr. 
 Lloyd,) to the gentleman from Maine, (Mr. Holmes,) and 
 several others of both Houses, both for the interest and zeal 
 manifested on this subject, and for the opinions then enter- 
 tained by him. 
 
 The first letters from Mr. King, announced his own ill 
 health, and the regret of Mr. Canning, that his indisposition 
 rendered it necessary to leave town- It was not until the 26th 
 September, 1825, that Mr. King had his first meeting with 
 the Minister, and not until the 11th of November his presen- 
 tation to the King. 
 
 But, on the 26th of September, the new acts of Parliament 
 arrived here. No notice was given to this Government of the in- 
 tended operation of the laws. It was not known whether they 
 superseded the laws then in force, as regards the United 
 
14 
 
 States, or were expected to do away the necessity of ne- 
 gotiation. This Government was left entirely in the dark, 
 as to the views or wishes of the British Government. The 
 laws themselves did not furnish a very satisfactory ex 
 pianation on these points. The gentleman from Maryland 
 says they are quite clear. They may be to him, but I can say 
 they have cost me some labor to unr avel them. There were 
 three acts, embracing 130 sections. I read, attentively, the 
 several laws, but I searched in vain for any repeal of the act 
 of 1822, which regulated the trade with this country. It has 
 been said, that it is repealed ; but I venture to appeal to the 
 gentleman from Maryland, and to ask him if he has yet found 
 out how it is repealed ? The learned Sir W. Scott, has given 
 a decision in the case of the Jubilee, in conformity with an act 
 no longer in force, and neither the learned Judge, nor his 
 Counsel on the spot, having known it was repealed, |or 
 thought of searching for it in an act, which, it is now said, 
 also repeals the act of 1822, entitled “ an act to repeal the 
 several laws of the customs.” 
 
 In the act of the 27th June, 1825, I found that certain goods 
 might be imported in the colonies from America, Europe, Asia, 
 or Africa; but we had this right already by the law of 1822. 
 But the right of Exportation was confined to Europe , Asia , and 
 Africa , and in the vessels of the country to which the exporta- 
 tion was made. I could, therefore, find nothing in this act re- 
 lating to us ; I was, therefore, convinced the act was not in- 
 tended to operate on us, or, in any way, to change the existing 
 relations. 
 
 In the act of 5th July, 1825, “to regulate the trade of 
 British possessions abroad,” I found nothing relating to Amer- 
 ica except the 4th section, w r hich says, “ and whereas, by the 
 law of navigation, foreign ships are permitted to import into 
 any of the British possessions abroad from the countries to 
 which they belong, &c. and to export goods from such posses- 
 sions to be carried to any foreign country whatever .” This 
 reference to the law of navigation is neither by title nor date. 
 The law enacted eight days preceding, did not include Ameri- 
 ca, in the right to export to any foreign country, and I was 
 ignorant to what law of navigation it had reference, unless to 
 that last recited act. I had found nothing to satisfy me that 
 the privileges of the act extended to this country. 
 
 In an act of the same day, “ for the encouragement of Bri- 
 tish shipping and navigation,” I was surprised to find that an 
 act of that session, to repeal law s relating to the customs, had 
 repealed the laws of navigation, and that, by that operation, 
 all trade must be free that was not therein prohibited, as it 
 had beenpreviously prohibited , unless relaxed by special law ? 
 
I could not find the trade with the United States prohibited, 
 and therefore inferred, that that act was the one alluded to, 
 by which the right to export to foreign countries was granted 
 to the United States, 
 
 In the absence of all information on the subject, some doubts 
 were entertained of the construction of these laws. A letter 
 was addressed to Mr. Vaughan, to inquire if American ves- 
 sels were permitted, under that law, to export from the Colo- 
 nies to any foreign country, and if the discriminating duty was 
 repealed ; to which he could give no satisfactory answer, hav- 
 ing received no advice or instructions on the subject. Nor was 
 it understood, whether, if we did not avail ourselves of the 
 right to export to any foreign country granted in this bill, 
 by placing them on the footing of the most favored nation, 
 that the law would go into operation, and exclude us from the 
 direct trade in which we were then engaged. There was a 
 power left in the King and Council to extend those privileges 
 to Nations who might not comply with the provisions of this 
 law, which it was reasonable to believe were intended to apply 
 to our case. Besides, this law, if put in operation, would 
 close the ports of the North American possessions, which it is 
 her interest, and has always been her policy, to keep open. 
 But we now know, that these laws did not go into operation 
 against us, except in one instance, which was revoked. 
 
 But, to the gentleman from Maryland, there was no difficul- 
 ty in the laws ; to him every thing was clear. The gentleman 
 enjoyed the peculiar advantage, of which he has made so much 
 in his speech, of not being a lawyer. His mind is not tram- 
 melled by professional learning. He marches boldly up to the 
 question, assumes his premises, and jumps to his conclusions. 
 The labor of research, and the patience of investigation, are 
 equally unnecessary and unknown to him. 
 
 Besides these considerations, said Mr. J. the extent of the 
 privileges claimed under the act of Parliament for placing 
 them “ on the footing of the most favored Nation,” was not 
 distinctly understood. If, by it, they expected to be placed on 
 the footing of Guatemala and Denmark, who have a perfectly 
 free trade, it could not be conceded to Great Britain, unless 
 she made the same concession. The mere right, and the very 
 doubtful right as to its effect, of carrying from the Colonies to 
 Europe, could not be considered equivalent to the concession. 
 Understood in the limited sense, there could be no objection, 
 and there was none here to meet Great Britain on the terms 
 proposed. The import of those words is distinctly known 
 here, and it is presumed is so in England. But it was desi- 
 rable to be explicit, and not to be involved in the interpreta- 
 tion of words. We have already had a tedious correspon- 
 
16 
 
 dence with one foreign nation ; and, under the pretensions 
 arising out of the construction of these expressions, our 
 citizens find themselves deprived of an immense amount ; 
 their property seized upon the Ocean under the most il- 
 legal decrees, either burnt, confiscated, or condemned, with- 
 out judicial formality, and paid over to the French Treasury. 
 And, when they demand indemnity for these robberies, which eve- 
 ry nation has received, they are for years deferred under different 
 pretences, and at last, this unfounded claim against the Amer- 
 ican Government is set up to defeat the just claims of our citi- 
 zens. This lesson, which will be long and painfully remem- 
 bered in this country, is sufficient to guard us against the dan- 
 ger of these expressions. 
 
