The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-07-19

land and France, almof always at war! What
then nun we think ofthe labours of a writer in
Baltimore Fedrralprir-, Svhovirtual advocates
each oftheie petitions, and declares that G. Dri-
tain would "wave common icnie, if flle conced-
ed toa contrary doei Urine ?"
Tkefe errors however would not have been
worthy of the ilishtett notice, or refutation, if
they bad rot been connected by their writer,
who affects TO have made very deep rrfearches in.
to:heawo of nations, with an thera;iertion, whole
fallacy ispot equally obviousto mott of our oun-
trvmcn Everyinaitution it is p!anmay he view
ed in twodi.ferent petitions: Whs. oxSbtto be, s.
via, has becn' The hrit is in fact the only
queGtion worthy Of an examination but there
are few reafoners who do not ALTO advance into
.'e other, for the purpo!e of supporting their
favourite opinions. Antiquity, they Ceem to
think, has certain a'-of dignity in it, which is
necefiary TO give truth it's proper fupport aud
when they once prove with refpe6 to any
cuftonl or inititu'ion, not only that il onpbt to
be, hut that it baJ been thro' time immemori,l.
they iccm to think theyhav attained the greateit
certainty poffihe. 1t is in the purfnit ofthis err
roneous principle, that V7ndts Br;tangieus in a
Bait. rap. has reited great part of his argument
upnnthe antiquity ofthe Briti,h doctrine. IF he
can prove that the maxim {" of free lhips making
free goods" is modern one, he filppofes that
tpeetful confederation As if the eternal nature
OF truth could be altered by the capricious and
musab!e Judgment of man. What will this ali-
thor however fay, when he tiitcovers that what
he calls the modern law of nations is in fact of
much greater antiquity than his limited chrome
logy would make ii Ths, ruch however is the
fact. we car produce the very oeN authorities to
demonfrate.
" ihat free ihips make free goods was lac
cording to this author) even altogether unheard
OF and unknown until Frederick the great bro;
forward the fube6t during TIE qvay. of l745."
Will he now turn TO Sch'egels g neutral rights"
written in RECITATION Of iir w. Scott's decree
IN the cafe of the Swedifh convoy, which
cannot pats by without recommending a.
one OF the ableft controversial tracts that /
nave ever peruied, and he will find this chrome
logical ftatement abundsntly refuted Among
other paifages, we ihall fee6t the following for
! his .1ecisi intrusion
"fhe celebrated Busch has publifbed a lin Of IS
commercial treaties. concluded between the wear
l642 and $780, which all favourable TO this prn-
c,nie while on the contrary only have been con-
c'uded IN that interval, III which the principle anc
emily eabliihed by the Cozo!afo del aua,e upon the
liberty OF eizing enemys property on board neutra al
ihps, has been followed .Thee treaties are thofe
which Great Britain concluded i'll l66l with Dem
| mark, and in 1910 with Sweden We find befdes.
Tome other treaties, in which the fen!e is eouivocal
relatively to this point Since $50 up to the prete.t
day, we can cite at leaf, % treaties in which the
Pierogatve OF the neuteraliag HIS been acknowledp-
ed as may be ieen by the lit annexed to this work
Know on the contrary of only one treaty that he
tween Great Britain and the United States of America
which rs founded OH the oppoiite rule"
What vii! Vindex, however, Cay. wber he diff.
covers that even his favorite nation, the Fnplfb.
| had long before the time of the great Frederick
ocen among the warrnef advocates and natr,ns
OF the modern law?
I" Great-Britain, fays Vin,iex. iniiRed then
(the period OF forming the armed neutra,ity) n,
ne does noEv, and the baJ 4lz,ars doYe. that
tree tlps do NOT make free goods.p But what
does the Enghih hi!tory declare on this Ian
point! SchleSei tays that
"To appreciate h better the pre,eniion of the En-
gii, 1t is not imPertinent to remark that fo earlv
as about the middle of the 18th century and ar the
time when the CozfLafa del the only law in
force, they etabhed by formal treaties for the fri
tine the rights of the neutral flag, as NAV be- feen
~ the treaties of EDWARD Ill., with the commercial
cities OF Spain in 1851, and afterwards with fon B.
Oporto towards the middle of the 18th century II i,
farther England, which fri concluded treaty rom
iorrnable to this principle that of l642 with poru
gal, renewed in 1854, the only the kind which
for various political reafons the Englifh have nil
N"hueieu as iicfel. IL Is from the OF that trea
ty that long ferries of fimilar acts commences NV
which the involabiity Of the neutral flag i. ackuou
edged, and of which evcral have been concluded bv
EHgland herelf, fuch thoie with France in 1853.
1917 IT'S, l742, and the laR of the Goth Of SEN
.einher 1885, 70 remark a,e or its very detailed de-
ternnatlons relative to the rights of neutral Rac
tEoie with the United Provinces in 1868 and 1914
and finally, the commercial treaties with the Porte &
with the Barbary powers"
Why cannot we concentrate this fub;et,
without heholding the a6is Of the federal Adj
m,n'itrat'on riling up in judgment aeanf il |?
VINO does not recolleG9 the celebrated Britifb
treaty, which frf fnrrendered the native policy
OF our country That treaty might in one ref
pcct be executed as il was made with nation.
which had always advocated different policy.
But what ihall we think of Mr.. Adams's
treat with Pruliia, which expressly abandoned
tho'e two great principles OF TIE former one
negocIated by Mr.. Trfrrfor and Dr. franklin :
W: 1batfree hips H5qNmake free goo4J;' e. 3D..
'Ib7f Prf1afeering IN ti1re IF zpar be abolrned I,
principles, which it appears from the corref-
pondenoe laid before the fanate, the enliehtened
niniiters OF the Prui2ian monarch were brought
with great difficulty aud reluctance TO abandon,
ana Al the earneh folicitation Of the American
negccIa'ior, John Ouincey Adams And up-
on what fuggefiiOn, will the reader demand ,
nat the maritime powers, tarficuiariy Great
britain, would never function or permit them.