« PreviousContinue »
French Treaty.-Payment of Indemnity Refused.-Neglect of French Government to procure Appropriations.-Relations with G. Britain.-Arrangement as to West India Trade.-Disadvantageous to American Navigation.-Treaties with Russia and Belgium.-Relations with South America.
In the Register for the years 1830-31, an account was given of the negotiation between the American and French governments, in relation to the claims upon the latter for spoliations, and of the conclusion of a treaty adjusting the amount to be paid by France, as a full indemnity for those claims. Although the sum stipulated to be paid (25,000,000 francs) did not amount to one half of the original spoliations, and no allowance was made for the interest accruing before the treaty, still it was deemed expedient to accede to the compromise; and both the government and the people of the United States congratulated themselves upon the final settlement of the only difficulty between them and their earliest ally.
This pleasing anticipation was not destined to be speedily reali
By the second article of the treaty, the government of France agreed to pay the 25,000,000 of
francs, with 4 per cent. interest, in six annual instalments; the first to be paid at the expiration of one year from the exchange of the ratified treaties. These instalments were to be paid at Paris, to such person as should be authorized by the government of the United States to receive them.
The treaty was duly ratified by both governments, and on the 2d of February, 1832, the ratified treaties were exchanged at Washington.
Immediately after the treaties were ratified, congress passed the laws neeessary for complying with the stipulations on the part of the United States; and the secretary of the treasury, on the 7th of July, 1833, drew a bill of exchange upon the minister of state and finance of the French government, directing the first instalment to be paid to the order of the cashier of the U. S. bank; and a full power of attorney was given by the president of the United States, authorizing
the assignee of the bill to receive the same, and to give a proper receipt to the government of France.
This prompt compliance with the treaty on the part of the United States, was not properly responded to by the French go
Notwithstanding the treaties were ratified, and duly exchanged in the month of February, 1832, no steps were taken by the king or his ministers to carry it into effect.
By the constitution of France, the chambers have the control of the public treasury, and although the king was competent to form a treaty of indemnity, and indeed the only branch of the government with which foreign nations could negotiate, still it was necessary for him to obtain a grant from the chambers to enable him to execute it.
This, however, was a difficulty for the French government and the French nation to adjust for themselves. The United States had no concern with the form and manner, in which the treaty was to be carried into effect. They looked to the performance of the treaty as a poor, but still a full indemnity for claims which were irrefragable, and for which it was universally admitted, that satisfaction should be made. It was, therefore, with some surprise, that the government at Washington saw, that the king of France had not asked from the legislature the appropriations required for the performance of the treaty, at the commencement
of its session, on the 19th of November, 1832.
Still, having scrupulously performed all the stipulations on the part of the United States, there was no reason to forbear demanding a reciprocal performance by France.
A bill of exchange was, therefore, drawn for the amount of the first instalment, pursuant to the provisions of the treaty, and payment was demanded at Paris by the holder of the bill, with full powers to receive the amount in behalf of the United States.
This bill was not accepted, and now for the first time, suspicions were awakened against the integrity of the French government.
The chambers had been in session from the 19th of November, to the time when the payment of the first instalment was refused, and no steps were taken by the ministers, to procure the necessary appropriations.
Even the documents, which the French government had agreed to communicate to the American government, were witheld, under the pretence, that the originals could not be withdrawn from the courts, and when the American minister consented to accept copies, it was contended that the expense of making the copies should be borne by the United States.
After the presentation of the bill of exchange, it was deemed expedient to take some steps for the purpose of executing the treaty, or at least, to preserve the appearance of doing so.
Accordingly, on the 6th of April, 1833, a bill containing provisions for that purpose, was presented to the chambers, and M. Sherman, the minister of finance, explained the grounds upon which the treaty was formed.
The passage of the bill was not urged at that session, which closed on the 25th of April, nor at the succeeding session, which commenced the next day, and continued to the 26th of June.
The subject was, indeed, mentioned in the chambers on the 11th of June, and the bill received, and laid on the table; but nothing was done, notwithstanding General Lafayette urged the chambers to come to a decision, and warned the government of the danger of leaving a question so important to the character and welfare of France, in that dubious posture. Frivolous excuses were offered for not then taking up the bill, and another session, terminated without any steps being taken to vindicate the honour and integrity of the French government.
