The gazette. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1798-1799, 1798-05-28


under the law neutral bottoms afford
no protection to the goods Of an enemy.
This principle thus admmitted to have
been efablilhed, is fuppofed by fome to
have been changed by the armed neu-
trality. A new law of nations, it is
contended, was introduced, by that con-
federation. But who were the parties
TO that federation, and what was its
Object ? The northern maratine powers
united to Protea by force, in their own
bottoms, during the then exiting war,
the goods of either and of all the beli-
gerent powers. The compact in its
own nature was confined with refpe6
to its Object and its duration. Il did
not purP0rt to change nor could it
change permanently and numerically the
rights Of nations not becoming parties
to it. 1t did indeed hold forth the pro-
mile of future more permanent and
more general engagements for the fame
Object, but fuch engagements were
never formed. How then can this tenn
porary and partial convention be con-
fidered as altering, radically and gene
rally, principles which have been uni
verbally adopted, and in the modifca-
tons Of which all, have an intereft !?
Would France herfeIf admit that a
combination, fuch as that which con-
ftituted the armed neutrality, may
rightfully change the law Of nations,
and eltablilh new code of universal OBJ
legation ? Its believed that no nation
on earth would more perleveringly op:
pole fuch an invalion Of its Govereign-
~.
There feems then to be no fold
ground for maintaining, that the general
law of nations has been al all varied by
the armed neutrality.
1t remains to inquire whether the
treaties between France and the United
States, pledge either nation to ahert
and efabliih the principle, thar free
bottoms make free goods.
The treaty of amity and commerce,
concluded the 9th FEBRUARY, 1873, I'll
Pulates reciProcal.y for the right Of ira
ding With and protecting the goods Of
the enemy of either party in the ve1els
Of the CHER, and in turn furrendet its
own goods found in the yehels of an
enemy, but it contains no claufe impo-
fng on either party the duty Of extend
ing the principle or Of fuPporting its
application to ether nations. The fti-
pulationS Of that treaty are negative as
well as affirmative. They fpecify as
well the disabilities intended to be crea-
ted, and the duties to be impoftd as
the privileges defgned to be granted.
Had it been intended that either nation
ihould have been bound to maintain
this principle in its intercourse with
others, q ihould have been in any dc
gree incapacitated from profecuting
freely that intercourfe, without the
previous admiGicn Of the principle, a
liquidation to that effect would have
been made. Nofuch Population having
been made, the parties cannot be pre-
iumed to have intended it. Indeed it
would have been madnefS in the United
States, under their actual circumfan-
ces, to have formed fuch an agreement.
There being no express liquidation to
this effect, it cannot be fupPoled to have
been implied. Nations forming TO-
lemn compact which ought to regulate
their conduct towards each other, which
isto be rclorted to for the fandard Of
adjulting their differences, do not leave
10 implication fuch delicate and imDor-