116 
Indiana University Studies 
alleged that a just reciprocity did not exist in the British 
colonial trade under the conditions of the colonial trade act; 
maintained that the effect of adopting the course urged by the 
memorial 'Vould be summarily to yield to Great Britain all 
she could ask, without any equivalent accommodation being 
granted on her part’' ; and urged a 
strong ground of preference for an arrangement being effected, if prac- 
ticable, by a convention between the two governments, on a just and 
liberal basis, which, when agreed to, would be permanent and unalter- 
able for the term of its duration, rather than to rely on detached, inde- 
pendent substantive acts of legislation, which however well intended, are 
sometimes ambiguous, and liable to misconstruction by those who are 
called to administer them; and at all times, subject to revocation by the 
parties enacting them.^”® 
The committee concluded by stating that they were “unani- 
mously” of opinion that it was not at that time expedient to 
legislate on the subject, since they had reason to believe that 
an adjustment of the commercial intercourse formed one of 
the special and prominent objects committed to the American 
minister and that a corresponding desire on the part of the 
British Government existed to settle the question in this way.^®^ 
This report was considered in the Senate on April 18, and 
encountered the opposition of Senators Smith of Maryland and 
Tazewell of Virginia.^^® Both favored legislation rather than 
negotiation as a means to settle the West India trade. The 
former maintained “that the United States had acted against 
its own interests, in not having declared the Colonial trade in 
British ships free of discriminating duties”. He believed that 
all were agreed that the discriminating duties ought to be re- 
pealed, that the only difference was as to the manner. The 
Committee on Commerce thought it better to do so by negotia- 
tion. Others preferred an act of Congress which should “meet 
at once, and without delay, the very liberal offers of Great 
Britain”. Nevertheless, upon information from the chairman 
of the committee that in the opinion of the Executive it “was 
better to leave the adjustment of the intercourse to a Con- 
vention, than at once to abolish the duties without condition”, 
the Committee on Commerce was discharged from further con- 
sideration of the memorial.^*^^ 
Register of Debates, II, Pt. 1, Appendix, 143, 144. 
^^Ubid., 144. 
Register of Debates, II, Pt. 1, pp. 577, 586. 
^^Ubid., 588, 589. 