This neglect, which there was too much reason to suppose was intentional, was warmly resented by the American executive.
Instructions were given to the American minister, to urge upon the French government a prompt compliance with the treaty, and to inform it, that the United States would demand indemnity for the refusal to accept the bill for the first instalment.
A want of judgment was indeed shown, in selling the bill of exchange to the United States
bank, when there had been no appropriation made by the chambers to pay the indemnity; and a culpable eagerness to reward political favourites, at the expense of the public interests, was equally indicated, by sending Mr. Harris to act as chargé at this critical juncture; but the tone of earnest and indignant remonstrance, which was assumed upon this refusal of France to execute a treaty providing only a partial indemnity for our claims, was justified by the conduct of that country, and well calculated to force upon her conviction, the necessity, as well as propriety of paying some regard to national faith.
The chambers did not again meet during the period belonging to this volume, and the future disposition of this question must be reserved for a subsequent volume.
The management of the relations between the United States and Great Britain, did not bear equally strong testimony in favour of the sagacity and wisdom of those intrusted with the administration of the American government.
The subjects of dispute between the two countries were, the colonial trade, the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and. the northeastern boundary.
By an arrangement, in which congress was persuaded to confide the opening of our ports to the discretion of the president, the intercourse was again restored, and the country was called upon to extol the diplomatic skill
which had restored a trade, lost (as was alleged) through the neglect of his predecessor. It was, however, speedily discovered, that the intercourse was not precisely on the same footing as before. Instead of being carried on, chiefly in American vessels, it was found that British vessels engrossed the most profitable portion of the business, and as it was well known that the navigation of the United States could always maintain itself, in any trade where fair competition prevailed, a more critical examination took place into the terms of this compromise.
The government of the United States had so long and so steadily adhered, in all its commercial arrangements, to the principles of reciprocity, that an open abandonment of that principle, would not have been tolerated by the country.
The harsh and oppressive policy of England formed one of the chief grievances which led to the revolution; and those patriotic men, who, after having led their countrymen through the war, established a system of policy for their government, looked to a full and fair participation in the West India trade, as one of the legitimate results of independence.
They indeed knew that the mother country had the power to prohibit all intercourse with any, and all parts of the British empire; but they also knew that the West India islands were essentially dependent upon the United States for supplies, and
that they could, by countervailing regulations, compel England to supply her islands at a great sacrifice, in an indirect manner; or to place the direct intercourse upon terms where the American and British shipping could fairly compete for the carrying trade.
This was a point not to be yielded. It was essential to the entire enjoyment of our independence, that the commerce between this country, and all colonies, should be placed upon this footing. The European view of this question was upon different principles, and was justified upon different maxims.
To neither party was commercial intercourse necessary, and as all the great maritime powers had colonies, acquiescence was readily obtained in the colonial system of modern Europe.
The intercourse was confined to a trade between the mother country and her colonies, and the former did not seek, nor expect to carry on a trade between those colonies and the rest of the world. If that had been attempted, the jealous spirit of European commerce would soon have claimed a right to be consulted in arranging the terms of that intercourse.
By the severance of the United States from the British empire, a new state of things was presented.
Trade with the United States was necessary to the very existence of the West India colonies; and self respect, and national dignity forbade the United States
to permit this trade to be carried on exclusively in British vessels.
There was no reason, which could justify the exclusion of American navigation from that trade, that was not equally applicable to the direct trade with England.
All the negotiations of the American government were directed to the arranging the intercourse upon terms of reciprocity; and after ineffectually endeavouring to accomplish that object for more than a quarter of a century, it was at length reluctantly obliged to put an end to the intercourse altogether. This course was adopted at the earnest request of the shipping merchants in the principal seaports, who found that the advantages afforded to British vessels through the circuitous voyage by way of the West Indies, were such as to enable them to carry on the direct trade with England upon better terms than our vessels. Upon their representations, Congress passed acts in 1818, 1820, and 1823, which effectually closed our ports to all British vessels seeking to supply the islands. The British government was thus reduced to the necessity of supplying the colonies at a cost beyond their value, or of partly giving up their colonial system.
They chose the latter, and by the act of July, 1825, the West India islands were opened, upon certain terms, to the commerce of all nations.
The nature of this offer, and the negotiations growing out of
this proposition, were fully de tailed in the Annnal Register for 1826-7, and it is unnecessary to state more, than that the negotiations terminated in an entire suspension of the trade.
