Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1801-1806, 1806-02-20

with thcfc colonies, fhouId be placed and PFC
fsrved throush the war, Ia the fame fztc, a. If
| il had not occurred. Great Britain ihould in
fefpctt 60 them take the place Of the parent
country, and do every thing which the latter
would have done, had thero been no wall
To di6harge that dary, il would be neceHary
for her 10 eaablifh fuch police over the colo
ny, az 60 be able to examine their circumfauces
attending Il annually, to afcerain whether the
crops were abundant. fuppIes from other quar-
tcfs had failed, and eventually to decide wheth-
CT under fucb circumRsnces the parent country
wopld have opened the ports to neutral powers.
Bat thefe Offices cannot be performed by any
power which is not in poneAion of the colony
that can only be Obtained by consueH, in which
cafe. the vitlor would of courfe have right to
regulate its trade as il thought fit. .,.t,
Ii Is ALTO faid that neutral powers have no
right TO profit of the advantages which are gain
ed in war, by the arms OF Great Britain. This
afgomept has even Iefs weight than the others.
Il does not, in truth. apply At all to the.qucf-
lion. Neutral powers do not claim right, al
already obfeved. 10 any commerce with the CO.
lonies which Great. Briwin may have couquefed
of her enemies, othefwiie than on the conditions
which fhe impofes.---T The point in que&iop,
turns on the commerce which they are eatitlcd
to with the colonies which fhe has not conquer.
ed, bot &ill remain fnbjed TO the domiaion OF
the parent country. With zach it 10 contend
ed, for reafons that have been already given.
that neatral powers have right to enjoy all the
advantages in trade which the parent country al.
lows them right which the mefe circumftance
of war cannot deprive them. II Great. Britain
had right TO prohibit that commerce., il exiasd
before the war began, and of cosrie before ihe
had gained any advantage over her enemies. II
/, did NOT then exit. il certainly does not at
the prefent tins. Rights Of the kind in qaef-
ton, cannot depend on the fortune Of war, or
other contingencies. The Law which regulates
them 10 invariablc, until il be changed by CON-
petent authority. Ii forms a rule equally be-
tween beIligerent powers, and between nentral
and beligetenf, which 10 dictated by sealou and
faottioned by the ufsge sad content of oations.
The foregoing cons nfderatous have, il IS pre-
fumed, proved that the CLAIM, of Great Britain
to prohibit the commerce OF neutral powers in
the manner propofcd. is rcpagnaut to the Law OF
narions.--f however. any doobt femsius Oh
that point, other eonGderatious which may be
urged cannot fail to remove il. The number OF
orders of different imports which have been IL
fucd by government, to rcgulate the fe'zufc OF
neutral velels is proof that there 10 no efsb-
lifhcd law for the purpofe. And the Rrietncfs
with which the courts have follow ed thoie ordefs
through the various notifications, 10 equally a
proof that there is no other authority for the
government of their deci6ons. II fthe order oI
the 9Th of November, 1898. contained the
ruc doctrine of the law of nations. there would
| have been no occafion for thofe which followed
4 =. - Fl. Eavsk ~
| fued :: indeed il that order bad been in conior.
| nifty with that law, there would have bean no
occaGon for il. A. 10 the caies OF blockade and
contssband. the law would have beea well
known without an order, Especially one 70 very
deiciptive, the intcrsN Of the crriien, which
| 10 always iuficiently active, would have promp.
! ted them to make the fcizures, and the opinions
of eminent writers, which 10 that cafe would
not have been wanting. would have furnfhed
the courts the beft authority for their deciGons.
| I fhall now proceedto ihew that the deciiiops
complained Of are contrary 70 the understanding
or what, perhaps may more properly be called
an agreement of the two governments on the
fubjeA. By tho order of the 9th Of November.
ITO, fome hundreds OF American vefIels were
feized. carried into port. and condemned.
Thoie ieizures and csndemnations became the
fubjed Of an immediate negotiation between the
two nations, which terminated in treaty, by
which il was agreed to fubmit the whole fub-
jeA to commiaioners, who hould be invefed,
with full power, to icttle the controversy which
had thos arifeu, That aipuIstion was carried
into complete effces conmifioners were ap-
pointed, who examined laborioufly and fully.
oil the cafes Of ieizurc and condemnation which
had taken place. acd finally decided on the fame.
| in which deci6ons they condemned the princi-
pie Of the order and awarded compensation to
thofe who had fuhered ander Il. Thsie ..
wards have been fnce fairly and hononSly dif-
charged by Great Briuin. Il merits particular
attention that part Of the 9Th article Of that
treaty. referred exprefIy to the point in quei-
sion. and that il was on the folemn delibefation
Of each government, by their mutual coniept.
expunged from il. Il feems therefore 70 be i'm.
poiEblc TO conhder that tranfaetion undcr all
the circumRsnces attending il, in any Other
light than ~ fair and amicable adjuAncnt Of
the qseffiop between the parties oue which
authorized the juR expectations, thar il would
never have become again caufe Of complaint
hetween them. The ienfe of both was exPreis.
ed on il 10 manner too marked aud explicit. to