 The Executive of the United States determined to accept 
 the terms of the British Government, and it was believed here 
 that no further difficulty could occur ; and the President says 
 in his message, “ in the renewal of the diplomatic missions on 
 both sides, between the two Governments, assurances have 
 been given and received, of the continuance and increase of 
 mutual confidence and cordiality, by which the adjustment of 
 many points of difference has already been effected, and which 
 affords the surest pledge for the ultimate satisfactory adjust- 
 ment of those which will remain open, or may hereafter arise.” 
 
 The indisposition of Mr. King continued from his arrival un- 
 til all expectation of his recovery, so as to be able to conduct 
 the negotiation, was abandoned. This was so apparent, that 
 the British Minister kindly invited us to send an adjunct Min- 
 ister, to enable them to proceed with the Ministers then ap- 
 pointed, and preparing to treat on their part, on the important 
 subjects then pending between the two Governments. 
 
 Mr. Gallatin was immediately designated, as a man most 
 competent for this duty. He was consulted, and consented to 
 engage in it. He was appointed, with full powers, furnished 
 with instructions, and the British Government was notified 
 that the instructions would arrive by the last of May, only 
 two months from the date of the invitation. The British 
 Government had seen that the causes of delay, during the last 
 year, were beyond human control, and were as unforeseen as 
 unavoidable. If Mr. King had been furnished with instruct 
 tions, he could not have proceeded ; and if he could, he would 
 have been so furnished in good time. If he had been instruct- 
 ed, they would not have been applicable to the new state of 
 things, growing out of the acts of Parliament, passed about the 
 time of his arrival ; and, if the Minister had been able to pro- 
 ceed to the negotiation, it was late in the Fall before their Mi- 
 nisters assembled for that purpose. 
 
 At the last session, a memorial, praying the removal of the 
 
17 
 
 discriminating duty, was referred to the Committee of Com- 
 merce ; who made a report declining legislation, because 
 it was a proper subject for negotiation. A bill for that pur- 
 pose was, however, introduced, but not acted on, for want 
 of time ; and, upon this, an attempt has been made to show that 
 the Administration had prevented the passage of the bill, and 
 various private conversations have been reported here to 
 strengthen the impression. But the charge is as groundless 
 as the other attempts to put this Government in the wrong. 
 
 When the gentleman from Maryland applied to the Presi- 
 dent and the Secretary of State, they both said it might be re- 
 pealed ; they made no objection ; they did not dissuade him ; 
 they both told him there was no longer any difficulty in the 
 adjustment of this affair with Great Britain ; that the nego- 
 tiations were about to be resumed. It was a mere question, 
 whether it was better to give them this in advance, or to hold 
 it in our hands until the negotiation. But they left him en- 
 tirely at liberty ; and he so stated it in his speech, last year. 
 He said, “ there was no difference on this subject, except as to 
 the manner . The Committee of Commerce think it better to 
 be done by negotiation.” And he now says lie took his mea- 
 sures with the approbation of the President, and the concur- 
 rence of the Secretary of State. 
 
 The Chairman of the Committee of Commerce also applied 
 to the President and Secretary of State. They told him the 
 discriminating duty might be repealed ; but that, alone, would 
 not meet the terms of the British act of Parliament, and would 
 not supersede negotiation. They thought that a subject about 
 which we had been for ten years legislating, ought to be final- 
 ly closed by a treaty, which would embrace all the points, with 
 regard to the extent of the trade, the duties and charges ; and 
 that the commercial rights of the nation ought to be fixed per- 
 manently, and not left to changing legislation. Besides which, 
 the free navigation of the St. Lawrence, which was not pro- 
 vided for, was an object equally interesting, and ought to be 
 connected with it. The repeal of the duty was not considered 
 an object of any great moment. 
 
 Mr. Johjvstont said, he had examined, with the greatest can- 
 dor, all the transactions of 1824 and 1825, without being able 
 to find any want of respect to Great Britain, any inattention to 
 her rights or interests, or any neglect or indifference to our 
 own ; nothing by which the argument that has been resorted 
 to, can be justified. 
 
 It must not he forgotten, that, during all these discussions, 
 Great Britain has refused us the free right to navigate the St. 
 Lawrence to the Ocean, while she is permitted to pass, with 
 her merchandise, to Upper Canada, through our jurisdiction, 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 over the same waters. The effect of which is to place all the 
 productions of the country bordering on the Lakes, under a 
 charge very burthensome and oppressive, and almost prohibi- 
 tory. The operation of this duty on flour, was very onerous 
 on that part of our country especially. This Government at- 
 tempted to connect the right of navigating that river, with the 
 colonial question ; but which the British Government contin- 
 ually refused. The discriminating duty was resorted to, in 
 the first instance, because it was peculiarly necessary to take 
 a stand in favor of the agricultural interests of these people. 
 The American productions on the St. Lawrence and the Lakes, 
 have not only the long voyage, and all the additional expense of 
 freight and insurance, but they paid 105 cents a barrel duty, 
 which brought those articles into market upon very unequal 
 terms ; and it was especially due to those people to remove, if 
 possible, the duty on them. Mr. J. said, he would not here 
 discuss the right of passing from the great inland seas, 
 which belong equally to both nations, to the Ocean, the com- 
 mon property of all, through a Straight which connects them, 
 and, especially as that Straight passes, at some points, 
 through the territorial limits of the United States. If Great 
 Britain shall be deaf to the great right of this passage under 
 the laws of Nations, we shall be obliged to exercise the 
 same power over her right of passage through the same waters 
 within our territorial limits, and to divert our trade into an op- 
 posite direction. But all those restrictions are equally inju- 
 rious, and oppressive, and vexatious, to all parties. 
 
