duty of fulfilling its engagements, because it has been disappointed in the degree of benefit which it expected to derive from them; the Table which you exhibit, of the relative amount of tonnage employed in the trade between The United States and The Netherlands, admits of several observations. Assuming the facts which it presents to be correct, it shews a gradual increase of the Dutch, and a diminution of the American tonnage, during the two years and a half which it comprises. The Marine of The Netherlands was almost destroyed during the long wars which originated out of the French Revolution. The 10 years which had intervened since their conclusion, were not sufficient to restore it to its ancient flourishing condition. The first object of the Government, and of the enterprise of the Dutch Merchants, was probably to revive the intercourse with their distant Colonies, and in that their Marine was principally employed. Time is necessary to establish the habits, and to create the Mercantile Marine, necessary to a Foreign trade; and, accordingly, the Table shews that time is working, slowly, but certainly, its usual effects.

It cannot be admitted that the state of our Tariff operates more to the disadvantage of the tonnage of The Netherlands, than to that of The United States. If it prevents some exchanges which might take place on a lower scale of duties, that affects alike the tonnage of both Countries. Whatever may be the amount of transportation between them, if the Vessels and their cargoes, of both, are liable only to the same duties the equality of the competition between them, so far as it depends upon legislation, will be preserved; and those of each will have a fair opportunity of sharing in the transportation, whether it be chiefly from the Ports of the one Country, or of the other. As to the application of the American Tariff to the produce of The Netherlands, it must be remarked, that it is received upon the footing of that of the most favoured Nation. It unfortunately happens that the articles of geneva, sail cloth, and cheese, which you particularize, are similar to those which our own Country produces; and our Tariff was not arranged with any reference to its particular operation on Dutch produce, but with the general purpose of protecting American industry. The articles, on the contrary, of cotton, sugar, and tobacco, not being products of The Netherlands, may be admitted at a low rate of duty, not only without injury, but, as it respects the first, especially, with great encouragement to the industry of The Netherlands.

The understanding which existed between the two Governments, in relation to the abolition of discriminating duties, did not embrace the subjects of pilotage, and the jurisdiction which ought to be exercised by the Consuls of the two Countries over Seamen deserting from their respective Flags. Pilotage is regulated, under the authority of an Act of Congress, by the Laws of the several States. It is not known that those Laws generally make any discrimination between a Foreign and

the Native Flag; and if such difference were made in the case of the Brig Mary, we have no other information of it but that which is contained in your Note. If no higher duties are paid by American Vessels than those of The Netherlands, in the waters of the latter, the Government of The United States would readily apply the principle of equality, adopted in reference to discriminating duties, to the demand for pilotage. As to the control of the Consuls of The Netherlands over deserting Seamen, the Government of The United States would be willing to enter into any agreement, founded on mutual convenience and reciprocity.

With respect to the desire of the Government of The Netherlands, which you are authorized to express, to treat with The United States for a mutual reduction of duties of impost, I have the honour to state, that the policy which this Government has hitherto adopted, has been to reserve to itself, exclusively, the judgment of the proper rate of those duties. In fixing it, equality has been alike dispensed to all Nations. The circumstances of no two given Countries are of such exact resemblance as to admit of the same rate of duty for both. The United States are not, therefore, prepared to change their established policy. There is a manifest distinction, however, between the standard of duties which is applied to the articles of a commerce between two Countries, and the principle of equality in the transportation of those articles by the Vessels of the same Countries. Leaving each free to impose such duties as the state of its Revenue, of its Institutions, and of its Domestick Industry, may seem to require, there is nothing to prevent the operation of a rule of fair competition between the Vessels of the two Countries, by each being allowed to export, or import, at the same rates of duty for Vessel and cargo. The Laws of The United States and of The Netherlands professed to establish such a rule. The Dutch Tariff of 1822 violates it; and I am, therefore, directed anew to express the expectation of the President, that the equality will be restored, and the hope that your Instructions will spare him the necessity of performing the duty which is enjoined by the Act of Congress of January, 1824.

I avail myself of this occasion, &c. The Chevalier Huygens.

H. CLAY.

(8.)-The Chevalier Huygens to the Secretary of State.—(Translation.) SIR, Washington, 11th November, 1826.

I HAVE had the honour to receive, on the 1st of this month, the Note which you addressed to me, under date of the 25th ult. in answer to the explanation which I was charged to make to you, on the 15th of September last, in respect to the system which directs my Government in the claim of the Government of The United States, in favour of their Flag, touching the restitution or premium

which the 10th Article of the Tariff of 1822, of The Netherlands, grants to National Vessels, on the duties of importation and exportation of merchandize.

The President not being satisfied with the explanations given, and not admitting the reasons alleged for considering this Article as not applicable to the duties of tonnage equalized between the two Countries, I think, for the interest of the reciprocal relations, that I ought to add to the above cited explanation the following obser

vations:

From the commencement of the relations between the United Provinces of The Netherlands, and The United States of America, founded and stipulated by the Treaty of 1782, and faithfully maintained until the War of Europe, and, in fine, the invasion of the United Provinces of The Netherlands by a Foreign Power, suspended these happy relations, the American Flag was there treated on an equality with the National Flag, which enjoyed a perfect reciprocity in The United States. At that time, however, the Tariff of the United Provinces of The Netherlands granted advantages to certain branches of the National Navigation. For example, the National Vessels, destined to the whale fishery, at that time very numerous, paid 8 to 12 per cent. less than Foreign Vessels on their cargo. The Vessels of the India Companies were equally, but otherwise, favoured. This cir. cumstance proves that, at all times, and when a formal Treaty between the two Countries, based upon a system of liberality and reciprocity, was in force, such advantages were admitted without appearing to derogate from that system. The present Government of The Netherlands, in making the Tariff of 1822, only acted on the same principle, without thinking that it was restrained in the formation of the Law, by that which admits the equality of the duties of tonnage, in favour of the American Flag.

