Abstract
At the end of November Ten Cate moved to Washington in order to attend the session of Congress, and established himself permanently there 1). He found Mr. Adams in the position of Secretary of State. In the last days of December the accounts from the American plenipotentiaries arrived, and on New Year’s Day the Secretary of State had occasion to discuss the relations. with the Netherlands with the Dutch chargé 2). It appeared that Adams was really concerned about the settling of this affair. He-deemed it improbable that the suspended negotiations could be renewed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Dec. 3 1817, Ten Cate to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1818 No. 164).
At the „lever ordinaire du Président”, Jan. 3 1818, idem (Ibid. No. 541).
The last one of Sept. 27 1817 (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.).
Eustis’ despatch of January 31 1817 having gone astray.
As becomes evident from his long instructive letter to Everett, Aug. 10 1818 (D. o. S. Instructions), where Adams treats all questions which had arisen in relation to the Netherlands. It serves as a source of much that is to be explained here.
To Monroe, Febr. 21 1817 (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.); to Dallas, Secretary of the Treasury, April 2 1817 (L. o. C. Eustis Papers, vol. 3). In both letters he states that the Dutch measures had been taken in anticipation of reciprocation. Cf. p. 228.
See chapter XIX.
Febr. 13 1818, Monroe to Madison (The writings of James Monroe, ed. Hamilton, vol. VI p. 49), where he hints at “the danger of restraints on our commerce” in the Netherlands.
Febr. 2 1818, Ten Cate to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724), communicating that the President had confidentially informed him that an arrangement might soon be expected.
Febr. 16 1818, Ten Cate to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724).
From these words, apparently, Ten Cate derived the erroneous opinion (March 8 1818, R. A. B. Z. B XXI No. 49), that it was the President only who objected to an immediate application of the Act.
Febr. 13 1818, Ten Cate to Adams (D. o. S. Notes from Neth. Leg.; R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724).
“This thing shall be attended to during the present session”, Monroe promised Ten Cate, “it is our wish also to settle this matter, but the multiplicity of business has hitherto prevented the immediate attendance to it” (Febr. 27 1818, Ten Cate to Van Nagell, R.A. B. Z. 1818 LS. No. 1654).
As Adams asserted in a discussion with the chargé d’affaires, March 26th (April 4 1818, idem, Ibid. No. 2248).
As suggested, Febr. 13 1818, by Monroe to the Ex-President Madison (Writings of James Monroe, vol. VI p. 49).
The following observations of Ten Cate are contained in his note to Van Nagell, March 8 1818 (to be found in the Legation letterbook, R. A. B. Z. Invent. B XXI No. 9; not in the ordinary archives of the Foreign Department, although duly received there).
March 5 1818, Adams to Ten Cate (D. o. S. Notes to For. Leg.; the original in R. A. B. Z. B XXI, Legation archives).
To be found in his despatch of March 8th. He resumes therein all that had happened since he was connected with the functions of the legation.
American State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV p. 172.
In this paragraph he states the imperfection of the wording of the Act, in that it requires a total abolition of discriminations in return for the offer of only a partial abolition. See p. 165.
J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, IV p. 61: March 17 1818.
A merchant at Baltimore and a well-known Congressman, who represented the most liberal ideas in the American legislation.
Adams, Memoirs, IV p. 62, March 18 1818.
A. S. P. For. Rel. IV p. 172. To be found also, with Adams’ report, in British and Foreign State Papers, V p. 1019.
Adams, Memoirs, ibid.
Annals of the Congress of the United States. The debates and proceedings in the Congress etc. (Washington 1854). 15th Congress 1st session vol. I p. 274, 278. This is the only official publication existing.
For the following: Ten Cate’s long despatch of April 211818, to Van Nagell No. 20 (R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724).
James Barbour, 1775–1842, was Senator from Virginia from 1815 to 1825, chairman of the Committees of Military Affairs and of Foreign Relations (Dictionary of Am. biogr., in voce).
Annals p. 362.
The British treaty contained the same retroactive stipulation.
Annals p. 365, 369.
Besides, Mr. Lowndes, who was a protectionist (Cf. Dictionary of Am. biography, in voce William L.), had a general objection to equalizing the duties on tonnage, upon the consideration that „la nature et l’origine de la cargaison d’un navire affectait l’application du droit de tonnage”. Congressman Smith convinced him of his misunderstanding: tonnage duties concern navigation, not importations.
