The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-22

this business The first of these bears date
on the 9th of November, 1898; the second
on the 9Th of January, 1894; the third on
the 25th January, 1898. Other orders have
been issued since the commencement of the
present war. 1t is these orders which have
authorised the seizures that were made, at
different times, in the course of the last war.
and were lately made by British cruizers of
the vessels of the U. States They too form
the law which has governed the courts in
the decisions on the several cases which have
arisen under those seizures. The first of
these orders prohibits altogether every spe-
cieS or commerce between neutral countries
and enemies colonies, and between neutral &
other countries, in the productions of those
colonies; the second and subsequent orders
modify 1T i'll various forms. The doctrine
however, in every decision, is the same it
is contended in each, that the character and
Just extent of the principle is to be found in
the first order, and that every departure from
it since, has been a relaxation of the princi-
pie, not claimed of right by neutral powers.
but conceded IN their favor gratuitously by G..
Britain
In support of these orders it is urged, that
as the colonial trade is a system of rnonopo-
ly to the parent country in time of peace,
neutral powers have no right to participate
in 1t in time of war, although they be per-
mitted so to do by the parent country that
a belligerent has right to interdict them
from such commerce. 1t is on this system
OF internal restraint this regulation Of colo
NAL trade, by the powers having colonies.
that a new principle of the law of nations is
attempted to be founded one which seeks
to discriminate in respect to the commerce
OF neutral powers, with belligerent, be-
tween different parts of the territory of the
same power and likewise subverts MANY O.
Their principles of great Importance, which
have heretofore been held sacred among ma
tons. 1t is believed, that so important a su
perstructure was never raised on so slipht
a foundation. Permit me to ask, does it fol-
low, because the parent country monopolizcs
IN peace the whole commerce of its colonies,
that III war II should have no right to regu-
late it at all That, on the contrary it
should be construed to transfer, in equal ex-
tent, right to its enemy, to the prejudice of
the parent country, of the colonies, and of
neutral powers? If this doctrine was sound.
1t would certainly institute new and singu-
lar mode OF acquiring and losing rights one
which would be highly advantageous to one
party, while 1t was equally injurious to the
other. 10 the colonies, more especially, it
would prove peculiarly onerous and oppress-
i've. 1t is known that they are essentially
dependent for their existence. on supplies
States of America, who being in their neigh
borhood, have the means of furnishing them
with greatest certainty, & on the best terms.
Is 1t not sufficient that they be subjected to
that restraint In peace, when the evils atten-
ding 1t, by the occasional interference of the
parent country, may be, and are frequently
repaired Is it consistent with Justice or
humanity, that 1t should be converted into
principle, IN favor of an enemy, inexhorable
OF course, but otherwise without the means
OF listening to their complaints, not for their
distress or oppression only, but for their ex-
termination But there are other insupera-
BILE objections to this doctrine. Are not the
colonies OF every country part of its do
main, and do they not continue to be Sc until
they are severed from it by conquest Is
not the power to regulate commerce Incl
Gent to the sovereignty, and is it not Cock
tenSlVe over the whole territory which any
government possesses Can one bellieerent
acquire any right to the territory of another.
but by conquest And can any rights which
appertain thereto, be otherwise defeated or
curtaiied IN war! In whatever light, there
iore, the SUBJECT is viewed, it appears to me
EVIDENT tnat this doctrine cannot be support
ed. No distinction, founded in reason. can
be taken between the different parts of the
territory of the same power to Justify it.
he separation OF one portion from another
by the sea, gives lawfully to the bellgerent
winch is superior on that element, vast as
cendancy III all the concerns on which the
success OF the war, or the relative prosperity
OF their respective deminions, NAV in any
degree depend. Itopens to such power, am
pie means for its own ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and
Ter the harrassment and distress of its adj
versary With these it should be satisfied.
But neither can that circumstance, nor can
any OF internal arrangement, which any
power may adopt for the government of it's
dominions, be construed to give to its enemy
any other advantage over it. They Certain
ly do not justify the doctrine in question,
which asserts, that the law of nations varies
In It's application to different portions of the
territory OF the same power that it ope-
rates in one mode, in respect to one, and in
another, or even not at all, i'm respect to ano-
Their; that the rights of humanity, of neutral
powers, and all other rights, are to sink before
it.
1t is further urged, that neutral powers.
ought not to complain of this restraint, be
cause they stand under it, on the same ground
with respect to that commerce, which they
held in time of peace But this fact, if true
gives no support to the pretension. The claim
involves question of right, not of interest.
1T the neutral powers have "A right in war,
to such commerce, with the colonies of the
enemies of Great-Britain, as the parent
states respectively allowed they ought not
to be deprived Of tidy her, nor can its Just
claims be satishcdby any compromise of the
KIND alluded 10. For this argument to have
A