The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-11-08

now adopt in war. But certain neutral powers
iatisty ms, that in time of peace certain excep.
tons were enablifhed in their favour, that they
were allowed to engage in that trade to fome
extent; we then fay--to that extent YOU NAV
NIL carry on your trade, and no further. The
principle therefore is conftantiy the fame. as
laid down by lord Eldon in the cafe of the vii.
helroioa. (Appendix TO 4 Robertfon's Reports. J
l'hat ne!'trals' are not at liberty TO engage in
trade with the Colony of the enemy in time of
war, which is not permitted to foreign veiIels
IN time ofpeace." The law as arifng from the
general principle and the feveral reiaxations, and
As now applied by our government, appears,
with IT'S charaeterftick generufity and frnneis
TO be founded upon 4 liberal indulgence to neu.
trail privileges on the one hand, and iuit after.
tion Of belligerent rights on the other. To let
one or other of thefe objects preponderate,
would be, in my opinion, to infringe on the
genuine meaning of the inftruttions.
AS tbs admitted that this cafe is not protected
6y the general law, it is only to be feen how far
II is 10 by the infru6tions it being laid down
by the hightef authority that cafes, which are
not fpecially covered by the inltrsstons, fall
under the .proviiions of the general law, which
Is law OF EXECUTION and monopoly.
1t IS argued for the claimants, that the ;rftruc-
ton does protect this cafe, becanfe it is direct
trade from an enemy's port and this has led to
lone contribution upon that word direct. For
the captors It is argued, that the initru6tion
mutt have meant fucb direct trade between the
Colony and the neutral country as the neutral
was previouily allowed in time of peace for
the claimants it is fad that this is an unfair con-
frutfion, that the Brtifh government had not a.
ny former trade in it's contemplation, and that
Its iole object was to allow trade direct from
any port of the enemy's colony to neutral coun-
try: cannot help faying that looking to all the
motives aud principles, on which thefe inftruc-
IRONS were grounded. the contribution adopted
by the oaptors council is the right one. But
admitting that of the claimants to be right, it
merely brings us back to the queaions of fact,
now tar the port of HAVANA and the port of Ca
sannas, are entirely one and the fame wholly
identifled to all intents and purpofes.
Ii 1t would turn out upon this queftion of
fact, that foreigners could go to Cavannas in
time or peace, then it will be but fair to conf
der voyage from Cavannas with clearance
srom HAVANA as virtually voyage from Havan.
M and entitled TO protection of the direct inter-
\ eourfe: but if not, then am of opinion that
this viii be a cafe preciftly the fame as the Ju
mo; and that the general queition, as to the e-
sdilty of fuch trade, will decide both the cafes
together.
In that view, the argument of direct trade
as now ufcd, cannot apply, becaufe if the two
ports are diltnet we cannot coniider the cafe of
: voyage fingly'from the lait port, but we mutt
lake the whole voyage together; 1t would be
fofair to look only at any two intermediate
terms of voyage all the parts, and the whole
icoPe OF the trantaeton ought to be viewed to-
geiher; it mutt be Investigated alb QUO y/que ad
D,alum.
Upon the whole, am of opinion, that there
can be no fold diitinction between this cafe and
the Juno, unleis the fact of identity between
the two ports OF Havana and Cavannas ihould
he eftabl'ihed. And Therefore allow the par-
ties three months, for producing proof on that
heaG and alto with refpef 10 the general nature
of this trade.