Mr. Bower to Isaac Van Zandt, January 31, 1844

Summary: Brower forwarded a letter to Van Zandt concerning meetings held between Texas agents in New York and the New York Chamber of Commerce. Since Congress had proposed a bill to allow free trade in Texas cotton, the agents had asked New York to immediately allow such trade even though the bill had not passed yet. The Chamber refused, citing various objections such as offending other foreign powers and the issue of warehousing. The agents tried to answer the objections but to no avail.

[Extract of a letter from Mr. Brower Consul of Texas at New York to Mr. Van Zandt, dated January 31st 1844.]

"As soon as I perceived that Mr. Slidell from the Come. of Commerce, in the House of Repr. had reported a bill to admit Texian cotton into the U.S. free from duty, I procured an extra meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in order to take up my report on the table, which closes with a resolve to memorialize the U.S. Senate in favour of adopting, [or] rather ratifying, the Commercial Treaty negociated between Mr. Reily and Mr. Webster.

The members of the Chamber of Commerce hold diverse views in reference to "free trade" and "restrictive policy" which from my first movement in this matter, gave me fears of opposition. I was opposed on three grounds. First, it was objected that any consideration was due to cotton from Texas in preference to other foreign cottons which might be imported into the United States. Second, the Chamber is operating by memorial to Congress for the establishment of a "warehousing system" whereby to favour importations

into this country as a transitu[sic] market, and it was objected that this might militate against that project. Finally, it was doubted whether your treaty could be ratified by the U.S. Senate in good faith with treaty stipulations between the U.S. and other countries. To the first objection, I answered, that I esteemed this a project complete in itself, that the nature of our trade with Texas made it necessary, to the preservation of that trade, that the reciprocal principles of the Treaty should be adopted. That the U.S. would receive benefits, from those principles, large and fully commensurate to any they could concede to Texas. It was for the interest of the U.S. both her commerce and manufactures that the Treaty should be ratified, and this could not be mistaken or fairly opposed, as shown by the details of the report under consideration. I had no objection, if gentlemen wished to throw open our ports to cotton of other countries, to go with them on all proper occasions and to every extent of fair reciprocity in trade, as it never had been my belief that the "restrictive" was the best commercial policy of the U.S. But I did object to tacking to this movement any other project, not digested and which, at any time might be of doubtful propriety. To the second objection, I answered, if it could be shown in what point the warehouse bill was to be, or could be, prejudiced by this recommendation, I might find excuse for not urging my position. As appeared to me, we had to look to men of liberal views, in Congress, for the carrying of both objects--these objects had strong analogies, and those who favored the one would advocate the other, while therefore, this might aid the ware house bill, it could not in any respect impair its chances. I opposed the final objection, by saying, gentlemen cannot for a moment suppose Mr. Webster and Mr. Reily to have overlooked the first principle on which a contract is based, viz, the right of the parties to enter into it without violating faith with existing obligations between themselves and other parties; this was assuming too much. For myself, I did not doubt the U.S. had the right to grant particular privileges to a nation, which, as a consideration, gave particular and ample advantages in return. But suppose the objection well taken, our memorial could work no evil. If the U.S. Senate have their hands tied by preexisting treaties, they cannot ratify this. We do not ask them to violate faith, but to act only so far as they can conformibly to it.

I confess to you, I saw no point or force in any of the objections raised, but rather a narrow and illiberal principle operating to the prejudice of strict propriety. But the result was I lost my object by the casting vote of the President of the Chamber".

True copy of extract

CHAS. H. RAYMOND

Secty of Legation

Source Copy Consulted: Mr. Bower to Isaac Van Zandt, January 31, 1844, in George Garrison, ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1908, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1911), 3 vols., 2: 256-257