The enquirer — Richmond, Va., 1808-05-12 00:00:00, page 1

(Jj* PUBLISHED BY THOKAS RITCHIE, OPPO
SITE tiik posT-orncE, at rivt dollars
AVMUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.
DOMESTIC.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
PAR 7’ III.
(CONTINUED.)
From Messrs. Monroe ami Pinkney Minis
ters extraordinary and Plenipotentiaries
at London, to Mr. Madison, Secretary of
State.
Holland House,
November 8, 1806.
His majesty’s commissioners and plenipo
tentiaries have the honor to represent to the
commissioners and plenipotentiaries of
U. States: . . '
That the project of an artitie on the sub
ject of impressing seamen, together with
tiie reasonings, by which the commissioners
•i the U. States have urged the expedien
cy ef an arrangement on that subject, has
been laid before his majesty’s government,
and has been considered with the same
friendly and conciliatory disposition, which
has marked every step of the negociation.
That his majesty’s government had not
felt itself prepared to disclaim or derogate
from, a right which has ever been uniform
ly and generally maintained, and in the ex
ercise of which the security of the British na
▼v may he essentially involved ; more espe
cially in a conjuncture when his majesty is
engaged in wavs, which enforce the necessi
ty ofYne most vigilant attention to the pre
servation and supply of tiic naval force of
kis kingdom.
That ins majesty s guverumem, av.tum.eu
bv an earnest desire to remove every cause
oi' dissatisfaction, has directed his majesty's
commissioners to give to Mr. Monroe and
"Mr. Pinkney, the most positive assurances
tiiat instructions have been given and shall
be repeated and enforced, for the observance
of the greatest caution in impressing of Bri
tish seamen ; and that the strictest care shall
be taken to preserve the citizens of the U.
States from any molestation or injury; and
that immediate and prompt redress shall
be afforded upon any representation of inju
ry sustained by them.
' That the commissioners of the U. Slates
well know, that no recent causes of com
plaint have occurred, and that no probable
inconvenience can result from the postpone
ment of an article subject to so many diffi
culties. Still that his majesty’s commission
ers are instructed to entertain the discussi
on of any plan that can be devised to secure
the interests of both states, without any in
jury to rights to which they are respectively
attached.
That in the mean time the desire of pro
moting u right conclusion of the proposed
treaty, and of drawing closer the ties of con
nection between the two countries, induces
liis majesty’s commissioners to express their
rrcadiuess to proceed to the comp etionofthe
•other at tides, in the confident hope, that
*he result cannot fail to cultivate and Con
firm the good understanding happily subsist
ing between the high contracting-purties, and
«till farther to augment the mutual prospe
rity of his majesty’s subjects and of the ci
tizens of the U. St ates.
(Signed) VASSAL, HOLLAND,
AUCKLAND.
PROJ ECT.
COUNTER PROJECT.
Ijj order to prevent
Whereas, wuen
t'u: vessels of either
the one nation is at
f. u ty, from becoming
war, and the other at
a sanctuary at sea for
peace, it is not lawful
deserters, from the
for tlie belligei cut to
Ve ssels of the other
impress or carry ofF
party, it is expressly
from on board the
^ ttipulatcd by thehigii
vessels of the neutra ,
( Contracting Parties,
Seafaring Persons,
t hat they willrespec
who ate the native
t ive.lv enact Laws,
subjects of the neu
> 'hereby' it shall be
tral, or others who are
o lade penal for the
not the subject of the
c immanders or mas
belligerent ; Scwhcrc
t< rs of the vessels of
as, from the similari
tl ther of the parties,
ty of the l.tiignage and
•u ai• may happen tube
appearance, it may
the porta of some
be difficult to distin
fi. ir 1 power, or in the
guish the subjects of
pi rts of one of the
the two states, the
p;. rties with the ves
high CDiuracting par
si s of the other par
ties agree, thatfor the
ty , to receive on board
greater security ot the
an 1 carry to Set
subjects of the neutral
(k lowing them to be
they will enact such
•ui h] the sailors, he
laws respec.ively, as
^ Joi. gmgto, and descr
shall subject to heavy
^vtin $ from such vessels.