 But the interest which this Government has manifested 
 in the right of navigating the St. Law rence, a right hereto- 
 fore so valued by our people in that quarter, so essential 
 to their happiness, is treated by the gentleman of Maryland in 
 a very sneering and cavalier manner. He says it was a “ laugh- 
 able attempt,” and that “ he could have seen through the flimsy 
 veil.” The right of navigating the St. Lawrence to the Ocean 
 is not a new subject. It has been claimed for several years, 
 and frequent attempts have been made to secure it. It is a right 
 founded in public law, gravely and zealously urged, and is 
 still in discussion with the British Government. Whatever es- 
 timate he may form of it, or to whatever unworthy motives he 
 may attribute the negotiation on the subject, if the gentleman 
 had read the memorial from St. Lawrence, he would have seen 
 the value of this privilege, and attribute the conduct of the Go- 
 vernment to a proper sense of the rights and interests of those 
 w r hom it concerns. 
 
 Mr. Johnston said, his duty obliged him to follow the re- 
 marks of the gentleman from Maryland, however tedious the 
 details, or desultory the discussion might appear. To those 
 
19 
 
 who understand the subject, it will be uninteresting ; to those 
 who do not, it will he fatiguing, if not disgusting. My only 
 resource is, to make my remarks as brief as is consistent with 
 clearness. The gentleman says, “ Mr. King having arrived in 
 England, without being charged particularly on that point, 
 (the British proposition,) the British Parliament passed their 
 acts of the 27th of June, and two acts of the 5th July, 1825 . 99 
 He leaves the inference to be drawn, if the fact is not clearly 
 expressed, that these acts of Parliament were passed in conse- 
 quence of his not having instructions. Now, what is the fact ? 
 The British Government gave us their propositions, which 
 were referred to this Government late in 1824. A busy and 
 eventful Winter succeeded; and, as soon as the new Administra- 
 tion was organized, a minister was despatched, who arrived 
 the very day the first act passed. They did not wait for our 
 answer, but created a new state of things, that would, in all 
 probability, have superseded the instructions, if any had been 
 given. But, when these laws passed, they could not have 
 known any thing with regard to his instructions. It w'as three 
 months, during which the minister was sick, before lie had an 
 interview with Mr. Canning: and more than four months be- 
 fore his presentation, prior to which, the negotiations could 
 not be resumed. It is, therefore, altogether gratuitous to 
 say, the laws passed in consequence of the want of instructions. 
 They are general laws, relating to the trade of the Colonies 
 with all nations. 
 
 And here permit me to remark upon the extraordinary dis- 
 closure of the gentleman, with regard to these laws. He has 
 stated that, at the last session, having learned from the Secre- 
 tary of State, that the British Acts of Parliament were 
 in his office, he went to see the President, and found that 
 he had not seen them. The impression made on the minds of 
 those who heard him, was, that he intended to fix on the Secre- 
 tary of State and the Executive a gross and culpable neglect of 
 their duty ; that the subject had excited no interest ; that the 
 President was ignorant of the existence of these laws ; and that 
 he had awakened the Government to the consideration of the 
 subject. These laws had then been in the possession of the 
 Government three months. 1 would appeal to the candor of the 
 gentleman himself ; I would appeal to his knowledge of the 
 fact, that the paper cases containing the foreign correspondence, 
 are regularly carried to the President ; to the great interest 
 he has always manifested in this subject; to the indefatiga- 
 ble labor with which he devotes himself to all the duties of his 
 station ; and I would ask him if he believes the President of 
 the United States had no knowledge of those laws ? 
 
20 
 
 The gentleman has drawn a very uncandid argument from the 
 erm ports. He cannot be ignorant that those ports allude espe- 
 cially to the enumerated ports, and to no others . To those ports, 
 which, in consequence of having Custom-houses, and being 
 ports of entry, admit vessels of other nations. It seems equally 
 difficult to misconceive the meaning of the Committee in the 
 House of Representatives, when they say we cannot be sa- 
 tisfied w ith a “ few free ports, or places of depot. ” 
 
 Great Britain has opened this trade to the rest of the w orld, 
 w T e cannot accept of less ; w e expect the trade with the usual 
 places in her Colonies, in consideration of their trade with ours. 
 We shall not be satisfied to have a free port at Halifax, 
 and at Bermuda, as places of depot. We cannot accept of Jess 
 than all the enumerated ports in the West Indies. If Great 
 Britain should open the port of Halifax only, all the American 
 productions for the West i ndies, would concentrate there, from 
 which port they w ould be transported in British vessels. W'e 
 cannot, therefore, admit, in practice, a principle which would 
 exclude our shipping from a due share of the trade in our own 
 productions. This w 7 ould be to permit ourselves to be circum- 
 vented by that “ insidious policy” to w hich the gentleman allud- 
 ed last session, and of the effect of which now, he seems to be 
 entirely unconscious. 
 
 The gentleman from Maryland has made a great lamenta- 
 tion on the ruinous operation of the discriminating duty levied 
 on American vessels in the British ports. This duty amounts 
 to 15} cents, estimated by the barrel; while the duty on im- 
 portation amounts to 105 cents a barrel. The American Go- 
 vernment made a firm stand against this latter onerous impo- 
 sition, injurious alike to our agriculture and navigation. But 
 the gentleman has stigmatized the efforts of the Administration 
 to remove this tax upon our productions; while an exaction 
 of one-sixth in amount, is magnified into a most ruinous effect 
 upon the navigation. At the last session he said, page 7, “ But 
 how are the ports open ? Why, by our paying the enormous duty 
 of 94 cents per ton, &c. upon our vessels, and I shall not be 
 much surprised if they should consent to be kept open forever 
 on those terms.” The duty of 105 cents a barrel on flour is 
 nothing ; but this enormous duty of 15} cents a barrel (being 
 levied as tonnage) is calculated to produce the most important 
 effects upon our trade. In the same speech he says, page 1 1, 
 ii If then we w ere relieved from the alien duties of impost and 
 tonnage, there can be little doubt our flour would go direct, and 
 that two-thirds at least, perhaps three-fourths w ould be carried 
 in American vessels : even under all these disadvantages it is 
 certain that more than ten barrels of flour are exported to the 
 colonies in American vessels, for one in British.” But the gen- 
 
31 
 
 tleman has complained of this also: he says “that we pay four- 
 tilths of this duty;” “ that we pay % 190, while they only pay 
 ten ; it is a mere financial calculation.” He deprecates this 
 ruinous state of things. It appears that, in spite of this enor- 
 mous duty, our vessels enjoyed the carrying trade: that 
 they carried our productions to British markets, while British 
 vessels, free from this duty, could not. These articles there 
 sell, of course, for enough to pay cost, freight, and charges; 
 and, if British vessels did not pay the same in our ports, the rea- 
 son is obvious. 
 
