Benns: British West India Carrying-Trade 175 
my beloved brother Jack, one thousand dollars’, and, when 
it was wondered where the money was to come, coolly 
answered, ht is my will he should have it, and if he wants it, 
he may go and get it’ Administration papers for the most 
part kept silent as the better part of valor, tho the New York 
Evening Post still obstinately maintained that there must be 
something back of the message/^ The Philadelphia Enquirer, 
another Jackson paper, on the other hand, was of the opinion 
that McLane had gone quite far enough in “supplicating” the 
British Government to open the colonial trade, and that the 
honor of the country required that he should forbear further 
importunities on the subject. It confessed its unwillingness 
to see America “humbly laying her dignity at the foot of the 
British King”."® 
Nevertheless, in spite of the wishes of such papers as the 
Philadelphia Enquirer, notification of the passage of the new 
law was forwarded to McLane with the hope that the law 
itself, “with the motives in which it originated”, “added to 
the frank and liberal offer and explanations already made to 
the British Government on the part of the Executive Depart- 
ment” of the United States, would be regarded by Great Brit- 
ain as affording sufficient ground for changing her position 
and for the adoption of a course of policy which might lead to 
the speedy and mutually advantageous revival of trade be- 
tween the United States and the British West Indies. The law 
should be regarded. Van Buren wrote, as a direct conciliating 
step on the part of the United States, as emanating from its 
executive and legislative authorities combined, and as a solemn 
public movement on its part toward a friendly accommoda- 
tion with the British Government upon terms of a fair and 
just reciprocity.^® Altho he thus, so to speak, held out his con- 
ciliatory offering in one hand, nevertheless, in the other hand, 
as an instrument of the last resort, he held a club. In case the 
negotiation should eventuate unfavorably, he wrote, the Presi- 
dent would consider it his duty to recommend to Congress 
an extension of the interdict then existing against British 
colonies to include likewise the possessions of Great Britain 
Portsmouth Journal, June 19, 1830. 
^^New York Evening Post, June 2, 1830. 
Philadelphia Enquirer in Daily National Journal, June 8, 1830. 
Senate Docs., 21 Cong., 2 Sess., I, No. 20, p. 39. 