penalties tlie com man
is further agreed.
ders of tlie belligerent
—v :nc»cr uic lessen.
snips, who shall im
' i. i irg on board the
press or carry off the
sai ova who may have
native subjects of the
t<> it seated in a neu
neutral, or others not
tra I port, shailarrive
being the subjects of
at a iy port of the
the belligerent, irom
I>a to which they
on board the neutral
l»ei ong, that such par
vessels, on any pre
t> ih dl cause such dr
tence whatsoc er, &
*e te:ti to he deliver
they further agree to
ed up, on proper ap
enact laws respective
pl :atton supported y
ly making it highly
la\ /ft | evidence, to
penal in the subjects
tin : a ;ent or consul of
of the neutral to grant
tin- i other party, v.ho
any certificates of the
>i»i V lie duty'authnri
biith and country ol
v.v I by his govern
bea-faring Persons,
nt to act in such
without due evidence
C.,i ->i> .
and proof of the Same
( Triplicate)
No.
London, December 27, 1800.
,tUK,
Nr h tve the pleasure to acquaint you
that
wi iia vi * this day agreed with the British
r.onl
ni : i-r.rt ■ s tocuichulc a treaty on ali the
J>- *iii
.-s wliitli had lormed the object of our
i.ci^
elation, find on t< i’iii* which we trust
fo rniima .t will gppr ve. It will require
our
oiil'..
a lew day s to reduce it to form. Y\ hen
tii,u
ij. lone, w, shall transmit it to you bv n
:i2 Hiessei.% T. We hasten to Comma*
*;.e
u.c
i'( '. j you.thi , interesting lute! igcncc f«>r
tiu
it. .rjna.it . n a »U guidance or oar govern
1
Vol. 5.] RICHMOND, THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1808. [No. 2.
ment in such measures as may have refer
ence to the subject.
We have the honor to be.
With great consideration & esteem,
Sir,
Your most obedient servants,
JAMES MONROE,
WILLIAM PINKNEY.
James Madison, Secretary'}
of State, Wtuhington. j .
No.'8. London, January 3, 1807.
SIR,
We have the honor to transmit you a
treaty, which wc concluded with the British
commissioners, on the 31st of December.
Although we had entertained great confi
dence from the Commencement o' the nego
tiation, that such would be its result, it was
not until the 27th, that we were able to make
any satisfactory arrangement of several of
the most important points, that were invol
ved in it. On tlic next day, we communica
ted to you that event by several dispatches,
three of which were forwarded by vessels
from Liverpool, so that we hope you will re
ceive very early intelligence of it. We com
mit this, with the treaty, to Mr. Purviance,
who, we flatter ourselves, will have the good
fortune to arrive iu time to deliver it to you
before the adjournment of congress.
The necessity we feel ourselvet, under, to
forward to you the treaty without delay, will,
we fear, render it impossible for us to enter
so fully on the subject of it, as on many con
siderations it might be proper to do. We
are aware that such instruments must be
construed, by an impartial view of their con
iL iua uij imiuciKai uy CAuaiu;uua nidUL i .—
A knowledge however of the sense in which
the several articles of a treaty were under
stood by the parties to it, may in most cases
be useful. It is also just to remark that some
circumstances occurred in the course of this
negotiation, which, although they do not ap
pear on the face of the instrument itself,
vet as they may have no inconsiderable influ
ence on the future relations of the two coun
tries, it is pecularly important to explain.
We shall endeavor to give such explanations
where they may be necessary, in the best
manner that may be found compatible with
the dispatch which the occasion so imperious
ly requires, and we flatter ourselves without
omitting any tiling on any point that maybe
deemed of essential importance.
The first article of the pesent treaty which
stipulates that peace shall subsist between
the parties is taken from that of 1794, and is
found in most of the modern treaties.
