Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1806-01-30

or The whole territory which any govern
m.nt pnssesses?-Can one brlllgefene
.eonire any right to the territory OF ano-
ther, bu,by conquest ?-And can any
rights. which appertain thereto, be other
wise defeated or curtailed in wars-in
whatever light therefore, the subject IS
viewed, itappears to me evident that this
doctrine cannot be supported. No d'stlnc'
ton founded in reason can be taken be-
tween the different parts of the territory OF
the same powerto justify it. The separa.
tion of one portion from another by the
sea, gives lawfully to the belllgerent
which is superior on that element, a vast
ascepdancy in all the concerns on which
the success of the war or the relative pros
periey of their respective dom;nions, may
in any degree depend. Il opens to such.
power ample means for its own aggrfan-
cisemen., and-forlhe harrassmens and dis,
tress of Its adversary.
With these il should be satisfied. But
neither can that circumstance nor can a.
ny of internal arrangement, which any
power may adopt for the government OF
its dominious, be construed to gives 10 It's
enemy any othsrsadvantage over IL. They
certainly do notjustify the doctr'oe IN CUES
ton, which asserts, that the law OF nations
varies in its application to different poI-
'sions of the territory OF the same power,
That it operates in one mode IN respect
TO one, and 10 another, or even not at all
in respect to. another, that the rights OF hu-
mani,y, OK neutral powers, ano ali other
rig.,s are to sink before it.
1t is further urged that neutral pow.
.ers ought not TO complain OF this restraint,
because they stand under it on the same
ground, with respect TO that commerce
which they held in lime OF peace. Bu:
th,s fac, if true gives no support to the
preten,ion. The claim involves a CUES
zion of right, not of interest. 1t the neu.
trai powers nave a right in war to such
commerce with the colonies of the enemies
ofsGrea,Bfitain, as the parent states resPec-
lively allowed, they oughtno to be dePrlv-
ed of i, by her, nor can ltsJnst claims be
satisfied by any compromise OF the kind
alluded to.
For this argument to have the weight
which is intended togi.e II, the commerce
OF the neutral powers with those colonies
should be placed and preserved through the
war in the same state, as if it had not oc-
CURED. Great Britain should In respect 20
them take place of the parent country, and
do every thing which the latter would have.
done, had there been 10 war. TO dis
charge that duty, ivwould be necessaryfor
her 70 establish such a police over the,
colony, as 10 be able to exam!ne the Cir.
canssances~ attending it annually, TO asceT.
tain whether the crops were abundant, sup
plies from other quarters had failed, and
eventually to decide whether under such
circumstances the parent country would
have opened the ports TO neutral powers.
But these oGcesscannot be performed BY
any power which is not in possession OF
thu colony; that can only be obtained BY
coaquest, in which case, the victor would
of course nave a right to regulate It's trade
as it thought fit.
+ Il, is also said, that neutral powers have
no right to profit Of the advantages which
are gained in war, BY the arms of Great
Bfi am. This argument has even less.
weight than the others. 1t does rot, IN.
truth, apply a. all to the question. Neu
trail powers do net claim a right, as already
observed, to snv N With the. celc.
nies which Great Britain may have coz.
CURED Of. enemies, otherwise than on
the coodri.ls which sh- imposes. Tae
point in question: turns on the con. meTce
wh oh they a e IN tiled to WIKI the colonies.
which she has not conquered, bui Sill re
main subject TO the dominion OF tn. parent
country. With such it is commended, tor
rea' ons tha, have been already gwen, thai
neutral powers havea righs TO enjoy all che