In 1835, President Andrew Jackson reported to Congress the unexpected rejection of a treaty by Belgium. Belgium once part of Holland and the United Kingdom of Netherlands had enjoyed free and reciprocal trade with the United States as did Holland. That all changed in 1830, when Belgium declared its independence from the United Kingdom of Netherland following violent riots and looting that led to the Southern provinces. In the aftermath, a National Congress was assembled, and King William appealed to the major European powers who recognized the independence of Belgium. Two years later, the United Sates recognized the independence of Belgium. In 1832, the Belgium whose people had a history of friendship with the United States going back to the American Revolutionary war, approached President Jackson with a request to have trade status equal to that of the remaining provinces of the United Kingdom. The Jackson administration offered what they believed to be a generous treaty, but it was rejected by the government of Belgium.
A decade earlier, when Belgium was part of the United Kingdom of Netherlands, Congress had suspended the discriminating duties and tonnage on vessels for the Kingdom of Netherland, Prussia, Norway, Russia, Sardinia and the Imperial Hanaseatic Cities. Now that Belgium was independent, they no longer enjoyed those privileges. At Belgium's request in 1832, the US Senate sanctioned a treaty between the US and Belgium to rectify the situation, but according to President Andrew Jackson the reception of the treaty in Brussels was delayed due to the absence of the Belgian minster. Jackson shared this information with Congress in his 1833 State of Union Address.
"A treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and Belgium was concluded during the last winter and received the sanction of the Senate, but the exchange of the ratifications has been hitherto delayed, in consequence, in the first instance, of some delay in the reception of the treaty at Brussels, and, subsequently, of the absence of the Belgian minister of foreign affairs at the important conferences in which his Government is engaged at London. That treaty does but embody those enlarged principles of friendly policy which it is sincerely hoped will always regulate the conduct of the two nations having such strong motives to maintain amicable relations toward each other and so sincerely desirous to cherish them."
One year later, Jackson reported to Congress that the Government of Belgium had disavowed the treaty as "inconsistent with the powers and instructions given to their minister". Jackson opined that the disavowal was completely unexpected since the treaty was very generous and contained nothing that could be viewed as objectionable. In addition, the Belgian minister seemed to be quite confident in the instructions he was given. Nonetheless, Belgium was now countering with a more conservative treaty.
"The treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and Belgium, brought to your notice in my last annual message as sanctioned by the Senate, but the ratifications of which had not been exchanged owing to a delay in its reception at Brussels and a subsequent absence of the Belgian minister of foreign affairs, has been, after mature deliberation, finally disavowed by that Government as inconsistent with the powers and instructions given to their minister who negotiated it. This disavowal was entirely unexpected, as the liberal principles embodied in the convention, and which form the ground-work of the objections to it, were perfectly satisfactory to the Belgian representative, and were supposed to be not only within the powers granted, but expressly conformable to the instructions given to him. An offer, not yet accepted, has been made by Belgium to renew negotiations for a treaty less liberal in its provisions on questions of general maritime law".
Finally, in 1835 Andrew Jackson explained in further detail why he believed that Belgium deserved to be treated in the same way they were when they were one with Holland. Jackson urged Congress to review the act that established commercial intercourse with Holland. Jackson was convinced this was the right thing to do, but it required Congress to act.
"I ask your attention to the message of my predecessor at the opening of the second session of the Nineteenth Congress, relative to our commercial intercourse with Holland, and to the documents connected with that subject, communicated to the House of Representatives on the 10th of January, 1825, and 18th of January, 1827. Coinciding in the opinion of my predecessor that Holland is not, under the regulations of her present system, entitled to have her vessels and their cargoes received into the United States on the footing of American vessels and cargoes as regards duties of tonnage and impost, a respect for his reference of it to the Legislature has alone prevented me from acting on the subject. I should still have waited without comment for the action of Congress, but recently a claim has been made by Belgian subjects to admission into our ports for their ships and cargoes on the same footing as American, with the allegation we could not dispute that our vessels received in their ports the identical treatment shewn to them in the ports of Holland, upon whose vessels no discrimination is made in the ports of the United States. Giving the same privileges the Belgians expected the same benefits---benefits that were, in fact, enjoyed when Belgium and Holland were united under one Government. Satisfied with the justice of their pretension to be placed on the same footing with Holland, I could not, nevertheless, without disregard to the principle of our laws, admit their claim to be treated as Americans, and at the same time a respect for Congress, to whom the subject had long since been referred, has prevented me from producing a just equality by taking from the vessels of Holland privileges conditionally granted by acts of Congress, although the condition upon which the grant was made has, in my judgment, failed since 1822. I recommend, therefore, a review of the act of 1824, and such a modification of it as will produce an equality on such terms as Congress shall think best comports with our settled policy and the obligations of justice to two friendly powers."
References
Presidency.ucsb.edu. 2020. Fifth Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: <https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fifth-annual-message-2> [Accessed 14 August 2020].
Presidency.ucsb.edu. 2020. Sixth Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: <https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/sixth-annual-message-2> [Accessed 14 August 2020].
Presidency.ucsb.edu. 2020. Sixth Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: <https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/seventh-annual-message-2> [Accessed 14 August 2020].
Loc.gov. 1846. The Public Statutes At Large Of The United States Of America TFROM THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN 1789, TO MARCH 3, 1845.. [online] Available at: <https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/18th-congress/c18.pdf> [Accessed 14 August 2020].
No comments:
Post a Comment