The second article confirms those of aper
manent nature in the treaty of 1794. The
British commissioners were very desirous
to introduce the permanent articles of that
treaty in the form of new stipulations, in the
present one. They insisted with great ear
nestness that the article which relates to the
trade with the Indian tribes, should be soa
mended as to admit the traders of Canada
and the Hudson bay company to participate
with us in the trade, with the tribes in Lou
isiana. They seemed to admit that by a
fair construction of the article they could not
support such a claim, but contended that it
was justified by its spirit. Their solicitude
on this point, which they had supposed wa9
an unimportant one to the U. States, creat
ed some embarrassment and delay in the bu
siness. They intimated that it proceeded
from a desire to conciliate the public opinion
in this country in favor of the treaty,
which beGame necessary in consequence of
the concessions which they thought they made
us on other points. As we were decidedly of
opinion that the article in the treaty of 1794
could not apply to territory afterwards acqui
red, and could see nothing in its spirit which
entitled it to such an extension, and more
especially as our instructions contemplated
a different result, it was impossible for us
to ddopt that proposal. They finally agreed
therefore, though not without evident reluc
tance, to the article in its present form.
VVc regret to say that the third article
which regulates our trade with the British
possessions in India, which, with one essen
tial and most unfavorable difference, is the
same with the thirteenth article of the trea
ty of 1794, is not what wc had been led to
hope it would be practicable to make it. A
ware of the importance attached to this com
merce in America, we have used the most
zealous and preserving efforts, not only to
prevent the introduction of new restraints up
on it, but even to emancipate it front some
of those which the treaty of 1794, had dis
tinctly sanctioned. The India company have
however been less nccomodatiugthan was at
first expected, and hence the rejection of all
the amendments proposed by us, one of which
sought to omit entirely, and (when that was
refused) to modify, the proviso copied from
the treaty of 1794, that our voyages from the
British possessions should be direct to the U.
States. 'This amendment, in both its shapes,
was repelled In such a manner astoconvince
us that nothing would be gained by continu
ing to press it, and we gave it up at length
with great reluctance. In this stage of the
| business, the British commissioners insisted
upon an amendment upon their part, by which
our voyages to British India were required
to be direct from the U. Slates. This unex
pecto-u amendment was proposed, at the in
stance of the India Company, after the pro
ject of the llritish commissioners (which,
witli reference to this subject, was a literal
copv of the loth article of the treaty of 1794)
had not only been presented to us, but fully
discussed, and, as wc understood, settled.—
The real intention and office of it were said,
by lord Holland Hi lord Auckland, to be no
more than to make the article speak unequi
vocally what was the true meaning of the arti
cle in the late treaty. We replied to this that
the article in the late treaty was not suscep
tible of this limited construction; that its
obvious import wasthat only the \oy age from
India tUoun be direct; that this had been so
lemnly adjudged by their own courts of law
and that the practice had been and still con
tinued to be so.
We v.cre answered by the production of
•. paper purporting to be a report of
that in their opinion an American vessel
was not entitled to a clearance from a port
in Great-Hritain to Calcutta, under the trea
ty ol 1794. Wc were told moreover, that
lord Grenville when he made the treaty,'
the India company when it sanctioned, and
the .British government when it ratified it,
did not mean to authorize any other than di
rect voyages, outward, as well as homeward
between the United States and their Indian
possessions and that if die treaty was lia
ble to any other construction, it arose from
mere inadvertence in adjusting the phrase
ology ; but that in truth it was not a lair and
natural iutcrpreUtion cf words, which au
thorized a commerce between two defined
limits ; that a commerce between one of those
limits and some t^ird place was intended to
be allowed, althotig h not a word was said a
bout it in the article. Having given the ob
vious answer tot hoe suggestions, we urged,
as long and as zcabusly us was thought ad
visable, the inconveniences to which our
trade with India wiuld be su./jected, by pro
hibiting any of the {nodes in which it was
prosecuted, as well as the unfriendly appear
ance of the new restriction, for which there
existed no a<l*<ju«:e motive. We spoke Oi
i the sensibility which wouVI be excited in
! out* country by such an ill-ti^cd and uugra
icious interference, the intetests which i.