 The gentleman has gone much further, and said “ the act of 
 1822 was every thing we could wish.” It was limited to a di- 
 rect trade “ but did we complain?” We paid a heavy duty on 
 flour, equal to 105 cents, and a similar duty on all other articles, 
 and that in cash; hut that was all right, and he seems to exult 
 in the triumph over the Government, in having failed to ac- 
 complish the removal of this duty on our flour, live stock, and 
 lumber — what he pronounces “to have been a very silly de- 
 mand,” and which they have surrendered as “ untenable.” 
 But, as it regards the articles prohibited, he says it is a curi- 
 ous coincidence, that we prohibit the same articles hv our du- 
 ties. This is too palpable for serious refutation. lie seems 
 to suppose the trade perfectly reciprocal, because the same ar- 
 ticles are prohibited. The articles they prohibit, we can fur- 
 nish : the articles he supposes prohibited here, they cannot fur- 
 nish. This is reciprocity in name — not in substance. But 
 w 7 e have no prohibitions, and articles depending on a foreign 
 market cannot be protected by our laws. The exportation of 
 flour, beef, pork, tobacco, cotton, &c. is a proof that they do 
 not require, and cannot receive, protection from our laws. No 
 article is exported until the home market is supplied, and 
 when in a foreign market, the protection is lost ; and it is a 
 political absurdity to suppose that any article which we export, 
 is protected by a prohibitory duty at home. 
 
 The gentleman from Maryland has asserted, with his usual 
 tone of confidence, that there were no discriminating duties in 
 the British Colonies. 
 
 We know that, in 1822, orders were issued to the customs 
 in the Colonial ports, to equalize the duties, and charges, and 
 fees, on American and British vessels ; which would have been 
 unnecessary if there had been no inequality. Their ports had 
 been opened by proclamation, when their necessities required 
 it ; and it is probable that discriminations existed in favor of 
 their own vessels. The Collector at Jamaica speaks of this 
 order “as a new era in their commerce;” and says u it re- 
 mains to see how it w ill work.” This order was communi- 
 cated to us late in that year. 
 
The law of 1815 gave the President power to remove the 
 duty on foreign vessels, whenever satisfied that no other 
 or higher duties or charges were made on American vessels in 
 their ports than on their own. The report stated that no sa- 
 tisfactory proof was furnished. It is now answered that there 
 were no such duties to abolish. Then it was more easy to fur- 
 nish the proof ; hut they refused to furnish it, or the pledge of 
 the Government to the fact. 
 
 But he has attempted to fix upon the Cabinet a miserable so- 
 phism. He has misquoted the law of 1815, and then founded 
 his argument upon his own error. He says the law of 1815 
 authorized the President to remove the discriminating duty 
 from those nations who should repeal theirs ; and then he in- 
 volves them in the absurdity of deciding that, as the Colonies 
 had no such duties to repeal, they did not come within the letter 
 of the law. The answer is, that this is a misreading of the 
 law. 
 
 By the law of 1815, “the repeal of the discriminating du- 
 ties is to take effect in favor of any foreign nation, w henever 
 the President of the United States shall he satisfied that the 
 discriminating or countervailing duties of such foreign nations, 
 so far as they operate to the disadvantage of the United States, 
 have been abolished No evidence was furnished before 
 the session of the succeeding Congress, w hen his pow er ceased. 
 If no duties of that kind existed, the fact w as not know n here, 
 and the proof was more easily furnished : but, until it was 
 furnished, the President had no power to remove ours. 
 
 I have adverted to this merely to show the importance of 
 accuracy in facts in all public discussions ; and the fallacy as 
 well as the futility of all reasoning, however logical, founded 
 on erroneous premises ; and it evinces the high obligation of 
 those who impute error, absurdity, or ignorance, to others, to be 
 correct themselves in their facts, and clear in their inferences. 
 
 The report of the last session stated that an American vessel, 
 arriving at a bad market, cannot proceed to another island 
 w ithout paying double duties, and that onerous and heavy du- 
 ties and Colonial fees are exacted : to which the gentleman 
 from Maryland then replied, “ it is true, sir, that onerous and 
 heavy duties and colonial fees had been exacted in the Colo- 
 nies, and operated as stated in the report.” The fact is now un- 
 important, and I will not waste time in pursuing it. 
 
 Mr. Adams says to Mr. Canning, “that other charges and 
 even duties, discriminating to the disadvantage of the United 
 States, have continued to be levied in several of the enume- 
 rated ports, until a late period.” 
 
 An accidental error in the report, which stales that the ex- 
 
port duty of 4 per rent, was levied by the act which imposed 
 the duty on importation, has been seized on, as if the act in 
 which the duty was imposed, was the point in dispute. The 
 existence of the duty, no matter when lev ied, was the material 
 part of the fact ; and it is now said that these export duties 
 and charges are equally levied on British as on American ves- 
 sels. They are, notwithstanding, onerous on commerce. Trade 
 can only be profitably carried on with a freight both ways ; 
 but, if the export duty, and other charges, prevent the British 
 sugars from arriving in our ports on equal terms with other 
 sugars, it follows, that they cannot be brought here ; or, if 
 brought, with a loss equal to those charges. And this is the 
 real state of the case. All the return cargoes are losing voy- 
 ages ; and therefore it is, that, of five millions of dollars of su- 
 gars which we import, only § 158,000 are British sugars; 
 and nearly one-hali* of the value of our exports (deducting- 
 ashes, and other articles that go to Europe) is sent back in 
 gold and silver, and in both ways the freight on the return 
 voyage is lost. 
 
