Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1806-02-05
TREATIES.


= well didactic as polemic, avail themselves,
Swheneyer they can, of the authority otliea'
sites.
Treaties may be considered under seve-
ralrelations to the law Of nations, accord
ing 10 the several questions TO be decided.
by them.
They may be considered as simply re-
peating or afirming the general law they
NAV be considered as making exceptions
to the general law, which are 10 be Paril-
e-cular law between the parties themselves
sshey may be considered as explanatory OF
i 1he law of nations, on points where It's
s neaning is otherwise obscure or unsettled !;
in which, case they are, first, a law between
= the parties themselves, aud next, sancti-
on 70 thes generaliaw according TO the rea'
s sonablcness of the explanation, and the
number and character of the parties TO II:
s .lsatly Atrealles may be considered as con.
stiiusing voluntary or positive law OF
nations.
Whether the stipulations IN atreatv are
no be considered as an aflrmance or an ex.
cepuon, or an explanatlen, may sometimes
arpear on the facs of the treaty; some
times being naked stipulations, their cha
racter must be determined by resor.ing TO
other evidences of the law OF nations. In
other words, the question concerning the
treaty<muss be decided by the law, cat the
4aues!ioa concerning the law by the trsaty.
In the present case, it has been shewn,
from the sources generally allowed TO be
the mosr authentic, that the law OF nations
is violated by the principle asserted by
Great Britain. II IS just inference,
therefore, that every article IN treaties con.
.>tradiciing that principle, is an aififmance
and direct proof of the general law; and
that any stipulation of the principle would,
as an exception Of the general law, be an
indirect proof of it.
But supposing for 8 moment, the pre-
esent case 10 belong 10 that class, IN winch
the great oracles of the law OF NATIONS are
obscure, or at variance among themselves,
xand in which, moreover, ihe practice OF
NATIONS, moi being unIorm, is an unsaus-
factory guide and consequently, that the
sepidencc of treaties were necessary In or
4 der 90 ascertain the law still 1t Will be
found that the result of an appeal TO that
e-evidence is very conclusive against the
British pretension. IL may De sonhden'iy
affirmed, that on no point ever drawn into
question, the evidence Of treaties was more
uoiform, more extensive, or@more sasisiae-
tory.
Nay more it may be affirmed that the
treaties applicable 10 this case may fairly be
considered in their relation TO the law OF
nations last noticed that is, as constituting
law of themselves. If, in any case,
rsreaties can be sufficiently general, suttici.
emily uniform, and of sufficient duration,
4.s attest that general and settled concur-
rence of nations in a PriuciPie or rule OF
i copducr among themselves, which amounts
$40 the establishment, of a generallaw; such
an effect cansos reae onably be refused to
ths runbey and character of the treaties
-whica are applicable to The present case
That treaties may amount 10 a law OF
nations, follows from the very deGnilion ct
.sha,law which consists OF those rules OF
~conSloct which reason ded1ces, as conso-
nans 80 iYeIics and common good, from
shA nature of the society existing among
inaependent nations with such definitions
aoa notifications as may be established ey
general consent.
One evidence of general consent is ge-
nSral usage which implies general con-
sent.
Can treaties which express consent be an
inferior evidence, where nothing on the
face of the treaties, nor in any collateral
authority on the law of nations is found to
impair the evidence!
Treaties may indeed in one point OF
view be considered as a higher authority
snan usage, when they have a generality
and continuance which give to usage the
ehe authority OF law; because. all treaties