would affect, and the passitns which, it
would inlist against the entire tmatv : to all
which it was finally answered thi* the India
| company could not be prevailed u>on to re
lax upon this point: that moreover it ought
not to be forgotten that this was a trade
from which their own subjects werfiordina
' rilv excluded in favor of the compares mo
nopoly ; that this monopoly, as a lositg con
cern, seemed at pretent to require peculiar
protection ; that our admission into British
1 India at all, was a boon for which we dilnot
; and could not give any equivalent, aal of
! course that we could not justly complain; ii
i that'admission was somewhat qualified with
a view to the mitigation of the evils by which
j it was undoubtedly attended, and which i\
i was not possible wholly to prevent; especially
i if wc were not placed upon a more disad
i vantageous footing ir that respect than other
i friendly powers, which was so far from be
ing the case, that ve were unquestionably
admitted by the artcle, as they proposed to
amend it, upon much better terms than any
other nation, inasnuch as our commerce
i (exclusive of the advantage of being secured
by treaty) would b; subcct only to British
duties, whereas the Danes and Swedes paid
alien duties to a coasiderable amount, with
out enjoying any privilege, (whatever might
be said t® the contrary) to which we were
not equally entitled. We were at last re
duced to the necessity of accepting the ar
ticle with the obnoxious amendment, ren
dered less obnoxious, perhaps, by the clause
relative to the mos: favored nation, or ma
king a treaty without any article upon the
subject, which would have the same, and
propably worse effects, or of making no trea
ty at ail. We preferred the first.
The fourth and fifth articles regulate the
trade between the United States and the
British possessions in Europe. By these w*
are persuaded that much greater satisfacti
on will be given to our government and coun
try, than by tlie preceding one. The three
first clauses of the fifth article, which place
the vessels and merchandise of each countr>
in the ports of che other, in respect to duties
and prohibitions, on the footing of the most
favored nation, are taken from the treaty of
1794. To these we were not aware that any
well founded objection ’••.sever made. But
the subsequent clauses g vc a new character
to this intercourse. The right which the
British government reserved by the treaty
of 1794 to impose a tonnage duty on Ame
rican vessels equal to the duty which was
payable on British vessels in the United
States, is by the first of these clauses, made
reciprocal. Under that reservation, or ra
ther as we presume the pretext of it,
the British government had actually impo
sea a tonnage uuty on American vessels oi
6#. 5d. per ton, being almost three times
the amount of the fluty •which was payable
on British vessels in the United States. And
as the United States had expressly stipula
ted not to raise the duty on British vessels
higher than it then was, it was out of their
power, without a palpable violation of that
stipulation, to countervail the duty imposed
by Great-Britain on American vesse's. But
by making the reservation reciprocal, the
United States have an unquestionable right
to raise the duty on British vessels to the
same level, wherever that maybe. And by
confining the reciprocity strictly to the prin
ciple of national equality, that is, an equa
lity of tonnage duties which shall be paya
ble on the vessels of each party in the ports
of the other, a right is reserved by each to
give what preference it thinks fit, within
that limit, to its own vessels and people.
