Final answer:
Corruption in Long Assembly's ruling on trade with the Indians is not mentioned directly in historical contexts provided, which focus on the Dutch in the Caribbean, the Dutch East India Company's powers, trade legislation in American colonies, and trade control by the Kingdom of Dahomey.
Step-by-step explanation:
The accusation of corruption against Long Assembly concerning its ruling on trade with the Indians does not directly align with the historical facts presented. Long Assembly is not a specific entity in the context of colonial trade decisions. Rather, the historical incidents relate to the broader policies of European powers and their colonies. The Dutch, for example, established themselves as an economic powerhouse in the Caribbean through a combination of legitimate trade, piracy, and smuggling (all of the above), often blurring the lines between lawful and unlawful economic activities.
The Dutch East India Company was a powerful entity with the authority to establish colonies, punish criminals, negotiate treaties, and wage war (all of the above). This wide range of powers contributed to their control and influence in international trade during that period.
In terms of legislation in the American colonies, acts like the Molasses Act of 1733 aimed to control trade by imposing duties on rum, molasses, and sugar. These duties often had the undesired effect of stifling trade rather than enhancing it, and were at times ignored in a period of 'salutary neglect' by British authorities, leading to widespread smuggling.
In the Kingdom of Dahomey, control over the slave trade was asserted by restricting trade to the Dutch and confining European merchants to the port at Whydah, amongst other means (B and C).