132 
Indiana University Studies 
Gallatin’s reply contained ''too much of concession and not 
quite enough of retort” to satisfy the Administration at Wash- 
ington. What the President desired was "a thorough refuta- 
tion of the false pretences and a keen retort upon the sarcastic 
insolence of Canning’s note”.^^ He was even opposed to mak- 
ing any concession of a right in Great Britain to ordain the 
interdiction and to refuse negotiation concerning it. The 
right of interdicting commerce was questionable, he believed, 
when applied exclusively to one nation, and that of refusing 
negotiation was scarcely maintainable after a formal and 
positive promise to negotiate.^® A long note more in accord 
with the views of Adams was drawn up by Clay and des- 
patched to aid Gallatin in meeting the situation created by the 
British refusal to negotiate.^® 
In the meantime the British minister at Washington had 
informed the American Government that in view of its 
failure to meet the conditions of the act of Parliament of 
1825, the only course which remained for the British Govern- 
ment was "to let the provisions of the act of 1825 take their 
course”.®^ The American Government, consequently, considered 
the question "whether a proclamation of retaliatory interdict 
of British shipping from the colonies should not be issued 
under the Act of Congress of 1st March 1823”. The Cabinet 
decided, however, that since the British interdict did not com- 
mence until December 1, and since the American interdict 
could not with propriety be taken until it was known that that, 
of Great Britain had taken effect, it would be best to refer the 
whole question to Congress. 
This President Adams did in his annual message of Decem- 
ber, 1826, a considerable portion of which he devoted to a dis- 
cussion of the British colonial trade question. Consciously 
or unconsciously this discussion was so worded and phrased 
as to be easily susceptible of misinterpretation by those not 
fully aware of the real situation. For instance, speaking 
of the negotiation of 1824, he said: 
And a negotiation was commenced by mutual consent with the hope, on 
our part, that a reciprocal spirit of accommodation and a common senti- 
ment of the importance of the trade to the interests of the two coun- 
^ Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, VII, 178. 
^Ubid., VII, 174. 
Am. State Papers, For. Eel., VI, 256-266. 
VI, 257. 
Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, VII, 174, 