At present such preference is given by our
law to the amount of forty-four cents per ton,
which is not only protected by this clause a
gainst any countervailing measure, other
than by lessening the duty, but the right is
secured to increase it in the degree above
stated. By this we do not wish to imply
that it would be advisable to take all the
advantage of this circumstance which the
article admits of. The presumption is, that
the British government will, in case the trea
ty is ratified, repeal the additional duty on
American vessels, which will leave them
charged in aommon with their own, anti
those of every other nation, with the sum ol
4*. 5a. per ton. should our government
think, proper to raise the duty on British
vessels to the same point, it may, perhaps,
he advisable not to increase the present dis
crimination. The last clause of this article,
which stipulates that the same duties of ex
portatiou and importation shall he paid or
all goods and merchandise, and that tlu
same drawbacks and bounties shall be allow
ed in both countries, where the same be
in British or American vessels, will, it h
also hoped, be found of very essential aelvan
tape tothe United States. The right whicl
(ireat-Britain had reserved by the treaty o
1794, to countervail the difference of dut}
payable in the United States on Europe a i
and Asiatic goods, when imported in Hritisl
or American vessels, had been productive
of very serious injury. The duties whicl
had been imposed by the British governmen
on American productions, on that principle
were so high, making in most cases a differ
encc of fthillirgr* per ton, in favor o
British vessels, tlnijAt must have been im
possible in peAceJ^^'tr navigation lo havi
borno it. The evil was the greater, because
the species of" commercial warfare in which
it engaged us in consideration of the com
parative value and bulk of the articles sub
ject to it. in each country, furnished no re
medy. On the contrary, as the principle
was unfavorable, the farther it was carried
the worse would be its effect. By this clause
it is presumed that the evil will be com
pletely done away, while we flatter our
selves that the stipulation in favor of draw
backs and bountie*, without exposing us to
any inconvenience, will be productive of
som- advantage.
It is proper to remark that we did not
omit to propose an arrangement on the sub
ject of export duties, by which the United
States should at least be placed in that re
spect upon the footing of all other nations.
The discrimination to our prejudice in the
British duties on exportation, which took
their rise in the convoy duty of the last War,1
has undoubtedly an unkind and oppressive
effect. This discrimination is found in the
43. Geo. 3. ch. 68, a permanent act, (which
ropcalct! the then existing duties, and sub
stituted others') and in the 43. Geo. 3. ch. 70
which imposes additional duties during the
present war. Taking the war duty and the
permanent duty together, the consumers in
the United States of certain British manufac
tures [for the duties ih question apply only
to British manufactures, and not to all of
them ; British cotton-yarn and manufac
tures, and some other articles being except
ed] pay two and a half per cent, ad valorem,
more than the consumer in Europe, or with
in the streights, pays on the same goods.
The only movie in which it could be sup
posed to be possible, that this unplea .ant
distinction could be removed was by applying
to the subject the rule of the most favored
nation. Great-Britain was not likely in her
nresent situation to stinnlate atrainst all ex
port duties, or even to agree to a maximum.
Neither was she likely, by considering the
actual duties as originally, a.id even n«w
convoy duties, and therefore in their princi
ple applicable only to the navigation which
her convoys protect, to relieve from them
wholly or in part, such merchandize as
should be carried to our country in Ameri
can vessels, and leave them to oppress her
own tonnage : thus offering a bounty in favor
of American ships against her own. The
rule of the most favored nation was there
fore finally suggested, with a hope that it
would meet with no objection. It was how
ever, pers veringly opposed. We were told
that ihe single effect of such an arrangement,
would be to compel Great-Brrtain to raise
the export duties against other countries,
not to reduce them as to us, and that this
would be of no advantage to the United
•States, but might be a serious embarrass
ment to Great-Britain. It was urged on our
p i t that if Cl. Britain could not gi\e up en
tirely the excess of export duty, noar paid
by us, it did not follow that it might not lie
fairly distributed among the consumers of
her merchandize, in every part of the world
so stili to produce the same revenue, with
more regard to justice : that as her best cus
tomers, we had a right to be placed upon at
least an equal footing with other nations, &
'to tomplain if we were rather distinguished
by the peculiar burthens which she under
took to impose upon us ; that the discrimi
nation against us upon the notion, that the
duty had reference to convoy, was a fallacy,
snee part of the discrimination was perma
nent, and of course a peace, as well us a war
duty; since we, who paid the duty, derived
nio benefit from the convoy, which was pro
fessed to lie the consideration of it ; and
since the protection of their own trade, in
their own navigation, being a general and
national concern, mere was no sounu reason
why the relative expencu of particular con
voys should be allowed to suggest the rela
tive measure of the duties, which were to
supply the means of affording them. They
replied to the idea of distributing the a
mount of the discrimination among all the
consumers of their merchandize, hy refer
ring us to the present state of Europe.—
They reminded us that their own colonies in
America paid the same export duty that was
paid by us, and repeated that, as it was only
the discrimination be'ween the United States
and Europe, of "which wc could have any
right to complain, wc could not demand to
have any part of the duty against which we
remonstrated, withdrawn from, and that wc
could gain nothing by forcing this country to
add to the burthens of others, already over
whelmed arid impoverished by the calami
ties of war. We were ' hligcd, though very
reluctantly, to abandon this object.
