The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-01-23

gons; both bcir. trades f.c< one port 10 another
port OF the fame nation. IL NOT TO be Inferred
from the authorities here cite. that Coating trade,
in the produce of the eouufy, il carried not ON
freight, but as property bebaging to the neutral
owner OF the hip, is fubea amy penalty. This
indulgence to the coating, rigor towards the Coz
lonai trade, is it tn be explained by the fertility Of
the ons and the little value E the other, fouree
OF capture and commercial profit, or in what other
way!
With reipe& to the orders IF "a and 9s, and the
colonial trade it appears lave been in general I'M
deriteod, that they b. contrued as fuee ~
iy charging the trade OF neutrk with the coo,s Of
enennes, IN the manner aAio the c;;tent above ,S-
planned.
The dilemma was sed Unavoidable; either the
orders were to be eonfd.Ie! relaxa,ons, land if
rslASations at all, i, that enent) leaving the
generA principle in force in ees not fpeeied in the
orders and therefore rslaxasons Al all.
This latter deeifion would have given character
OF moekery to the profefor ard parade of making in
their orders, 10 many facrfses of hclig.rent rights
20 afPrit OF moderation and amty towards neutrals
1 ne former Tide of the dbe3nns, therefore, was
neeearily taken. The orders, th:!e Of 81 and '98
at leat, were relaxations.
As relaxss'ons however in the extent required BY
an obvious and confident inter .etaton, the door,
Pened to neutral commerce with the beligerent colo
MES, was found to be wider than compatible Ell
Their with the ntere2s of Bri,ib commerce. the avi-
di,y OF Brith cruzers, or the probable intentions OF
the Britiih government.
What was to be the remedy The fra tried was
that huttiug the door gradually by the dnt of con-
trutoss, as May be feeu by tracing the colo.al ca
les adudged by Sir William Scott, aud reported by
Soonion' and the deeiiioRs Of the Lords of Appeals
referred to By the reporter.
The talk was afluredly 4 Iitte difficult of which
there's the arongea denomination in the crooked aud
contradictory rs1ionngs and DEGREES, into which it
forced the very eminent talents of the Judge who
Prelides in the high court of admiralty.
In addition to the evidence already preented take
the following companion between his rule of con-
iiruaion in the cafe of the Provdeutia,4 and the
rule Of contribution i'll the cafe of; the Emanuel S
In the former cafe, AuguR Is, 1899, he sbfcrves,
|" the ira nltruons were to bring in all i,ips which
-, had been trading with any colony of the enemy
but this country afterwards receded from hofe d.
reSions; and the fecond orders were to bring in
q all fhips laden with the produce Of the Wef-
India i1nds, Gaming d7,eG7iy from the ports of the
iaid iaands 10 any port in Europe. / cannot but
eoniider this as Abandonment nf the former law
+" inarueton1 and cannot but think that a cruifer
taking this nltru9on, in eeznusio4 zeb i5ol CIV
en- before, wtf boar ic/crrel tina, it was no longer
the intention oi government to bring in, and much
ieis TO contifeite. was there for this Siitiic
tion!] eargoes of Weh-Isda produce, ual;G corr
ing to one port in Europe this followed by in
ftruetions now in force. which direct the bringing
IN n all veieis laden with the produce Of the French
and sraniih fst,leents, coming yo.. the ports of
iuch ettemenss to any port of Europe, Other than
the ports OF that country to which the ve!el be-
longs. 1t is certainly not Lid down in the pera-
tive that they hall not bring in fch veels as are
coming from fuch festlements to their own ,or,s
but locking at tie foraey isfrs!:isn, think il was
" hrong ad'noniioD to cruers 20 bring in fuch
ihiPs, and believe it has been generally 70 under
nd land Sod h.,, I.
earsoes brought from, Surrinam 10 ports in Europe
TO which the vefels belonged, have been uniformly
rsttored on proof of the neutrality of the property
The reaionng here is PLAIN and juf The frR
nruetons designated for capture tn. colonial trade.
WITHOUT diainguiIhiug between Europe and Ameri
ca the fecoid delsnated the trade to Europe only
therefore, by tar inference, the trade to America
was exempted from capture.
Again, the fecond orders deGgnated for capture
the trade to Europe the third order, deignated the
trade to pores of Europe being of Gr.o Britain or
Of TIE ssHat,y e.vaiHg tie V: therefore by fair n-
ference the trade is Great Britain and to countries
owning the vefels, was exempted from capture.
In the Emanuel, November Z, 1899, the cafe was
that Of neutral ihp taken Oh a voyags lat from
Frrnce to a French colony. According to the rea-
ioning Of Sir William Scott, ua quoted, the inevi-
table inference ought to have been that the VOYAGE
was legal.
The hTit initruaions ,defgnased for capture the
trade 10 aud from the colonies Both the fecond and
third dehsnatrd fer capture tie trade only fran the
colonies; therefore, according to that reafoning, the
trade 70 the colonies, was excmpielEom capture.
Hear nevertheless the reaioning employed by the
judge himief in this cafe.
After combating the neutral RICH: to trade with the
colonies of an enemy, by arguments applicable in
principle, asweli to trade between neutral ports and
the colonies, to trade between the mother coun-
try and its coonies he proceeds Rate in anlser
to all pleas for neutral trade from the mother coun
try its colonies, that the true rule to this court
" thetext of the inlruaons; what is not found
" therein permitted, is underfood to be prohibited
" upon this plain principle, that the colony trade is
generally prohibited, ard that whatever i, not fpe
" ciay relaxed, continues in fate of Introduction"
Now what is net ftrmhied not eeiaYy yelas.S il
by the infruaon to continu. prohibited the quefion
to DC decided is, what it is that is permitted or fpe
caliy relaxed by the nfruaobs? Is it what is pofi
lively and expressly permitted or relaxed Then |
there is permiiion relaxation at all for every
thing poitive and exprefs in the inruaun is for the
capture, not for the perniion or relaxation Isit to
be permion relaxation implied and Inferred from
poitive and fpeci6ed prohibition in one ORDER and
an omion Of that or OF a prrt Of that prohibition
in iuccscding order? Then the neutral trade from
beiigerent country 10 it's colonies which was prohi
bed in the order Of 79s, aud omitted in the Or
ders Of 1894 aud 1898, was as much permitted as
specially relaxed the trade from neutral country
:he colonies of enemy, perni ted or relaxed b
the onIfon in the orders of 1894 and 'ss to rrob;