In all these transactions and negotiations, the principle of reciprocity was strictly adhered to. Trade upon equal terms, or no trade, was the only alternative offered by the American government. More than that was not sought, and less than that would have heen incompatible with national dignity.
That was the sole object of all the negotiations, and the only subject of dispute. When, therefore, it was proposed to confer upon the president power to open the ports of the United States to vessels from the British West Indies, Mr. Cambreleng, who presented the law to the house only four days before the close of the session, stated that it contained no new principle, but conformed to the instructions given by Mr. Clay to Mr. Gallatin.
As these instructions maintained, in its fullest extent, the principle of reciprocity, the law was passed without much opposition.
This act provided, that when the president should be satisfied, that Great Britain will open her colonial ports; and that American vessels and their cargoes shall not be subject to higher duties. than British vessels and their cargoes arriving from the United States; and that American vessels may be permitted to carry on any trade between the islands and the United States, or any export trade between the islands
<unk> Kuendelea <unk> Mkataba wa Ufaransa.<unk> <unk> Kulipa fidia kukataliwa.<unk> <unk> Uangalifu wa Serikali ya Ufaransa kupata Mipango.<unk> <unk> Mahusiano na G. Uingereza.<unk> <unk> Mipango kama ya Biashara ya India Magharibi.<unk> <unk> Kinyume cha Usafiri wa Marekani.<unk> <unk> Mikataba na Urusi na Ubelgiji.<unk> <unk> Mahusiano na Amerika Kusini. Katika kitabu cha miaka 1830-31, ripoti ilitolewa ya mazungumzo kati ya serikali za Marekani na Ufaransa, kuhusiana na madai juu ya mwisho kwa spoliations, na ya mkataba wa kurekebisha kiasi cha kulipwa na Ufaransa, kama fidia kamili kwa madai hayo. Ingawa kiasi kilichopangwa kulipwa (franc milioni 25) hakikupungua nusu ya kiasi cha awali cha uharibifu, na hakukuwa na malipo yoyote kwa riba iliyopatikana kabla ya mkataba huo, bado ilionekana kuwa inafaa kukubaliana na makubaliano; na serikali na watu wa Marekani walijipongeza wenyewe kwa makubaliano ya mwisho ya shida pekee kati yao na mshirika wao wa kwanza. Kwa mujibu wa kifungu cha pili cha mkataba huo, serikali ya Ufaransa ilikubali kulipa francs 25,000,000 kwa asilimia 4. Hizi ni malipo ya kila mwaka ya mara sita, ambayo ni ya kwanza kulipwa baada ya mwaka mmoja baada ya kubadilishana mikataba iliyokubaliwa. Hizi malipo zilipaswa kulipwa katika Paris, kwa mtu kama vile lazima kuwa na mamlaka na serikali ya Marekani kupokea yao. Mkataba huo ulikubaliwa na serikali zote mbili na tarehe 2 Februari 1832 mikataba hiyo ilibadilishwa huko Washington. Mara tu baada ya mikataba hiyo kuidhinishwa, Bunge lilipitisha sheria zinazohitajika ili kutimiza masharti hayo kwa upande wa Marekani; na Katibu wa Hazina, Julai 7, 1833, alitoa hati ya kubadilishana kwa Waziri wa Serikali na Fedha wa Ufaransa, akiongoza malipo ya awamu ya kwanza kwa amri ya mkopo wa benki ya U.S.A. na mamlaka kamili ya wakili ilitolewa na Rais wa Marekani, kuidhinisha mpokeaji wa hati hiyo kupokea sawa na kutoa risiti sahihi kwa serikali ya Ufaransa. Mkataba huo ulifanywa kwa haraka na Marekani, lakini haukuchukuliwa kwa njia inayofaa na