The United States find themselves, in this regard, in the same predicament with all the Powers which have equalized the duties of tonnage with The Netherlands, by the consideration that the Tariff in question does not derogate from their rights, and there would, therefore, occur a particular concession to The United States, in applying the 10th Article of the Tariff of 1822, to the merchandise loaded on American bottoms. In this acceptation, the Government of The United States do not pretend to it; yet that of The Netherlands cannot grant it but by considering it thus, and against some conventional equivalent.

The desire of His Majesty the King of The Netherlands, to favour and extend the Navigation and Commerce between His Kingdom and The United States, is well known, and of the sincerity of his dispositions the President cannot be in doubt. His Majesty has given unequivocal proofs of it, from his coming to the Throne. To the time

when Belgium was united to the Kingdom of The Netherlands, His Majesty, without knowing the reciprocal dispositions of the Government of The United States, admitted, without hesitation, the bases of the Treaty of 1782, and caused them to be applied to the Navigation and Commerce of The United States. The Americans were immediately placed in the position of the most favoured Nation. This was in the confidence, and hope, of finding their intentions reciprocal; but still encountering, in the system of Legislation of The United States, difficulties in this respect, His Majesty only obtained, at first, from their Government, promises, and, especially on the subject of the existence or renewal of the Treaty of 1782, evasive answers. Nevertheless, His Majesty did not relax in his system of concessions, and the constant instructions to his Legation, prove the value which he set upon the re-establishment of the ancient relations between the two Countries. I can cite, on this subject, the Notes sent by his Chargé d'Affaires, on the 4th April and 16th of September, 1816. But the hesitation of the Government of The United States, on its side, to adopt a system of liberality and reciprocity towards the Navigation and Commerce of The Netherlands, continued. In the month of August, 1817, when the Conferences commenced for the making of the Treaty of Commerce, no change was effected, and the Flag of The Netherlands was always treated, in The United States, as a Foreign Flag. The American Plenipotentiaries, however, were convinced that the navigation and commerce of their Country were in the full enjoyment, not only of all the rights which the 2d Article of the Treaty of 1782 granted them, but, over and above, of new advantages. Among these advantages may be ranked, as one of high importance, the navigation to the King's Possessions in the Great Indies, against which a direct equivalent could not be given by The United States, they not having Colonies.

His Majesty might have expected to learn, by the agency of Plenipotentiaries, that their Government had, or would, apply the Act of Congress, of 3d March, 1815, to the Flag of The Netherlands; but instead of this weak act of reciprocity, the Plenipotentiaries commenced by demands to which His Majesty was not authorized to subscribe. In fine, it was only on the 20th of April, 1818, that Congress especially abrogated the "discriminating duties, imposed upon the Flag of The Netherlands, in regard to the duties of tonnage, as well as in relation to the produce or manufactures of the Territories of the King in Europe, or such produce and manufactures as can, or ought to be considered as habitually loaded, originally, in the Ports of the Kingdom."

The Government of The Netherlands considered that Law as an Act of reciprocity, as to the duties of tonnage, and as a partial and limited concession in regard to the duties of importation on merchan

dize loaded under its Flag. It was satisfied to see in the Act of Congress, that disposition to favour the Navigation and Commerce between the two Countries, even beyond what the President thought he was able, or ought, to propose. The news of it was received in The Netherlands with that feeling which so voluntarily appears in a Nation, which had the recollection of ancient relations advantageous to the Two Countries, and which saw in the Act of Congress a disposition favourable to their entire renewal. It was agreeable to recognize in it the commencement of the application of the basis of the Treaty of 1782, and it was hoped that The United States would continue to remove the restrictions which were contrary to them. This Treaty did not limit the merchandize which might be imported into America, to equal duties, by the Ships of The United Provinces of The Netherlands, nor restrain them to a direct Navigation. And if the Treaty were no more in force, it was expected, from the principle of reciprocity proclaimed by different Acts of The United States, since it had been formally communicated, that no limitation restricted the American Flag in The Netherlands. But this expectation was deceptive. After having, for a long time, given to the American Flag the enjoyment of the advantages which they had in the Ports of The Netherlands, and, above all, to the Great Indies, from which it was formerly excluded, and where there was no obligation to admit it, the Flag of The Netherlands continued, during 4 years, to navigate, with a disadvantage too evident to admit of an illusion, upon the unequal position of the privileges of the two Flags. That of America being able to import and export all merchandize whatever, in The Netherlands, from all parts of the World, and to all its Ports, and that of The Netherlands being limited in the cargo, and to a direct Navigation to the American Ports, conjoined with other inconveniences existing for it in these Ports, could no more enter into competition with the former, in the commercial movement between the Two Countries.

If, then, in 1822, the Government of The Netherlands adopted a general measure in its Tariff, by a restitution, at the expense of the Treasury, and which was not imposed upon Commerce, to countervail the inequality of the position between the National and Foreign Navigation, in its own Ports as in Foreign Ports, this was only a consequence of that inequality.

After the enumeration of the disadvantages to the Flag of The Netherlands, which, antecedently, I have taken the liberty to submit to your consideration, and to discuss in the Conference which you granted me, it appears to me conciliatory, on the part of my Government, to have taken the measure in question, instead of recriminating means, which it might have adopted, to remedy the false position of the National Flag. If it has preferred the measure, the expenses of which it alone bears, it is not for Foreign Powers which have been the