 The gentleman from Maryland has also said, that, by the 
 existing regulations, our productions are admitted into Canada 
 free of duty, and that they pay only one shilling a barrel 
 on flour, when imported into the West Indies. I apprehend 
 he is entirely mistaken so far as the law operates. Flour, 
 smuggled into Canada, and shipped as British flour, will no 
 doubt escape the duty, but American flour pays the duty in 
 Canada. It is true it may be deposited at the warehouse at 
 Quebec, but all articles pay the duty when delivered from the 
 warehouse ; and these being imported into the British Islands, 
 pay only one shilling duty on importations there from a ware- 
 house. This is made manifest by a memorial from the St. 
 Lawrence now on the table; in which, on the 1st of January 
 last, they complain that the duties are prohibitory and ruinous 
 to their trade. Masts, timber, and ashes, are admitted to go 
 to the United Kingdom, and beef and pork to Newfoundland, 
 as if from Canada. It would be a very wise policy in Great 
 Britain to draw ail the trade of the St. Lawrence and the 
 lakes into the sphere of her commerce. In the first place, it 
 would supply her Colonies ; it would carry the trade through 
 her towns ; give the transportation to her shipping : and open 
 an extensive commerce for the supply of the whole of the coun- 
 try depending on the St. Lawrence and the lakes. She has, 
 however, hitherto refused to treat on the right of navigating 
 that river from the lakes to the ocean, for reasons peculiar, hut 
 no doubt satisfactory to herself. 
 
 The gentleman from Maryland has ridiculed the idea of our 
 consoling ourselves w ith a new trade, that w ill compensate for 
 
21 
 
 Ihe loss of the British Colonial trade. Has notan extensive and 
 lucrative trade opened with all the South American States, and 
 is it not constantly and rapidly increasing ? Will not the ves- 
 sels, thrown out of the trade with the Colonies, engage in new 
 enterprises ? Will they not every where come in competition 
 with British ships ? Does he imagine that American genius 
 and enterprise are exhausted ? that ail the sources of trade and 
 all the avenues of commerce are explored ? Does he believe 
 that the nation which can navigate with the least expense, 
 that can overcome all competition, has already arrived at its 
 ultimatum ? that our tonnage will not increase, and our com- 
 merce expand? Does he not know that any obstruction of this 
 intercourse, will divert this trade into a new direction, and that 
 not the least sensible effect will he produced in our markets, 
 or in the tonnage employed ? There is a great probability 
 that both will be increased. Provisions rose, in Barbadoes, 
 one hundred per cent., on the day the interdict took effect, in 
 certain anticipation that our interdict would follow, as a matter 
 of course. We may confidently rely upon the sagacity and 
 enterprise of our people, to push their fortunes wherever a sail 
 is seen, or a dollar is made : and if we have the wisdom and 
 the firmness to close our ports upon British vessels, so far as 
 to prevent them from carryingous* productions to their colonies, 
 they will he carried in our vessels with increased profit, and 
 will be consumed in the Colonies at very high advances, and 
 with ruinous effect upon their trade, as well as injury to their 
 shipping. 
 
 The gentleman has animadverted upon the bill, and, in speak- 
 ing of its limitation to vessels by sea. he says “ it creates a terror 
 in his mind he dare not express/’ He has greatly exaggerated 
 the danger, as well as misconceived the operation of the hill, 
 and the nature of the trade. Mr. J. remarked that he had, on 
 several occasions, said, that there was great diversity of opi- 
 nion with regard to the extent of the interdict ; that he had 
 reported the bill in this form, under the impression that it cor- 
 responded with the bill of the House of Representatives ; that 
 he had since heard that they had stricken it out, but of which 
 they had not notified him ; that he considered that question as 
 open to amendment. He had distinctly stated to the House, 
 that he was in favor of an entire interdict, embracing all Ca- 
 nada, for the same reason that he was in favor of the interdict. 
 He desired to make it effectual, by cutting off any indirect sup- 
 ply of the Colonies, by which they could evade our laws and 
 sustain their new policy. He was moreover satislied, that, by 
 closing all communication, our trade would not be materially 
 affected. It would take a new and circuitous course, in our 
 vessels, to British Colonies. 
 
25 
 
 There is, however, nothing in this bill to excite any terror 
 in the mind. It is nothing more than the laws of 1818 and 
 1820, which were two years in operation without any serious 
 consequences. The laws were enforced and obeyed. They 
 were severely felt in the Colonies, and led to the act of 1822, 
 which opened the ports. It is clear that the provisions of the 
 bill will prevent any communication from any of the New Eng- 
 land States with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Their ports 
 cannot be approached but by water, and in violation of this law ; 
 and it is much easier to prevent the shipment of bulky articles like 
 flour and lumber, than to protect the revenue now from 
 violations by smuggling. The temptation to introduce goods 
 now, to avoid the duties, is one hundred-fold greater than to 
 transport lumber and flour to the ports of St. John’s or Hali- 
 fax. It is well known that the New England States have no 
 flour for exportation, and that, if any flour was sent in this illi- 
 cit and exposed route, it would be the flour of the Middle 
 States, which our vessels would carry there ; which is better 
 than the present state of things, by which we are forbidden to 
 carry our productions, and the British vessels allowed to go 
 with them direct to the Colonies. 
 
 As to Canada, it will be seen that she will profit very little 
 by the flour trade. The ports will be closed with ice by No- 
 vember, and will not be again open until May ; her flour could 
 not arrive before June in the Colonial markets, where it could 
 not compete with the fresh flour daily arriving by other routes, 
 with less charges of freight. But, by leaving Canada open for 
 the present year, no injury could result, and next session will 
 be time to close that, if it becomes necessary. It is further to 
 be observed, that the principal trade with Canada is in ashes, 
 masts, spars, &c. which are not intended for the Colonial trade, 
 but which go direct to England, and which it could not be our 
 policy to prevent, and which, until the Oswego Canal is finish- 
 ed, cannot find an outlet in any other way. Although I prefer 
 an absolute and entire interdict of all commerce co-extensive 
 with the object, yet, I confess, that I see no danger in the bill, 
 arid am utterly at a loss to imagine the cause of the terror 
 which he cannot express. 
 
 In the course of another year, this entire interdict will effect 
 an important revolution in the commerce of the Lake country, 
 and will be attended with effects highly favorable to the com- 
 merce and navigation of this country. 
 
