The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-05-06
Continued from our last. J

| provision could not be obtained against the
practice of British cruizers, in hoyerinp and
taking stations for the purpose of surprising
the trade going in and out of our harbours, a
practice which the British government felt
| to be SO injurious to the dignity and rights of
| that nation, at periods when it was neutral.
An addition, of two miles, nevertheless, to
our maritime jurisdiction, SO far as to pro-
teCt neutral and other unarmcd vessels not
outstanding Its want of any thing like a due
reciprocity, is not without its value This
value Will at the same time be very materi-
ally impaired, if the stipulation cannot be Ii
berated from the clause requiring the con-
sent of the other beligerent nation, as ne
cessary to exempt their vessels from search
and seizure None of the other bellgerert
nations have, in fact, unarmed vessels er
gagged in our trade, nor are they likely ,
have any during the war; and these alone
could derive advantage from their consent (:
their armed vessels being expressly excepted.
mere can be no motive with them therefore
to agree to the regulation. They would ra-
Their be tempted TO embarrassi it, with view
to continue as much as possible vexations
which lessen the mutual good will of the par
TIES. And as by their not agreeing to the regu-
lation, the right is rcservedto British cruiZers
TO examine all vessels for the purpose of as
ce!taining whether they may not belong to
Ioeiigerent, the disturbance of our trade
might be little diminished within the additi-
onal two miles. Besides the mere interrup-
ton OF q search concerning the vessel, it is
hardly to be expected from the general spi-
rlt OF cruiZers, that the search will not be
ieXtended to the cargo, and if the latter should
be thus or otherwise found or suspected to
be of q confscable sort, that the temptation
to capture would be resisted, the less so per-
haPs, as the increased distance from the shore
and the increased difficulty of proof, would
favour the chance of condemnation, or at least
countenance courts in their propensity to re-
fuse damages and costs to the claimants.
10 secure the advantage promised by this
article, the right of search ought to be sup
lpressed altogether, the additional space en-
Toying in this repect the same immunity as
IS allowed to the marine league To this OBJ
lJect the president wishes your endeavors to
1be directed.
Preserve for the 10Th article, another view
of the subject which can claim your attepti-
lon.
| ARTICLE 13-The general provision here
copied from the treaty of 1894. THOUGH NOT
hitherto found of much effect, in controlling
the righteousness of cruizers, and very diff
terent from the special rules in favour of neu-
trails contained In most treaties which touch
the subject of search, enters very properly
into comprehensive arrangement between
two friendly nations The Introductory SEN
tence alone, which consists of new matter.
invites particlar notice. The expressions
"aS The course Of the 7uar may possibly per-
mt, and :. observing, as much as hossibEe
the acknowledged principles and rules of the
law of nations" however favorabIv intended
| by the British negociators, will not impro-
| badly be construed into relaxation of the
neutral right III favor of belligerent pleas,
drawn from circumstances of which belize
RI q &C hot l,e.,, doc
sions may easily be so varied as to refer sim
ply to the law of nations for the rule, and to
the friendship OF the parties, tor the spirit,
according to which the search is to be con-
Quoted. IT such an. amendment should be
deliberately rejected by the British govern
ment it will be a proof of lurking danger
that will recommend an omission of what re.
lates to the subject OF search in preference
to retaining it.
Articles IA, IS, and Is, call for no parti
eular observation.
ARTICLE u SO much of this article as
relates to the admission of ships of war would
be advantageously exchanged for a general
| stipulation, allowing OH this subject, the pri-
Vlege granted to the most favored nation
1t would then be in the power of the United
States to limit the number admissible. at one
time, whereas such an indefinite admission
OF British ships imposes on our neutrality
Ike indulgence to the fleets of other nations
Such an alteration Of the articles is the
more reasonable and important, as there will
! be little reciprocity in its operation the u.
States having but few ships, and the incon-
! yeniences from British ships in our ports.
being much greater than those from our ships
IN British ports.
The engagement 60 treat officers of the
navy with respect, is not only too indefinite
TO DC enforced by penal regulations, but i'm
plies reproachful defect of hospitality and
ciyility. In this light il was viewed during
the discussions OF the treaty of 1894. The
clause probably grew then out of recent com
plants, well or i'll founded, of dsrcspectful
| Conduct on some occasion towards British
officers. If latter occurrences were to be
consulted, it would be a more apt provision
now to stipulatc for the punishment of naval
commanders making insulting and migrate
t,d returns for the Kindness and respect
shewn them in our ports, and towns. The
president makes almost poiut of excluding
this part Of the article.
ARTICLE 18 and 10, already noticed.
ARTICLE 2O.----Considcfing the great
number of British merchants residing with
III the United States, with the great means
| OF influence possessed by them, and the We
~ lew American merchants who reside in
Great Britain, the inconv enience which may
be Incident to such protracted right TO re-
main during state of ,vor ie evideo4it