The sixth article relates to the commerce
with the West Indies, which it was found
impossible to arrange in a satisfactory man
ner. There were many serious obstacles to
an agreement on this point, some of which
seemed to be peculiarly applicable to the
present time. The British West-India mer
chants, had at an early stage represented,
that by the trade which our citizens enjoyed
with the colonics of their enemies, wc had so
completely stocked the markets of the con
tinent with West-India productions, as to
shut those markets on them. They had re
monstrated earnestly against any arrange
ment of that point which should sanction, in
any degree, our trade with those colonies.
This question had taken deep hold of the
minds of a great proportion of this commu
nity, among whom may be classed, not those
in the mercantile line only, who were imme
diately engaged in the trade, but the whole
commercial interest, and many in other cir
cles of great consideration in the country
Of this fact, sufficient proof j,was furnished
by the debate which took place in the last
session of parliament, on the bill for regula
ting the intercourse between the United
States and the West-Indies. The British
i commissioners seemed to have taken from
f that debate, more especially from the sup
port which their opponents apparently recei
i ved from the public in it, a very strong ad
i monition not to touch the subject by treaty at
■ this time. They were apprehensive that a
i »y regulation of this trade, however fair it
t might be, which should accompany tluir
, sanction of that with the colonies of their en
- sillies, would produce the worst effect with
f all parties and endanger any treaty which
- might he formed. They were, tlierefoi e, dc
: sirous of postponing the subject lor lU« pre*
scut f to which we agreed. In the stimulati
on which provides for the postponement, we
have, as you will perceive, in conformity with
our instructions, reserved the right "to our
government to counteract any regulations by
which the British government may exclude
us from a fair participation in that commerce
— \v hile the war lasts, we shall enjoy it in
a certain degree with the consent of the Bri
tish government by necessity. And the re
servation cannot fail to be considered bv it
as a powerful weapon of defence, to be usde
when occasion cads for it. • It must be seen
that it will be impossible for ilie Congress
to prohibit an intercourse between the Uni
ted States and the West Indies, in British
vessels, without producing a very serious ef
fect on their wh<*.le navigation and commer
cial interests. We fl.n ter ourselves, there
fore, that it mav he found practicable, and
perhaps not diffc-U, to -i^r-Xi.-jr? this
i
heveanct'i to the satisfaction' of boil! cyuii
tries.
The seventh article relates to the appoint
ment of colon’s by each party in the territo
ries and ports of the other. It was taken
from the treaty of 1 “94.
The eighth article, which Specifies the cau
ses for which vessels may be captured or de
tained, including among them,* the circum
stance of their h iving enemies property on
board, is (except the last cluuse) a trans
cript of the 17th article of the treaty of
1/91. The stipulation contained in that
c mitt, that the parties shall be a Honed a
dequatc damages and charges of the trial in.
all cases of unfounded detention or other con
travention of tiie regulation of the present
treaty, will-, we presume, produce the salu
tary effect contemplated by it. There is
perhaps, no principle in the maritime precenl
sums of this country, which has been more
abused in pr -ctice, than that whifeli this pie
‘ is to remeciv.
-. . . u a;iniu«ce»
should be showed m all such cases U, it
true, a doctrine recognized bv the court of
admiralty. It cannot, however,be doubted
that l*_v providing lor them in the treaty the
obligation to all >w them, will acquire great
ct t>t cc inc coin t, aiid even iJic <rovtrn«
ment itself, while it cannot fail to give an
u-ct ii admonition to the erwizers.
