172 
Indiana University Studies 
did not object.^^ All that the United States required was that 
it might be permitted to contribute supplies by a direct trade 
and that its ships might be the carriers of such of its own 
productions as were indispensable or highly necessary to the 
planters.^® 
In presenting this note, which was dated March 16, 1830, 
McLane stated his desire to have an answer from the British 
Government in time for the packet of March 24th.®^ In this he 
was disappointed. Nevertheless he did dispatch a short note 
to Van Buren in which he stated that he had come to the con- 
clusion that the British Government could have no motive 
longer to delay its answer except that of ultimately assenting 
to an arrangement between the two countries. On the other 
hand, in case Great Britain did reject the American proposi- 
tion, he believed the United States ought not to lose for a year 
the opportunity to legislate upon the subject. He hoped to 
have a reply from the British Government in time to forward 
it by the packet of April 1st, but suggested that it might not 
be inexpedient, in case this packet was delayed, to provide for 
a decision during the recess of Congress. Prospective legisla- 
tion might be passed authorizing the President, in case an 
arrangement was made with Great Britain, to comply with the 
terms for the United States by his proclamation, or, in the 
event of an unfavorable decision, to execute the views of Con- 
gress by similar means. Two weeks later, none of his efforts 
having ^'proved sufficient to bring the answer’', McLane dis- 
patched a second note to Van Buren stating that he might be 
able to send the British reply by the packet of April 16.^^ At 
the same time he announced his belief that the negotiation 
must end in one of three modes : in a positive refusal to 
change the regulations then in force; or a revocation of the 
order in council of 1826 upon the terms of the proposition 
earlier submitted by him; or in a revocation of that order 
with some increase of duties imposed by the act of Parliament 
of 1825, in favor of the productions of the British North 
American possessions. The last mode appeared to him the 
most probable. He therefore again suggested that legislation 
35 Senate Docs., 21 Cong., 2 Sess., I, No. 20, p. 30. 
36 Ihid. 
^Ubid., 22 Cong., 1 Sess., Ill, No. 118, p. 4. 
Senate Docs., 22 Cong., 1 Sess., Ill, No. 118, p. 4. 
Ibid., 21 Cong., 2 Sess,, I, No, 20, p. 38. 
