The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-03-25

~
forbid trade not open in time of peace, to he
free IN time ofwar? Can that trade he C,id to
be unfair. illegal or dilhonen, which has been
| uniformly fanStioned by the practice and
treaties Of every civilized nation, not excepting
Great Britain herfclf ?--Bnt thi. trade is faid
to be unfair and illegal, becauie il covers the
properly of enemies under the neutral flag
| It is faid that the colonial produce of France is
the property of Great Britain, it The can take
u on French Territory, or on the Ocean that
the American ve!Itl has right TO deprive
Great Britain of this benefit of the rights of
war: and therefore the cargo is as much fi,b-
Ject to conhscation when Covered bv the
American Nag a. il would have been, when found
IN French bottom. But i'm the mean time
what becomes of the rights of the neutral !,
Stree fhips make free goods" is as found a
maxim as any in the law of nations, s. not fet up
as to'ne have commended. to fi,it the whim or
waverire convenience of modern times, but
law that is as od as Edward Sd. Of England;
vet admit the lateIy-fet-up pretenfions of the
Brifith Admiralty. and what becomes of this
celebrated maxim. 70 Unexpectedly dear TO the
rights ct neutras !..-Let us even admit the con-
| frdrr 6o3riae, the privilege for which we con-
tend, may admit Of this fimple elucidation:
:: neutral nation baJ its rights AZ we'll as
heiigerent. Even tho we admit that fhe las no
right to carry on dired trade from the colony
tn the mother country, fhe has ftil the RICH, =,
trade with the colony on her own account. She
has the right tn be her own carrier at Leaf, If not
'he { arrier between the COLONY Sc the mother
country. Here then appears to be a clAfllins &
o?poifion of rights. How then are they
to he compromised |? Why, look nj the
|corref2nndence between Mr.. King and Lord
Itawkeibury IN the year 1901, and you will
md how they were compromised with the
Br'ti'h governmen, a. that day. "The high
court Of admiralty Gays the advocate generals
repori) has expressly decided that LANDING tbe
goods and 3o7ins the duties in tie neutral com
Try breaks the continuity of the voyage, anu
is fiIch animoortation as lecalzes the trade. al.
though the fhip's goods he re-!l,ippcd in the
lame vef'el. and on account of the fame nell
trail proprietors and forwarded for fale To the
mother country" In other words, the Britilh
government has confrnted to accept of this teR
AS fufh ient proof that the property on board
the neutral bottom was not the property of
the enemy, but of the neutr u. No doubt this
rule Is an arbitrary one no doubt in many
cafes it produces evafion and deception bur
vas IT not far better to agree nj once upon
fome fixed and wel!-defned rule for at.iudicat.
inc the property on the high feas, than in eve.
nv particular cafe To have To go into circum-
rainfall enquiry of whether this cargo belongs
to the neutral or 70 the eremy According to
the rule here laid down, neutral velItI, meet
ing Br'tiih cru'fer on the high feas, may fcttle
the qneftion of property by the mere exhibition
ot her authenticated PAPERS. But according to
fhe other dofrine, fhe would have to wade
through lang admiralty inveftigation; the
BrI.ih crnifer would turn her from her courfc
deprive her perhaps of the benefits of mar
ket, drag her before court of admiralty, and
detain her until every paper was Tanned, every
'eaman examined aud every circuntance flied
out, by Which her cargo might he fufpeSted 10
be enemy's property. Shall then trade be
declared to be unfair, dfhonelt and illegal.
which IS thus rec commended by fuch ttrong con-
1,sni-1ee; which has been fan6tioned bv the uni
form practice of nations, and which Great Bri-
tain herfclf, in 1901, "recognifed as legal ~
Let us once too denominate this trade an un-
fair and ILLEGAL one and acknowledge the RICH,
ot Great Britain to remove whenever fhe pleafes
the eftabIiihed landmarks of the law of NATIONS, 4
and what boundaries NAV Drefi,mr TO fet TO
her encroachments. The Maeltroom of herr
power will but extead its rage with every vic.
tim which it fwallows and the very trade
which we now carry on with France, may to.
morrow he declared illegal, under the very &C.
tommodat'ngrr-.ext of its increafng thersfour
ces nt IN enemy.
We beg, too, the opponents, of Mr.. Michel
fon's refoluton to recolett that it is not to fup
port an illegal trade alone, that we would a.
dept This zvar-mea)itre againft Great Britain
They forget that we have another & perhaps a
more ferrous fource of complaint. Muft we
recall to cur reader the three tboaf1nd Ameri-
can ftamen imprefitd into Birth veifeIs
When the Marquis d'Yruio acknowledged that
" the po.oer was not able to prevent" the
condemnation of our vefTeIs in its ports, what
contempt did We not feel for his mott Catholic
Maefty! po7ver and yet not able TO pre-
vent the mot fragrant encroachments upon her
rights Would it not have been a mof delight
full fpetsac!e, had we too, have found ourfelves
reduced ~ this very enviabIe fate of iniignif-
canoe. Suppofe that the French minifter had
feinnotratcd with oar government upon the
aid thus indirectly given to the B,itifh navy
Suppofr him TO have produced our own lin of
5000 American feamen, impreTed on board
Britifh veiirls, aud fighting againft France fup-
pnte him to have found in the lit of the feamen
lain off c. Trafalgar, the names of at leaf ur
400 OF our countrymen; fuppofe him then to
have turned down Mr.. Jcfferfon's letter to Mr..
Pinckney Of September '93, and put his fin
ger upon the following cafe in point: ellis
an ef1eatia character of neutrality to furniih
no aids mot fipulated by treaty. to one party,
WHICH we are not equally ready TO furdifh to
the Other. five permit corn to be TENT to G..
Britain and her friends, we are equally bound
TO permit II TO France. To refrain it would