The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-02-01


quetion. Neutral powers do not claim light,
as already ohierved, to any commerce with the
colonies winch Great Britain may ha { con.
quered OF her enemies, otlferwite than the
conditions which The impofes. The point in
queition turns on the commerce which they are
entitled TO with the colonies which ihc has nor
conquered, but ifill remain tubeGt to the do
mlnion of the parent country. With fuch it is
contended, for reafors that have been already
given, that neutral powers have right to- en-
JOY AL the advantages in trade which the parent
country allows them right of which the mere
c,rcumttance or war cannot deprive them. IF
Great Britain had right to prohibit tia, con-.
merce, it exifted before the war began, and OF
courie before ihe had gained any advantage over
her enemies. If it did not then exiG, it certain.
~ does not at the prefent time. Rights of IN.
kind in queltion, cannot depend ON the fortnn,.
OF war, or other contingencies. The law which
regulates them is invariahe, until it be changed
by the competent authority. Informs rule e.
qualiy between belligerent powers, and between
neutral and bellieerrnt, which is dictated by re,
ion and ianetioncd by the ufage and confrot of
nations. u
The foregoing considerations have, il is nre-
i ,i,, proved that the claim of G. B. to psc-
hioit the commerce of neutral powers, in th,.
manner propofed, is repugnant TO the i,u,
uatiohs: III, however, any doubt remaineu on
that point other conideratioas which NAV h..
urged cannot rail to remove it. The pumb,-
OF orders or different imports which have be-,
'iueo by government, to regulate the Ge;xnr,
or Neutral vefic!s is proof that there il mo
| iiihed law for the purpofe. And the f,i,incT.
win Which the courts have followed thoCs ~.
gers, through their various notifications, is e.
| qually proof that there is no other an,b,r;,.-
FOR the government of their decifons. Ifth.
order of the 9th of November, 1908. cont.;n.S
the true doctrine of the law of nations. tber,.
| wouh nave been no occaGon for thole wb;ch
followed, nor is it probable that thew vouIa
have been iiiued indeed if that order had been
10 conformity with that law, there would have
eeen no occaiion for it. As in the cafes of
| o'ocKaoe and contraband, the law would have
eeeh wen known without an order, Especially
one 10 very detcriptve the interuf Of ,h.
cruiiers, which is always efficiently ,tf;ye
would have prompted them to make the fs;-
Zares, aud the opinions of eminent writero
winch IN that cafe would not have been W..
ing, would have fiirnihcd the court, tbe h.G
authority for their decilions. VII
mall now proceed to thew that the dec;f,r.
complained OF are contrary to the uuderf
,nI m. ol wha1' perhaps may more properly be.
I ci, d" aereG,hent OF the two governments, ON
the tnhje6t. BY the order of the 9Th No ,1o o'
Tome hundreds of American vefIels wer. Co.. 80
carried INTO port and condemned. TboE. Cs;
ures and condemnatfons, became the f,b;.,a g
an Immediate negotiation between the t,vo a.,
tiens, which terminated in treaty. hv ,yl; !
1t was agreed TO ftIbnit the whole fuhie4 -
commihoners, who fhould be invefled with full
power, to fettle the controversy which had tbrs
| arheh. NAT liquidation was carried into com
piete effect; commifiioners were appointed
who examined laborioufy and fully al 49,,
Gales offeizure and condemnation which had "a
ken place, and finally decided on the + me. in
! wnich oeclhons they condemned the princinlc
OF the order and awarded compenfition TO thoT.
who had fuffered underit. Thofe award. bsys
been flnce fairly and honorabIy dif.harged bv
". Is. 1t merits particular attention that a part
Vi tne lZth article OF that treaty, referred ex.
prefsly to the point in qusftjon, and that II w..
on the folemn deliberation of ea,h oove,n,,s,,.
f by their mutual content, expunged from f. ~
ieems therefore to be mpof1ible 70 conGd ~ III a
traniaeiion, under all the cir; umnances attend,
ing 1t, in any other light than rs fair and ami
, cable adjuftment of the queitinn between the
, parties Gre which authorized the iuft txnrtaa,
ton, that IT would never have bcco.,- aos;n !,
cauie OF complaint between them. TIL. finn
OF Doth was e%prefed on it in manner too
marked and explicit, 70 admit OF a :, E;.rer,t
conclu,Ion. The fubictt too was Of arat,,r.
that when once ietted ought to be conGdero,,
as ie't'ed forever. It is not like quefiops op
commerce oetWcen two powers, which afr 81
ther internal concerns, and depend, of con G,
on the interna! regulations of each When tbefs
latter are arranged by treaty, the tights whiei,
accrue to each party under it, in tie interior
the other, ceafe when the treaty expires. Rsc;,
has right afterwards to decide for itc.lf /,
what manner that concern flall be regulated i,
tnture, and in that decfion TO conf!t foley il
ntereh. But the prefent topic is of a very dP,
fefent character. It involves no oueGion Of
commerce or other internal concern between
the two nations. Itrefpects the commerce or
r ", which either may have with the enemier ~
| the other, in time Of war 1t involves. tbe re-,
fore, only queftion of right, under the law 81
nations, which in its nature cannot Gufln,tr
IT is proper to add, that the concInCion aboys
mentioned, was further fupported, bv the in,
portant facf, that until the late decree. in tbr
cafe or the Efiex, not one American yefIel. or.
, gagged IN this commerce, had been condemned
on this doctrine; that feveral which were met
IN the channel, by the Bri.ifl, cruiiers, werA
permitted, after an examination Of their p,pers'
to purdue their voyage. This eircumfancs
Ju'tihed the opinion, that commerce was deeu,
ed lawful one by G. u.
There is another ground, on which the late
textures and COMBINATIONS are conGdered no
highly Objectionable, and to fi,rniR, iuf can't,
OF complaint TO the y. S. Until he foal re-