96 
Indiana University Studies 
mitted to New York upon the same terms and duties as the like articles, 
the growth and production of Louisiana, or any other of the 24 separate 
states which now constitute the federal union.^^ 
It was just as unreasonable as it would be today for Great 
Britain to demand that sugar from the British West Indies 
should be admitted into the United States on the same terms 
and subject to the same duties only as sugar from Hawaii 
or the Philippines. 
Whether Congress realized the significance of this word 
at the time the act was passed appears to be a matter of dis- 
pute. According to Adams the “full import of the term else- 
where . . . was deliberately examined and settled as well 
in the Senate as upon a consultation by the President with 
the members of the administration” ; and “the committee of 
both houses had been very explicitly informed of the full im- 
port of the term”. 25 Senator Benton, however, stated later 
that no one saw the drift of this “apparently harmless word” 
but “those in the secret”.^® Senator Samuel Smith of Mary- 
land took the same stand. He stated that 
Congress met, and a bill was drafted in 1823 by Mr. Adams then Sec- 
retary of State and passed both houses, with little if any debate. I 
voted for it, believing that it met in a spirit of reciprocity the British 
act of Parliament. This bill, however, contained one little word, “else- 
where” which completely defeated all our expectations. It was noticed 
by no one. The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster) may have 
understood its effect. If he did so understand it, he was silent.^^ 
While this bill was being discussed by the Senate Commit- 
tee on Foreign Relations, a copy had been communicated to 
Canning who made some written remarks upon it. To begin 
with, he pointed out that the “general tone and character” 
of the bill were “strikingly restrictive”. He questioned the 
limiting of British vessels to a direct trade between the colo- 
nies and the United States, but his chief question was in re- 
gard to the meaning of this word “elsewhere”. He was 
evidently suspicious, for he stated that the word appeared 
“susceptible of a construction which, if intended, would surely 
put the question of discriminating duties on a footing no less 
unexpected than irreconcilable with the fair and natural view 
of the subject”. His fear was that it might be interpreted to 
-‘^Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates (2d series), XII, 1106. 
Am. State Papers, For. Rel., VI, 228. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, VII, 21 6. 
26 Benton, Thirty Years’ View, I, 125. 
Quoted in Ibid., I, 125, 126. 
