Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1805-09-03


ther. party to the prejudice OF the ether,
and is personally and solely responsible Tor
such favor, the same bsiRg an act wrong
fully done or permitted by him. Reader,
if you should see TWO men boxing, and in
the heat oil the fray a bye-stander trip up
one Of the conbatants heels, would GU
think it unfair that the injured man, after
shaking hands with his adversary, should
demand satisfaction from The fellow who
had played him such scurvy trek!
We all know then when two nations are
at war, they may lawfully take the ships OF
each other on the high seas. Blu; i, IN
der color of this right, ous Of the parties
takes the ships Of his adversary in the liaF.
bors of a neutral power, he who isaggries-
cd may Justly require the neutral to make
satisfaction. Bot in the disoussonswhlch
might take place, the general right OF Ihs
belligerent TO make prize could not be
subject of controversy. he question:
must turn solely on the protection due by
the neutral in his own ports; and though
the bsllgerent powers should make peace
the nexthour, it could by no means affect
the claims of the injured party. These
do not arise from the nature OF theact con-
sideredin itself bat from the place whers
i. was committed Rsither can theyte sus-
tanned against the parry by whom twas per.
mitttd. Where he exercises sovereignty he
owes protection, for reasons &C evident and
Sc notorious that it would be Idle to repeat
them.
tits, therefore, respectfully insisted on,
that if the United States had been at oPsn
war with FraEce, subsequent peace could
not have cancelled the demands on Spain
which are now under consideration. And
if distinction be taken between the case of
open war, and that mongrel state IN which
we happened to be placed, such distinction
can no otherwise apply than by making those
captures unlawful even on the high seas,
which in war would have been lawful.
The term spoiiaIion has, it seems been ap.
piled to this species Of taking, Sc as to disc
tingush il from lawful prize of war. But
how the neutral can be excused for suffering
that to be done, within his jurisdiction,
which would be unlawful even upon the
high seas, is not essyto conceive Bul in
truth, there is no such distinction. When one
nation takes this ships or goods of another
upon the high seas, neutraIs have 10 right
to examine whether it be prize ora spo-
Nation. The term sc be applied, both to
their relation and to its consequences must
depend on the parties concerned. If they
agree to consider it merely as misuuder-
standing, and to make mutual concessions
and compensatIons, it would be strange
that others should interfere, end insist that
!hey.had been at war. Or if, on the other
hand, they consider their relation 70 be that
of war, and accordingly make treaty or
convention Of peace, it would be still more
strange that others should insist they had
constantly preserved freddy intercourse.
There seems, however, one circua,.
stance resulting from the moae in which
such differences are terminated, I'D this
consequence happens, On the presen, occa-
sion, to Twelve all our foreign relations,
and togo to The bottom of our whole .sys-
tenn. ithas been held byrespec,able mrs;
that treaties between nations are not dis
solved by war; and in support Of this doc
trims, they cite clauses (now become COM
mon1 which prescribe the conduct to be OBJ
served by the parties to Yards each other,
even during the war. IF, however treaties
are dissolved BY war, it will be difficult ~
assign q reason for clauses which would,b1
tentlrefy void at tha only moment when
ehey.cou|d possibly operate. The relations
IN wh Gil governments stand to each other
are, according to this doctrine deter
mined not merely by the war, bat BY the
treaty OF peace which concludes il, and &C
cordingiy it has been usual at a peace to
take as basis former treaties. But if war
Itself will not annulI sres y, still less can
national compacts be dissolved By transient
misunderstanding which do not amount