The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-02-15

! P'oh''it any particular branch Of trade ~ any
o7e ofits ports, where no treaty has bound M
Its hands, does alto give it a right 10 prohibit
e0r'y branch Of its trade in all of its ports But
OF referring to the lait treaty between France &
the u. States that IS, to the convention of 1901,
we can perceive no article, which gives 70 ei-
ther nation the privilege Of carrying every
branch OF trade into every port belonging Ia
the other. The chief commercial privilege
which they have mutually contracted To allow,
Is iPecihed IN the 9th article, that Z" in general
the two parties fball enjoy in the ports of each
other, IN regard to commerce and navigation,
| the privileges OF the mott fTvored nation" The
arete of General Ferand, however, extends
to all veiiels, " foreign as well as dOnenic''
1t is worthy of remark, that the convention of
1901, makes no difcriE,inati IN between her Ed-
roPean and Wett-India trade and that there
is no article in If, imilar TO the 10th article of
I the Birth treaty of 1894, which allows the
privilege of trade with the ports and illanJs
of the w. Indies" As the right OF fovereientv
is therefore uncontrolled by her convention
with America, fhe has the right of ihutting I'D
every port on her own COATS as we'll as ia the
Hand OF St. Domingo, or of prohibiting the
commerce of other nations, although fhe may
9. But there would fill be another
principle on which France might r4ooie ker
right OF prohibiting all commerce with St. Do
mingo, even If they had expressly confradedto
allow 1t. Nations owe to tksmiclv.s the fame
DUTY OF leit-Prefervation, which binds indvidu-
ais. ihe danger of defruction confers upon
them new rights, and gives them differentiation
rom the reitTi6tionS of : more fortunate De,iod
i here IS common kazv OF nations which as
wei as the 9vrItfen law. creates privileges or
lmPoirs obligations. As foon rs France difco-
vered that the colony of S.. Domingo was T.
bout to be torn from her iovercisnty and that
the of - a
10 deteat MI her eycrtions for its recovery, all
the obligations Of her convention would have
been dI'io'ved: inths criis 70 little expected at
the timc oifornine her convention. heroficia!or-
gan IN the Hand of St. Domingo would have
been endowed with every authority to pats the
7rrcte prohibiting ali trade with the rebellious
inhabitants.
Had the -Hnerican n,--cbanfi then any right
to continue this trade? If the French govern
ment had right to prohibit it and has actually
exerclied this right, it would appear evident
that they have no right to force a trade. II
is evident. they cannot maintain this commerce
with St. Domingo, on the ground that St. Do
minSo IS French colony, becaufe that trade
has already been forbidden by France, and
France had right to forbid It, Nor can they
maintain this commerce, on the ground that il
IS An independent iovereignty. No individual
has the right to determine whether any revoited
country ihal have the right of fefgovernnent.
or the right Of regulating its own trade. 1t is
the privilege OF his govsynnent only, to regulate
ms relations with foreign countries; To deter
NINE whether he ihall be at peace or war with
lhem, &whether he can continuco or (hall flfr,end
any particular fyRem of commercial intercourf-.
But the government of the United States has nc
We" admitted the fovereignty of ST. Domingo,
nor received her embaffadors. The government
has then never Iegalized and guaranteed this
commerce. Hitherto it has conidered the t.
land of St. Domingo, as part of France, and
has thus admitted the obligation of all her com.
mercial arrangements.
The American merchants then having no
right to carry on this trade, had no right to
appeal 70 their government for protection a.
CAN'T the French C:uiiars, or for INDEFINITE for
their con6cated vefels. The public arrefe of
Gen FerraEd, and It's acknowledged execution
by the French government f,rniihed them with
inFiIclent information oftheirdanger, and the lcfs
which they incurred, was on their oz,,, head.
Under fsch ftuation, it has been commended
by few politicians that it was the RIGHT and
duty of the Prelident to ifIue his proclamation
te regulate this trade. But whence conld th..
P'teidrut nave derived this power; 1t was
not from any provition in the confli |
tuition nor was 1T from any law of Congrers.
All the diIcretion which he po1eiied in CAFE, of
this deicriptionis derived from the 7tb Setf;o1
OF the act of 1893; but the byrf.nt cafe is not
tpccified in that act. Even if the Pref,lent y,
pofiched thspower, good Pocymight Ore |
vented It's cSerclie. Such pro clamation might |
have embraced two obietts: informing the mer- |
chants OF the retri6iions on this trade and tins
depriving them OF all right 10 indemnify. an |
Object which was Efficiently attained bv ths |
arrete aud conduct ofthc French government :.
or, preventing any ornaments in our ports. a !
power, which even Congrefs ititIf has not ven |
tured TO exercife.
From thefe defultory obferyations, itappears. |
that the French government had right TO pro- |
hibit this trade. 2. That our merchants had
no right to continue it. And 8. that if thev
did, they placed themfelves out ofthe protec- |
ton of their own government.
We have now arrived At the moment ofbrinr |
ing this fubje6t before Congrefs. WHAT is the |
policy which exiting circumstances would have !
induced that body to adopt?
The reader will recolle6f the objections. which !
were formerly urged with 70 much force arainl gen
Walhington's proclamation of neutrality
II it be true that the French Mniler General |
Thureau) has made an application to our government
TO prohibit merchants from arniiug the fubic9
which is touched upon in the preceding EfIay cannot
be too deeply confdered by the American people
a proclamation Of Charles Cameron, captain
general and governor in chief of the Bahama II.
Il ~