 As soon as the prohibition takes effect, and the Canal from 
 Oswego to the New York Canal opens the communication from 
 Lake Ontario to the Hudson, all the trade of that country will 
 take the direction of New York; we shall bring all our pro- 
 ductions within the sphere of our commerce, and concentrate it 
 4 
 
26 
 
 in the great Northern emporium. Even when the interdict is' 
 removed, we shall find canals more safe than the dangerous 
 rapids of the St. Lawrence ; the evpense less ; the route to 
 Europe and the West Indies shorter; a more steady and am- 
 pie market; and a cheaper supply for the consumption of the 
 interior. We have been heretofore induced to give great im- 
 portance to the right to navigate that river; hut, if the hopes 
 now created by the canals in operation are realized, it will 
 equally comport with the interests of individuals, and the protec- 
 tion of our own institutions, by drawing our productions into 
 our own channels, and holding at command our own resources. 
 
 The gentleman has said, that the point so long contended 
 for, had been given up. 
 
 Mr. J. said, the Secretary of State had, in 1825, sought in- 
 formation from the highest sources ; but, before any communi- 
 cation was made with regard to the British proposition of 1824, 
 the acts of Parliament arrived ; so that, on that subject, what- 
 ever opinions were entertained here with regard to those pro- 
 posals, no answer was given, and, consequently, no point was 
 given up. 
 
 But the British Government superseded the necessity of de- 
 ciding that question by their acts of 1825, by which they open- 
 ed the Colonial ports, and permitted American vessels to enter 
 on the same terms as her ow n, and to carry her productions to 
 any foreign countr'y whatever. The Government of the United 
 States determined to accept the terms. It was all they could 
 expect or wish. They saw no further difficulty in relation to 
 this subject. They thought this concession on the part of Great 
 Britain, w as made in the spirit of those liberal ideas she had 
 lately professed. It w as every where thought that the extent 
 of this concession on the part of Great Britain w as equivalent to 
 the circuitous voyage and the removal of the discriminating 
 duties. There was then, and still are, men, who believe the 
 right to make the triple voyage is a dangerous experiment to 
 the shipping interest; but the better opinion seems to be, that 
 we may engage in a fair competition with her, and that we 
 ought not to hesitate to meet her on fair and liberal terms. 
 This became the settled opinion of the Administration, of which 
 the gentleman was fully informed in the most unreserved com- 
 munications with them. 
 
 The gentleman has gone out of his way to pass a general and 
 indiscriminate censure upon the several Administrations of the 
 country, neither warranted by the facts nor illustrative of his 
 argument. He says “ we have lost in all our treaties with Great 
 Britain.” He hasentercd into detail, and ascribes it openly “ to 
 the want of information.” It happens, however, that these trea 
 ties have been negotiated by a succession of the ablest men — 
 
27 
 
 the elder Mr. Adams, Mr. Jay, Mr. Monroe, the President, 
 Mr. Clay, Mr. Gallatin, and others. We have also had at 
 that Court Mr. Pinckney, a profound scholar, an able jurist, 
 an orator, and a statesman ; and yet the want of information 
 is publicly ascribed in this place, as the apology for the treaties, 
 by which it is alleged we have lost on every occasion with 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Perhaps no country has furnished such an illustrious example 
 of great ability in the diplomatic line. We have in that list 
 names the most distinguished in the age in which we live, and 
 almost all who have added to the glory of the country. We 
 have Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Ellsworth, Jay, Marshall, 
 Monroe, King, Pinckney, Adams, Clay, Crawford, Gallatin, 
 and many others of great distinction. Four of them have at- 
 tained the highest honors of their country; three have stood at 
 the head of the Federal Judiciary; and all of them, except one, 
 in the highest ranks of that profession, to which the gentleman 
 found it necessary to make particular allusion. 
 
 This severe reflection, altogether undeserved ami unneces- 
 sary. upon the result of our diplomatic intercourse with Great 
 Britain, is an appropriate counterpart to the high drawn pane- 
 gyric pronounced last Winter upon the British cabinet. 
 
 The treaty of 1794 was negotiated by Mr. Jay, a patriot and 
 a statesman. It was approved by the Senate, and ratified by 
 President Washington. Much opposition was created, at the 
 time, to the terms of the treaty, in consequence of our political 
 relations and feelings towards the two great belligerents ; but 
 a more favorable opinion has since been pronounced. 
 
 The right of trading with the Colonies in the West Indies 
 was conceded, in vessels of 70 tons, and with a promise that, 
 at the end of the war, they would extend the privilege. This 
 proves that the right to trade with the Colonies was a subject 
 of treaty stipulation, and of negotiation, as early as 1794. 
 This, the gentleman says, was an important concession, and 
 ought to have been accepted. But there were men then, who 
 thought these terms unequal, and rejected the 12th article. It 
 was not then considered a boon, granted without equivalent ; 
 but as a question, how far the limited trade to the Islands was 
 a just equivalent for the free admission into our ports. 
 
 By the same treaty, our vessels had admission into all the 
 East India ports, but paid a discriminating duty. By the 
 Convention of 1815, we were admitted into four of the largest 
 ports, which were quite sufficient for our commeree, and on the 
 same terms, and paying the same duties and charges as British 
 vessels. This treaty was every where acceptable ; and there 
 is no doubt that the present trade, freed from discriminating 
 duties, is more beneficial than a trade with all the East India 
 
28 
 
 ports, paying that duty. I see nothing in all this, to justify 
 the broad assertions, of want of information , and of losing in 
 all our treaties with Great Britain; and there is a striking in- 
 consistency in employing this argument now, in order to in- 
 duce us to yield still more to the claims of Great Britain. 
 
 But, sir, said Mr. J. I remember to have heard it said, at 
 the time, that we were peculiarly happy in the selection of the 
 Ministers at Ghent. It was a matter of some pride to our 
 country, but of which it is invidious now to speak. But it was 
 a subject of remark in the British Parliament. The Marquis 
 of Wellesley said, “that, in his opinion, the American Com- 
 missioners had shown the most astonishing superiority over 
 the British, during the whole of the correspondence.” 
 