Ufaransa, ingawa mikataba hiyo ilikubaliwa na kubadilishwa kwa usahihi mwezi Februari 1832, wala hakuna hatua zilizochukuliwa na mfalme au mawaziri wake ili kuifanya iwe na athari. Kwa mujibu wa katiba ya Ufaransa, vyumba vya serikali vina udhibiti wa hazina ya umma, na ingawa mfalme alikuwa na uwezo wa kuunda mkataba wa fidia, na kwa kweli tawi pekee la serikali ambalo mataifa ya kigeni yanaweza kujadili, bado ilikuwa muhimu kwake kupata ruzuku kutoka kwa vyumba ili kumwezesha kuitekeleza. Hata hivyo, hilo lilikuwa tatizo kwa serikali ya Ufaransa na taifa la Ufaransa kujipatanisha. Marekani haikuwa na wasiwasi na fomu na njia, ambayo mkataba huo ulikuwa na kutekelezwa. Walitazama utendaji wa mkataba huo kama fidia duni, lakini bado kamili kwa madai ambayo hayakuweza kuvunjwa, na ambayo ilikubaliwa ulimwenguni, kwamba uridhiko unapaswa kufanywa. Kwa hiyo, kwa mshangao fulani, serikali ya Washington iliona kwamba mfalme wa Ufaransa hakuwa amemwomba Bunge la Ufaransa kutoa fedha zinazohitajika kwa ajili ya kutekeleza mkataba huo, wakati wa mkutano wake wa kwanza, Novemba 19, 1832. Hata hivyo, baada ya kutekeleza kwa uangalifu masharti yote kwa upande wa Marekani, hakukuwa na sababu ya kuepuka kudai utendaji wa pande zote na Ufaransa. Kwa hiyo, hati ya kubadilishana ilichorwa kwa kiasi cha awamu ya kwanza, kulingana na masharti ya mkataba, na malipo yalidaiwa huko Paris na mmiliki wa hati hiyo, akiwa na mamlaka kamili ya kupokea kiasi hicho kwa niaba ya Marekani. Sheria hiyo haikukubaliwa, na kwa mara ya kwanza, mashaka yalianzishwa dhidi ya uadilifu wa serikali ya Ufaransa. Baraza hilo lilikuwa likifanya kazi tangu Novemba 19 hadi wakati ambapo malipo ya awamu ya kwanza yalikataliwa, na hakuna hatua zilizochukuliwa na mawaziri kupata fedha zinazohitajika. Hata hati ambazo serikali ya Ufaransa ilikuwa imekubali kuipeleka kwa serikali ya Marekani, zilikamatwa, kwa udanganyifu kwamba hati za awali hazingeweza kuondolewa mahakamani, na wakati waziri wa Marekani alipokubali kupokea nakala, ilidaiwa kwamba gharama za kufanya nakala zilipaswa kubeba Marekani. Baada ya kuwasilishwa kwa hati ya kubadilishana, ilionekana kuwa ni muhimu kuchukua hatua fulani kwa kusudi la kutekeleza mkataba, au angalau, kuhifadhi muonekano wa kufanya hivyo. Kwa hiyo, tarehe 6 Aprili 1833, muswada ulio na masharti ya kusudi hilo ulipitishwa kwenye Bunge, na M. Sherman, waziri wa fedha, akaeleza misingi ambayo mkataba huo ulifanyizwa. Sheria hiyo haikupendekezwa katika kikao hicho, ambacho kilikamilika Aprili 25, wala katika kikao kilichofuata, ambacho kilianza siku iliyofuata na kuendelea hadi Juni 26. "Sehemu hiyo ilitajwa katika vyumba vya baraza la mawaziri tarehe 11 Juni, na muswada ulipokelewa na kuwekwa meza, lakini hakuna kilichotendeka, licha ya Jenerali Lafayette kuwahimiza vyumba vya mawaziri kufanya uamuzi, na kuonya serikali ya hatari ya kuacha swali muhimu kwa tabia na ustawi wa Ufaransa katika msimamo huo wa kutiliwa shaka. """ "Hata hivyo, ""maelezo ya udhalilishaji"" yalitolewa kwa sababu ya kutochukua muswada huo, na kikao kingine kilikoma bila hatua yoyote kuchukuliwa ili kutetea heshima na uadilifu wa serikali ya Ufaransa." Uangalifu huu, ambao kulikuwa na sababu nyingi sana ya kudhani ulikuwa wa makusudi, ulichukizwa sana na mtendaji wa Marekani. """Maafisa wa Marekani walipewa