Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1808-04-26
TcoNTINUEns]

IS
March.
IcoNrINUEn.]
But it is supposed that although tie
orders of the British government may no!
have Inhibited this trade. il IS comptiseo
10 the general Inhibition OF the British
principle. If the Brisish:prineiple-i nhlbits
such trade, which doenot admit, 1t does
no,follow that sanction 10 that inhibltion
is given By this article, for ressoos already
sta,ed. II the provision or the ar.,cle
does not extend 70 that trade, the rignIs
! of the parties cauno, be affected by IT,
Taey remain eaially 10 force against the
prlnciple, a. sgaias, the instructions, hsd
sh-r inhibited il. Bot1hc claim 10 an ex.
emp,ion from this trade from the oPersuon
of the British pfiuciple, rests OK slls
stronger gound. admitting that II ever ex
tended 30 II, which however am tar from
adnn,iug. II can be shewn that ihe or
aers the mselves, take il completely from
wi5hin the scope of that. principle. by, in.
strac,iog the cru;sers 30 seize vessels en-.
gagged 10 par,icular trade, every other
srsde is allowed. II is 10 thai mode, that
what's called a relaxation Of the British
principle. is effected. The order reduces
,he-principle TO its Owe standard, or, 10 o.
Their words, becomes the principle itself.
IF tfais doctrine is not true, It is impossible
TO designate 10 what mode the relaxation,
which is universally admitted, OF the bri.
tish psincipie-i, wrought; orto prove that
there has been any reiaxa,ioo OF /, whate.
YER H the orders have Dot thareHect, OF
what avail are they? That they have that
effect is proved by the decisions of the
courts, and tie practice under them. lam
aware of the broad docuiSe held by the
courts on the subject, but thu, deo'ripe.
necessarily ambiguous fron the dilemma
in which the courts we're placed by the 10
consistent orders of the government, j! nor
recoucileable to this construction AS |
shiok it is, when he whole subject is taken
into view is con,radic,ed tytne decisions
Of The sam= courts and sheexpianasioas OF
the government itself,
say that this trade is not inhibited by
The British principle because it supposes a
trade between enemy colonies and the mo.
eher couotry. Bur trade between he u.
S. and Asia ADD Africa. let The subject of
it be whaf il may. is not trade of thar
kind, Itisatrade with independent pow.
ers at peace with Great B,itain, with WHOM
we have right to trade, by all the rules
which Great Britain has 81 anyyiims insist.
ca 90. Itwoe,d be of dangerous tendency
to admit that Great Bsitaio had profession
20 interfere with such trade 10 any case.
After the goods are reeeieed sneo-tae g.
S. 90 matter O. what articles they consist,
or from what quarter they csme, they are
the property Of the country, and may CT
right be shipped TO any Other country.
The British principle does not con,roveTf
this doctrine. Il asserts in It's widest range
the right only 20 seize them on their route
to the neutral country, aad from 1t 10 the
mother country of the colony, or some O.
Their enemy country of Europe, provided
they be rot Incorporated into the stock OF
the ueutras country. IF they are, .hey may
so under the arrangement made, 70 the
countries TO which the British principle aP
plies. But they require 10 sanction from
the British government, 20 50 TO those TO
which il does GOT apply, The destination
Of The vessel alone would, as presume,
diapel every doubt of the legality of the
trade, and preclude all farther inquiry con.
ceruingit. I'hequestiou of continuity OF
voyage could never arise IN such case.
It's cerrain that the arrangement alluded
10 gives 90 sanction TO it, aud for the bes,
OF all reasons, that the trade was not ad-
mis,ed, or even couteuded to be comprised
within the range of British princiel G.
Ishall close my remarks on this pointb BY