Benns: British West India Carrying-Trade 117 
Upon motion of Senator Tazewell, however, the memorial 
was again referred, this time to the Committee of Finance, 
the chairman of which was Senator Smith of Maryland.^^® 
This committee reported a bill on the next day providing that 
no other or higher duties of import and tonnage, and no other 
or higher duty or charge of any kind should be levied upon 
any goods, wares, or merchandise imported from free ports 
in British vessels than upon vessels of the United States and 
like goods; with the condition that if discriminating duties 
should be levied by Great Britain on American vessels, the 
President might issue a proclamation declaring the fact, 
whereupon this act would be suspended/^^ On May 13, after 
a few remarks by various members, this bill was laid upon the 
table, and no further action was taken to meet the situation 
before the adjournment of Congress nine days later.^^^ 
The question had likewise been brought before the House 
by a resolution introduced by Cambreleng of New York, in- 
structing the Committee on Commerce to enquire into the ex- 
pediency of amending the act of March 1, 1823, to authorize 
the President to remove the discriminating duties then imposed 
on British vessels and cargoes from British American posses- 
sions whenever he should be officially informed that American 
vessels and their cargoes were, in like manner, admitted into 
the British American colonial free ports.^^^ The resolution 
was adopted, but no report was ever made by the committee. 
As a result. Congress finally adjourned without any action hav- 
ing been taken in either house to bring the United States with- 
in the conditions laid down by the British colonial trade act. 
Senator Smith ascribed the failure to pass the Senate bill to 
lack of time, claiming that he knew 'That a majority of the 
Senate was in its favor” and that it would have passed "but for 
the want of time”.^^^ Altho the element of time may have had 
something to do with the failure to take any legislative action, 
probably, as Clay pointed out, 
it is more likely that the chief cause which prevented this passage was 
the belief generally entertained that the colonial subject was in a course 
of negotiation and would be satisfactorily arranged by treaty 
589. 
589, 590. 
^^Uhid., 709, 789. 
Ibid., 1119. : , ; ' 
“4 Niles’ Register, XXXII, 70. ' 
Am. State Papers, For. Rel., VI, 973. 