maagizo ya kuhimiza serikali ya Ufaransa kutimiza kwa haraka mkataba huo na kuijulisha kwamba Marekani itadai fidia kwa kukataa kukubali muswada wa awamu ya kwanza." """Hakuna ubaguzi ulioonyeshwa katika kuuza hati ya kubadilishana kwa benki ya Marekani wakati ambapo hakukuwa na upendeleo wowote uliofanywa na vyumba vya malipo ya fidia, na hamu ya hatia ya kuwaheshimu wapendwa wa kisiasa kwa gharama ya maslahi ya umma pia ilionyeshwa kwa kumtuma Harris kufanya kazi kama mlinzi katika hatua hii muhimu, lakini sauti ya kukasirika na kukasirika, ambayo ilionekana juu ya kukataa kwa Ufaransa kutekeleza mkataba wa kutoa fidia ya sehemu tu kwa madai zetu, ilithibitishwa na mwenendo wa nchi hiyo." Majumba hayo hayakukutana tena katika kipindi cha kitabu hiki, na uamuzi wa baadaye wa suala hili lazima uhifadhiwe kwa ajili ya kitabu kijacho. Usimamizi wa mahusiano kati ya Marekani na Uingereza haukutoa ushahidi wenye nguvu sawa kwa ajili ya busara na hekima ya wale walio na mamlaka ya utawala wa Marekani. Mjadala kati ya nchi hizo mbili ulihusu biashara ya kikoloni, usafiri wa St. Lawrence, na biashara ya biashara ya biashara. mpaka wa kaskazini mashariki. Kwa mpangilio ambao Congress ilishawishiwa kuamini kufunguliwa kwa bandari zetu kwa hiari ya Rais, mahusiano yalianzishwa tena, na nchi iliitwa kuhimidi ustadi wa kidiplomasia ambao ulikuwa umerudisha biashara iliyopotea (kama ilivyodaiwa) kwa sababu ya upumbavu wa mtangulizi wake. Hata hivyo, iligunduliwa upesi, kwamba mahusiano hayo hayakuwa sawa kama yalivyokuwa hapo awali. Badala ya kuendelezwa, hasa kwa meli za Marekani, iligunduliwa kwamba meli za Uingereza zilikuwa na sehemu yenye faida zaidi ya biashara, na kama ilivyotambuliwa kwamba usafiri wa baharini wa Marekani daima ungeweza kujitegemea, katika biashara yoyote ambapo ushindani wa haki ulitawala, uchunguzi muhimu zaidi ulifanyika katika masharti ya makubaliano haya. Serikali ya Marekani ilikuwa kwa muda mrefu na kwa uthabiti sana imeshikilia, katika mipango yake yote ya kibiashara, kanuni za ushirikiano, kwamba kuacha wazi ya kanuni hiyo, haingekuwa kuvumiliwa na nchi. Sera kali na ya ukandamizaji ya Uingereza ilifanyiza moja ya malalamiko makuu ambayo yalisababisha mapinduzi; na watu hao wa uzalendo, ambao, baada ya kuongoza wananchi wao kupitia vita, walianzisha mfumo wa sera kwa serikali yao, walitazama ushiriki kamili na wa haki katika biashara ya India Magharibi, kama moja ya matokeo halali ya uhuru. Walijua kwamba nchi ya mama ilikuwa na nguvu ya kuzuia mahusiano yote na sehemu yoyote ya milki ya Uingereza, lakini pia walijua kwamba visiwa vya India Magharibi vilitegemea Marekani kwa vifaa, na kwamba wangeweza, kwa kanuni za kulipa, kulazimisha Uingereza kutoa visiwa vyake kwa dhabihu kubwa, kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja, au kuweka mahusiano ya moja kwa moja kwa masharti ambayo meli za Marekani na Uingereza zinaweza kushindana kwa haki kwa biashara ya kubeba. Hilo lilikuwa jambo ambalo halingeweza kuruhusiwa. """Ilikuwa muhimu kwa kufurahia uhuru wetu, kwamba biashara kati ya nchi hii na koloni zote inapaswa kuwekwa juu ya msingi huu." Maoni ya Ulaya juu ya swali hili yalikuwa juu ya kanuni tofauti, na yalihalalishwa juu ya kanuni tofauti. Kwa upande wowote, uhusiano wa kibiashara haukuhitajiwa, na kwa kuwa nguvu zote kubwa