The nin It article regulates what shall be
deemed contraband of war You will ob* erve
th at tar and turpentine, except when destin
ed to a place ol naval equipment are not
comprised in it, ami that provisions are a to
gether omitted. We endeavored to exch-!<•
from it naval Stores, but without edect We
succeeded, ho we ter, in exempd y tlie v.-s
sel on the return voyage, after depositing hV-r
cargo at the port of her destination fiv u ba
mg detained on the pretence that it conned
ot contraband articles.
The provision in the tenth article, relative
to vessels sailing without knowledge ot *
blockade, is somewhat altered from the trea
ty of 1794. The precise effect of the clmm e
cannot perhaps lie pronounced with ccrtum
ty ; but it seems to bec.eartiuit it cannot *' «
otherwise than advantageous. The alter iti
ons consist in the introduction imo ri,e ,m.
amide ot “the distance and other circ in
stances incident to the situation <>. the con
tracting parties," and of the word • such"
into the provision which follows. The hrsc
amendment appears to justify an inference
that, on account of the peculiar circmns’un
ces local and relative, thus recited as ’the
reasons, why, in the opinion of the contac
ting parties, “ it may lrequentlv hannei,
that vessels may sail fora port or id «Ji,h*
out Knowing it is besieged, b
oci'; ided or in
vested,” our vessels oujrht not
, . _0... not io be liable to
be judicially affected witli knowledge of *
blockade, so as to subject them to pennlt’
bv tlie evidence usually held u, be sufficient
for that purpose, Sir VV. Scott decided^*
1799, that, in consequence of the distnne- *1
the UnitedStatesfro.n Europe, we v.-re en
titled to a more favorable rule in that res
pect tlim other countries, and our articl*
uiavbe fairly considered as adoptin'* that 1
dca and acting upon it. On the foundation of
the single fact of distance, Sir \V. Scott justi
hed a conjectural destination from Am,
[O Amsterdam, although the blockade of that
port had been hotificd ; smd the parries c-u
cevned were proved to have known of ih*
commencement oi’it. The article as it amir
stands, seems necessarily to imply, a* 1eat
the same indulgence} arid, if it dies 'it cer
tainly goes farther than bit- VV. Scott’s opi
nion, which dors not admit that an enq liry
can be made of the blockading force, as out
article unquestionably does, in th» s to
which it applies. It*does not appear to do
unreasonable to hold, that, a peculiar mot ■ «
being now assigned in the preamble lor dm
provision which it introduces, a correspon
dent peculiar effect is contemplated by tint
provision ; and no such effect can folio* from
it, if it be not, that [as oifr distance makes
it impossible “ that we should have constant
information of the state of the blockade
whether it continues, or is relaxed”] the
mere notification of the blockade or e.en the
knowledge that the blockade has been com
menced dc facto, shall not br sufSci-nt 'j
make the destination illegal, but tlmt^noi
withstanding such not ideation or knowledge
we shall receive warning at the port or place
blockaded. I he word.-. “ without kno.vin
that the same is either besieged, blockaded
or invested” will admit of this infc» pret uti
on, since, by reason oi our distance, it may
m our case, be truly said rand lias in sub
stance been jutlicia'ly saidj tube one thin*
to know that a blockade Ins been notife 1 < *
instituted, and another that it continue*_
We endeavore 1, without s cress, to ©btain
the consent of the liritisii commis-donei to
the article proposed in your project. T'J.t7
would only agree, as yyu will ( erctiv -, to
take itsprcamUe and engraft it upon the ar
ticle of lfy-f, observing, that this would give
to that article, a nevr and more favniMbi
though certainly an undefined ch-rrac cr 3*
that, at a moment, when their ntai.ti i.e ef*
forts in this mod® of hostility, nngnt itiM- u
than ever, become indispensable to the i a.i
onal safety, it was impo sible to do m >r
We pressed them long and earnestly to con
nect with the cl vast a definition of biockari'
t-> which, in the curly stages of « »r n«« .1
tion, it was believed, there Would Lc no
jection. \\ c found them, however, dt<
ly averse from such a definition treat
with landing the precedent afforded
it HiIm'i Mnvmtiei witii it mits