The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-07-22
Tbr enquirer.
RICHMOND, a2d JULr.
Mr.. rox's LETTER TO MR.. MuNRoE

upon Nlr. FOX letter, they have fuppoied 1t
to admit partial relaxation of the principle,
laid down by G. Britain. The exprefIion.
which they faften upon, is "provided fuch
ihips and vellels 70 approaching and entering
&c N5aN not haze been laden at any port, belong
g ing to. or in petition of; any Of bis majeRy's
=" enemies." What is this but admitting (ac-
cording TO thefe nterpreters) that if the colo
NAL produce be fhipped in the u. States, in
ftead of being tent directly from the colony to
the mother country, it would i" not be pre1,eut-
ed from entering into TIE blockaded ports
And what is this hut indirectly Eanfioning that
colonial trade, about which there has been 70
much diIcnilion and 70 much warmth But
to this interpretation, there are three unan-
fwerable objections
lift: That imple proclamation of block
ade would never have been employed as me-
dunn for communicating this grand couceffion.
Had the principle been recognized bv G. B.
it would not have Observation-Disclosures hat fmal tract
of coat alone which is bere placed under block.
ade. Inftead of being limited to the coat be-
tween Brett and the Seine, and that between
Offend and the Elbe, the principle would have
been made to comprehend the whole world.
2dly: That the condition here exprefIed,
aud underfood according to the obyious inn
port of the words, is an e1ntiaI feature in the
proclamation. Perhaps no blockading pro-
clamation ever 70 much abounded in nice DIFF
tinctions and numerous fpeci6cations, as this
one. None had ever more completely enume-
rated all the branches of trade which were
prohibited, and the different degrees of prohi-
bition which were impofed upon different ports.
Would it not then have been exceedingly i'm
proper to have excluded from this enumeration
a Jingle branch of trade fxfeptibie otGefntion,
that was TO be regarded as illegal ? But af-
ter prohibiting the trade in contraband, the
trade in goods belonging to his majefty's enc
mics, and making other limitations, would not
the trade carried on from one of the enemies
ports to another, be confidered as legal, had it
ALTO not been expressly prohibited . 1t was to
remove this embarraliment, that,the preceding
provifon was introduced. 1t was to ihow
neutral veiiel, that it was not to enter any of
the biockaded ports, though it might be laden
with neutral goods and not contra6and of war,
unlefs it had been ALTO laden in neutral bort.
1t is ufelefs to reply, that if this mode of
contribution be correct, it would be alto ap-
Plicahle to the colonial trade, carried on thro'
the medium of the U. States for if every
branch of the prohibited trade is 10 be named
expressly by that proclamation, why was not
this branch alto expressly forbid But this Oh
je6tion is ea6ly aufwered. The colonial trade,
which is conlidered by Great-Britain as contra.
ry to the law of nations, is not fufceptible of
exact definition. 1t is not every branch of
that trade, which they conlider illegal. 1t
would have been improper to have prohibited
in the proclamation, every vefIcl laden in the
United States with colonial produce from en-
tering the blockaded ports, becaufe thew have
never extended their anti-nsutraHfuo prjncinle
to every vefiel that fails out of our ports.
Some vefiels are permitted to pats free, Whit
others are oonhfcated. The ONLY nrinciole
for which they have ever commended, is not,
that every veffel is engaged in an unlawful
trade, which is freighted with the colonial pro.
duce of their enemy, but only when that pro.
duce was imported into America for the surs,n
OF exporting it to fome of their enemy's ports
in Europe. Had Mr.. Fox, therefore, intro.
duced this branch of trade among the other
prohibited branches he would have aTerted
a principle in all its extent, which, anidt the
mott exorbitant Entertainments of the Britib
government, has been hitherto but bartie,ils flp-
ported.
srdly: That there is another exprsfTin in
the proclamation, which laws this trade com.
Piefey open to the cupidity of Great-Britain ::
" Such blockade fhall not extend to prevent
q" neutral ihips and vefIels, laden with goods
no! being tie property Of bis ,nair9p's enemies.
81 from approaching the fad co7ts,' But
where is the fandard, for determining what !.
or is not the property Of bis uajrfy's enemies ?
1t is here that the net is laid for entrapping men,
trial property. 1t is here that the queftion is
aiked, does this colonial cargo belong to an
enemy or neutral 1t is here, that thew have
abandoned that teit, which Lord Hawieibury
had conidered in 1901 as ftlficient to prove
the neutrality of the cargo that is, the land
ing and paying of the duties In fact, on what
other principle have they continually prefumed
to interrupt our flag, than that it was fraudu.
lent cover for enemy's property?