za baharini zilikuwa na koloni, kukubali kulikuwa rahisi katika mfumo wa kikoloni wa Ulaya ya kisasa. Uhusiano huo ulikuwa mdogo kwa biashara kati ya nchi mama na koloni zake, na nchi ya kwanza haikutafuta, wala haikutarajia kufanya biashara kati ya koloni hizo na sehemu nyingine za ulimwengu. Kama hilo lingekuwa limejaribu, roho ya wivu ya biashara ya Ulaya ingekuwa hivi karibuni kudai haki ya kushauriana katika kupanga masharti ya mahusiano hayo. Kwa kujitenga kwa Marekani na milki ya Uingereza, hali mpya ya mambo ilitolewa. Biashara na Marekani ilikuwa muhimu kwa kuwepo kwa koloni za India Magharibi; na kujistahi, na heshima ya kitaifa ilikataza Marekani kuruhusu biashara hii kufanywa tu katika meli za Uingereza. Hakuna sababu ambayo inaweza kuhalalisha kutengwa kwa usafiri wa Marekani kutoka kwa biashara hiyo, ambayo haikuwa sawa kwa biashara ya moja kwa moja na Uingereza. Mazungumzo yote ya serikali ya Marekani yalielekezwa kwa kuandaa mahusiano ya kimapenzi kwa masharti ya ushirikiano; na baada ya kujaribu bila mafanikio kutimiza lengo hilo kwa zaidi ya robo ya karne, hatimaye ililazimika kwa kusita kumaliza mahusiano hayo kabisa. Hatua hiyo ilichukuliwa kwa ombi la dhati la wafanyabiashara wa meli katika bandari kuu za bahari, ambao walipata kwamba faida zilizotolewa kwa meli za Uingereza kupitia safari ya mzunguko kupitia West Indies zilikuwa za kuwezesha wao kufanya biashara ya moja kwa moja na Uingereza kwa masharti bora kuliko meli zetu. Baada ya maandamano yao, Congress ilipitisha sheria katika 1818, 1820, na 1823, ambayo kwa ufanisi kufungwa bandari zetu kwa meli zote za Uingereza kutafuta kusambaza visiwa. Serikali ya Uingereza ililazimika kuandaa bidhaa kwa gharama kubwa zaidi ya thamani ya bidhaa hizo, au kuachana na mfumo wa kikoloni. Wakachagua njia ya pili, na kwa sheria ya Julai 1825, visiwa vya West Indies vilifunguliwa, kwa masharti fulani, kwa biashara ya mataifa yote. "Ubora wa toleo hili na mazungumzo yaliyotokana na pendekezo hili yalielezwa kwa undani katika ""Annals Register"" ya 1826-1827 na haifai kusema zaidi ya kwamba mazungumzo hayo yalikoma kwa kusimamishwa kabisa kwa biashara." Katika shughuli hizi zote na mazungumzo, kanuni ya ushirikiano ilifuatwa kwa ukali. Biashara kwa masharti sawa, au hakuna biashara, ilikuwa mbadala pekee iliyotolewa na serikali ya Marekani. Zaidi ya hiyo haikutafutwa, na chini ya hiyo ingekuwa haipatani na heshima ya kitaifa. Hiyo ilikuwa lengo pekee ya mazungumzo yote, na mada pekee ya mzozo. "Kwa hiyo, wakati ilipopendekezwa kumpa Rais mamlaka ya kufungua bandari za Marekani kwa meli kutoka West Indies ya Uingereza, Bw.Cambrellang, ambaye alitoa sheria hiyo kwa Bunge siku nne tu kabla ya kufungwa kwa kikao, alisema kwamba haikuwa na kanuni mpya, lakini ilifanana na maagizo yaliyotolewa na Bw.Clay kwa Bw.Gallatin.""" Kwa kuwa maagizo hayo yalihifadhi, kwa kadiri kubwa zaidi, kanuni ya ushirikiano, sheria hiyo ilipitishwa bila upinzani mwingi. Sheria hiyo ilisema kwamba wakati Rais alipokubali, Uingereza itafungua bandari zake za kikoloni na kwamba meli za Marekani na mizigo yao haitawekwa chini ya ushuru wa juu. meli za Uingereza na mizigo yao kutoka Marekani, na kwamba meli za Marekani zinaweza kuruhusiwa kufanya biashara yoyote kati ya visiwa na Marekani, au biashara yoyote ya kuuza nje kati ya visiwa