 I have now traced the two Governments through all the 
 transactions connected with this subject. I can find nothing to 
 diminish my confidence in the justice and liberality of my own 
 Government; and I do not envy the gentleman the ungracious 
 task he has undertaken of putting his own country in the wrong — 
 a task that must he painful to his pride and patriotism, in pro- 
 portion as he may esteem himself successful in the effort. 
 
 It is said that an interdict contains a menace, and that Great 
 Britain will not act under such a measure of coercion. The 
 interdiction is the natural state of things, and the necessary 
 consequence of her own acts. We have been perpetually ex- 
 cluded from the colonies by the ordinary laws of navigation, 
 which was by no means offensive to us. When she has opened 
 these ports, it has been known to be an exception to a system 
 of exclusion. It has been equally well settled, that our ports 
 are open, and our trade free, unless aw exception is adopted, 
 to operate on those who deny us the same privileges. The 
 principle by which we have been governed is, “ that, where 
 any nation may refuse to the vessels of the United States a 
 carriage of the produce or manufacture thereof, while such 
 produce or manufactures are admitted by it in its own vessels, 
 it would be just to make the restrictions reciprocal.” 
 
 Great Britain has, while repealing her navigation laws, and 
 opening the Colonial ports to the rest of the world, reverted to 
 the exclusion of our vessels. She knew that, by a standing la w 
 of this country, the President had power, and it was made his 
 duty, to close our ports whenever they closed theirs. It w as the 
 natural and necessary effect of this measure. If it is viewed 
 as a menace, it has existed since 1823, and would require an 
 act of legislation to prevent its operation. But, with a desire 
 to prevent any collision, and to avoid offensive retaliation, we 
 propose to suspend the operation of this law, and to postpone 
 the execution of the interdict, until the 30tli of September, and 
 longer, if you will. Great Britain will see in this, our mode- 
 
29 
 
 ration; we offer her the most liberal terms; all that she has 
 ever demanded. The causes of any delay will be explained ; 
 full time is afforded to determine on her course, but with a 
 perfect know ledge that the interdict is only suspended. 
 
 We ail agree that the terms ar e liberal ; that we have noth- 
 ing more to tender to her ; that we will not permit any nation 
 to trade to our ports from any ports closed against us; and 
 that, if she refuses, the interdict must follow. It is a question 
 of time ; my own opinion was, and it is unchanged, that the in- 
 terdiction should have followed instantly upon theirs ; their Co- 
 lonies would have instantly felt its effect ; whileour trade would 
 have suffered little from the derangement. Our vessels would 
 have merely changed the direction of their voyage. 
 
 By the amendment, our ports are left open during the w hole 
 of this year to British vessels; they will consequently supply 
 their Colonies, and deprive our vessels of that trade, as well 
 as the trade which would have naturally risen up on the sup- 
 pression of the direct trade* Our vessels w ill, therefore, be 
 thrown out of employment or compelled to find some new ob- 
 ject of pursuit On the first of January, their Colonies will he 
 supplied for six months; at the expiration of which period, 
 they will receive the supplies of Canada ; and two years will 
 elapse before they will, in any way, feel the effect of the inter- 
 dict: in the mean time, our vessels, engaged in this trade, will 
 have been thrown out of service, or entered on other pursuits, 
 and considerable time will be required to enter again into the 
 competition with those regularly established in it. In fine, 
 the postponement for one year, is nearly equivalent to the 
 entire loss, and is equally an abandonment of our principles 
 and our interest. 
 
 The interdict merely proposes to do, prospectively, what 
 Great Britain has already done: it proposes to postpone the 
 operation of a positive law for six months, from motives of re* 
 spent to her. This is not enough. We must humiliate the 
 country, confess our er rors, withdraw our interdict, and make 
 our submission. 
 
 Great Britain has placed herself where she was in 1818 — 
 claiming to carry on all the trade from this country to her 
 colonies. We stand with our ports open, as by the law of 
 1823 ; and we propose to do now what we did under like cir- 
 cumstances in 1818 and 1820 . The proposition of the amend- 
 ment is to refuse to take the same ground, and to act upon 
 the same principles. It is a retrograde movement — a sacri- 
 fice of principle to temporary expedients, and is mar ked by a 
 want of consistency and firmness. 
 
 Our ports were left open from 1815 to 1818. It produced 
 no relaxation of her stern policy. We were compelled then 
 
to resort to defensive measures ; and what was the result of 
 that experiment ? It produced the deepest distress, and 
 threatened the ruin of the Colonies. Memorials were, in 
 1822 , addressed to Parliament, representing in the strongest 
 terms tlie condition to which they were reduced. They at- 
 tributed their distress chiefly to the interruption of their com- 
 merce with the United States, the loss of an extensive market 
 for exchange, and the advanced price of provisions. They 
 say the sugar colonies are dependent on the United States for 
 supplies of dry provisions, staves, and lumber. 
 
 The Assembly of Jamaica said, “our supplies from the 
 United States of lumber arid provisons, which are essentially 
 serviceable to aid the natural defects or the failures of our 
 climate and soil, are straightened by the total interruption of 
 that trade. The regulated and limited commerce which the 
 laws of trade and navigation permitted in British ships, is 
 denied to us by the retaliatory system of the United States. 
 Provisions, the growth of the United States, travel to us, 
 when introduced, by a double voyage, and at an expense unne- 
 cessarily enhanced by this policy. The subjects of your Ma- 
 jesty are stinted in their supplies, and are taxed, while the 
 benefit is conferred on the ships of Spain and Ameiica. and on 
 Spanish ports. A new system of intercourse, upon the basis 
 of mutual benefit, permitting the importation in American 
 bottoms of the products of the United States, and the export 
 of our staple commodities in return, would afford an important 
 relief to the distresses of your Majesty’s Colonies, and open to 
 British ships a trade from which they are now excluded 
 
 Such would now be the condition of those Islands. It is 
 painful to contemplate it ; but it is a necessary measure of self- 
 defence and self respect. Let us not flatter ourselves witli 
 the impotent attempt to soothe Great Britain into compliance. 
 She must feel the pressure, and yield to the necessity. 
 