Annals II p. 1448; 1738, 1739; 1764.
Annals II p. 1769.
Annals I p. 384, 385, 389.
United States Statutes at Large,vol. Ill (Boston 1846), p. 464, Statute I April 20 1818,Chapter CX. Also in Brit, and For. State Papers V p. 1022. The last seven words of the first section should have been removed when the amendments were made; they remained by mistake from the bill as first reported (April 27 1818, Ten Cate to Van Nagell, R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724).
An extract of this circular is to be found in the archives of the American legation at The Hague (Miscellaneous 1806–1825).
The period respecting the refundment mentioned could not be made to begin with May 27 1815, as Ten Cate had expected (March 15 1817, to Van Nagell, R. A. B. Z. 1817 I. S. No. 2606), because of the discrimination of tonnage duties which still existed at that time in the port of Antwerp (May 9 1818, Ten Cate to Van Nagell, R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724). It appeared that with “tonnage duties” the American government had decided to imply all harbor duties, lighthouse-, pilotage-, and other duties, affecting the navigation; and that they expected the Dutch government to follow the same course (idem, Ibid.).
To the Secretary of State (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.).
After this one several other letters were written on the same subject, by Appleton (March 25 1818, Ibid.), and by Eustis (March 7 1818, Ibid.) from Bordeaux, where he was informed by Appleton of the current affairs (Febr. 5 1818, L. o. C. Eustis Papers vol. IV), and later on from The Hague (April 211818 D. o. S. Desp. Neth.), complaining that he was left in the dark about his government’s attitude, and that the Dutch measures had not yet been met. But they all came too late for influencing the accomplishment of what they aimed at.
New York, July 17 1818 (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.).
A letter of Eustis to the President contains a remarkable comment: “With this in our hands, we might, I think, have formed an advantageous commercial treaty the last year” (Boston, Aug. 20 1818, L. o. C. Monroe Papers vol. XVII).
Adams to Everett, Aug. 10 1818 (D. o. S. Instructions). But there is no reason to call it, as Adams does in another letter, “more than reciprocal on our part” (to Richard Rush, May 29 1818, Writings vol. VI, p. 339). The system of equalization of foreign trade with the national was still more extended in the Netherlands than in the United States.
Appleton had in vain represented to Van Nagell “that the delay accorded was too short” and that there could be no doubt about the willingness of the American government to adopt the necessary measures (Febr. 5 1818, Appleton to Eustis, L. o. C. Eustis Papers vol. 4).
March 7 1818, Eustis to Adams (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.).
March 25 1818, Appleton to Adams (Ibid.).
June 17 1818, Van Nagell to Ten Cate (R. A. B. Z. B XXI Arch. Leg. No. 5).
On this day, March 18 1818, a reorganization of the Cabinet had taken effect. Goldberg, with Wichers, was dismissed and appointed to the Council of State. His department was combined with that of „Instruction” (Onderwijs) to the “Departement van het publiek onderwijs, de nationale nijverheid en de koloniën”, under the direction of Falck, who was removed from his functions of general Secretary of State.
June 111818, Van Nagell to Falck (R. A. B. Z. U. S. 1818 No. 1449; Dossier 724).
R. A. Staatssecretarie, encl. with Royal Decree of June 19 1818 No. 201.
June 19 1818, Royal Decree No. 201 (R. A. B. Z. I.S. 1818 No. 2454; also in R. A. Staats s ecretarie).
See chapter XIX. Aug. de Vries, l.c. p. 28–30. Van Mechelen l.c. p. 82.
April 4 1818, Ten Cate to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1818 No. 2248). August 10 1818, Adams to Everett (D. o. S. Instructions).
It is most probable that this sudden recognition of the old treaty was a consequence of the negotiations and of the renewed spoliation claims policy of the American government (cf. p. 94 f.).
To Jonathan Russell, June 22 1818 (Adams, Writings vol. VI p. 351). 2) Aug. 10 1818, Adams to Everett (D. o. S. Instructions). 3) R. A. B. Z. Dossier 724.
Memorandum of Appleton, encl. with July 31 1818, Gallatin to Adams (D. o. S. Desp. France).
See also July 21 1818, Gallatin to Adams (Ibid.).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1935 Martinus Nyhoff, the Hague, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Westermann, J.C. (1935). The Act of Congress of April 20, 1818 and the Dutch Response. In: The Netherlands and the United States. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0397-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0999-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive