Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-11-22

Fbodies, two distinct societies. Though
one of the parties may have been to blame
an breaking theunity Of the state & resisting
the lawful authority, they arenot the less d.
vidsd in fact. Besides who shall Judge them?
who shall pronounce en- which side the right
or the wrong lies Oneanhthey havesRo
common superior Ihey stand preciselyin
the same predicament as two nations, who
engage ina contest, & being unable to come
to an agreement, have. recourse to arms
Vattel then lays It down, with preeisl-
on that cannot be misunderstood, ,nat the
common laws OF ar ought TO be observed
by beth parties IN every civil war. And
proceeds 70 position, boarng immediate
ly on the present case, $ thatit belongs not
to foreign nations tojucge between thu e.
tizens whom discord has reused to arms,
nor between the prince and his subjects;
both parties are equally foreigners 10
them, and independent Of their authority"
On these principles Of the law Of nations
the american and French revolutions are
great and illustrious commentaries. The
application Of the principles to those two
cases has been often made and was never
disputed.
If these positions are we'll laid down,
then they are to be applied to the following
state of things in St. Domingo 'rhe is
land was a colony Of France, composed
Of white and black population. The
blacks were the slaves of.the whites. An
instruction took place, and after some
contest. attended with atrocious circum-
stances, the blacks were declared by the
government of France to be free. They
are then a part Of the community. Ano-
Their insurrectiou takes place. and this CO.
lonv attempt separation from the govern
ment, and aims at independence. Ihs
government attempt to subduc them, and
the colony acquires such strength, that the
sovereign is obliged to carry onwar against
it. He then, according to Yattel, isebound
to observe the laws of war; they are two
independents parties, and there is no power
on.earth to judge between them. St. no-
mingo is no longer province Of France.
he French laws have there no longer a
prevalence or binding force. The trade
of the island is governed by the laws Of IFS
own government, and the code Of France
has no more influence or efficacy there than
the laws Of Corsica. Thus, | conceive it
10 be plain that St. Domingo is to be con-
sldered under the law of nations.
If then, in the view Of the whole
world, St. Domingo is to be regarded, not
as province or colony Of France, but as
an independent state, what is to restrain
the freedom Of trade with her people? Is
itnot an Acknowledged principle, that eve
ny nation, every independent state, has a
right to carry On commerce with whatsoe-
yer nation skees the connexion Is il not
clear, thateverv such state is the sole Judge
ofthe prorriety, and the. sole mistress of
the regulation Of commerce, on her part
a state of war may produce other rights
in another nation. But-those rights do not
take away or destroy the rights otaEeptraI
trading with one ofshe beIli6erents. They
may subject the property involved in the
exercise Of those rights to danger, but The
rights may be exercised without violation
of the law of nations. To elucidate this
point and apply it. France and St. Domin-
go are two independent parties engaged!
in war. The United States are neutral
to both. The citizens Oh the United States
have an indisputable right 10 carry on com
merce With either Of the beiiigerents.--
Fhe property engaged in the commerce
is exposed to condemnation. if the pro"
Perty be contraband Of war, If there be
a breach of an existing blockade, or if
there be denial of the right Of search.
Bat this is the mere risk of the individual
engagedin the trade, & thetradeitself is free
and open, subject to those risks. The go
vernment is not to be considered Us inter