 But is there nothing in this interdict, which peculiarly calls 
 for retaliation ? It is marked by a total want of delicacy to- 
 wards our Minister, and of respect to the country ,• and is dis- 
 tinguished by peculiar circumstances of aggravation. Great 
 Britain knew, that, after the laws of 1825 were received here, 
 there remained no longer any difficulty between us, and that 
 those laws would form a basis of a treaty equally acceptable 
 to both countries. They might have seen that in the Presi- 
 dent’s message, which was clear and explicit ; they would have 
 seen that in the report of the Committee of Commerce, and in 
 the speech of the gentleman from Maryland. There was no dif- 
 ference of opinion here with regar d to the terms of the inter- 
 course. From the moment it was known that the Colonial 
 ports were to be opened, and that we w ere permitted to carry 
 their productions to any foreign place, and to pay only the 
 
31 
 
 same charges as British vessels, there was but one opinion 
 here: that we ought to give her the circuitous voyage, and 
 admit her* vessels on the same terms as our own. The only 
 difference was, as to the mode. The Government thought the ob- 
 ject could be better attained and established on a more durable 
 basis by treaty, than by mere acts of legislation. The mode 
 must have been indifferent to Great Britain. She knew that 
 Mr. King was unable to conduct the negotiation; that Mr. Gal- 
 latin had been appointed with the least delay ; that she had her- 
 self invited us. in March, 1826, to send an additional Minister; 
 that Mr. Gallatin would be fully instructed, and would arrive 
 in lune, before the date of the Order in Council. They had 
 seen the delay was accidental, and unavoidable. They had 
 not expressed any dissatisfaction with the state of the trade, 
 or any impatience at the delay. They made no communica- 
 tion to this Government, either with regard to the laws, or the 
 anticipated interdict ; and two days after the arrival of our 
 Minister, fully instructed to treat, upon terms perfectly libe- 
 ral and equal, this interdict is thrown in his face, without ex- 
 planation or apology. There is in this transaction an utter 
 want of respect to the country, and a deviation from custom- 
 ary usage and courtesy, and without example in the inter- 
 course of friendly nations. I cannot speak of the tone and 
 bearing of the subsequent communications, without indulging 
 feelings which would betray me into expressions which deli- 
 cacy forbids me to utter here. In looking back upon tins 
 transaction, I can see nothing *o account for this sudden and 
 unexpected change in her policy, or apologize for the abrupt- 
 ness with which she has closed the negotiation, and, conse- 
 quently, nothing to induce us to withhold the interdict. 
 
 It is said the motive of her conduct lies deeper— that she has 
 other and higher aims. Whatever may be her real or avowed 
 object, our principles demand of us to do to others as they do 
 to us. 
 
 Mr. Johxston said he had passed rapidly over the several 
 topics which have been drawn into this debate. These details 
 and this retrospect have been necessary ; they may be useful ; 
 but no talent can render them interesting. 
 
 A short recapitulation will present the subject in a narrow 
 point of view. 
 
 For seven years from the treaty of peace, Great Britain 
 practised upon a principle untenable and inadmissible, to 
 which our opposition was a necessary and proper measure of 
 self-defence. 
 
 In 1822, both opened their ports, upon terms deemed reci- 
 procal, although under restrictions and discriminations. They 
 were deemed reciprocal because it was not known here that 
 their duties and charges were equalized. And no proof w as offer- 
 
32 
 
 ed to that effect, until after the meeting of the succeeding Con- 
 gress, when the power of the President over this subject ceased, 
 in March, 1325, we passed our law opening a direct trade, 
 exactly corresponding with a similar limitation in their law, 
 and, therefore, perfectly equal and reciprocal. We continued 
 the discriminating duty on their vessels, in consequence of the 
 excessive duties on our productions. But, on the receipt of 
 our law, (in June,) they imposed a discriminating duty on our 
 vessels, equal to. and intended to countervail, ours. The trade 
 was then placed on an equal footing ; but it is dear that the 
 discriminating duty did not operate injuriously to G. Britain. 
 
 The American vessels, which carried four-fifths of all the 
 productions of the West Indies, paid the duty there, and, con- 
 sequently, the removal of the duty would have placed them in 
 a better situation, and would not have been more favorable to 
 the British navigation. 
 
 As to the vessels arriving in our ports from the Colonies, it 
 has been shown, that even our vessels cannot profitably engage 
 in it ; all the return voyages, owing to the condition of the Isl- 
 ands and their staples, are attended with certain loss, and one 
 half return with specie and in ballast. So that, in fact, the dis- 
 criminating duty had no effect. 
 
 In 1825, Great Britain removed her discriminating duty, 
 and gave a wider range to our commerce, by permitting us 
 to go from the Colonies to any foreign place, by which she en- 
 titled herself to the corresponding right in our ports and to 
 the removal of our discriminating duties; and a treaty would 
 doubtless have been formed on this principle, if Great Britain 
 had not herself interrupted the trade by her interdict, and 
 the negotiations by her peremptory decision ; which leaves 
 us no alternative, but submission or interdiction ; and I have 
 shown, that the latter is demanded by our interest, our princi- 
 ples, and our honor. 
 
 It is hoped that juster views, and more amicable sentiments 
 will lead to a speedy adjustment of the commercial rights and 
 interests of both Nations, on terms equally satisfactory and 
 beneficial. 
 
 There are causes now operating, and elements now com- 
 bining in the political world, which will produce new princi- 
 ples of action and organization, and lead to events of greatest 
 magnitude, and of deepest import to Europe and America ; in 
 which it may be peculiarly interesting to Great Britain and 
 this Country, to have no points of collision. 
 
 Mr. J. concluded that the interdict is in accordance with the 
 known principles and practice of this Government. It imports 
 nothing menacing or offensive certainly, to those who have ap- 
 plied it to us, and he therefore hoped the amendment would not 
 prevail. 
 
M ? « mliPib ! IPP? 
 
 ispp% 
 
 
 
 igMgftr w 
 
 i8W gHg ;;. : r-;;J 
 
 .• IhL** m r ?~ 
 
 - 
 
 -> v - i * ".-• ; * ‘ ’ . r .. J • - ,! " y •,. ' \ ■•-' »• ' /•