The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-05-03

those specified, to which the right of capture
Is applicable, is that Of blockades, which
might have been as easily specified as pro-
lvided for by such residuaiy phrase and
the pretext for appropriating this phrase to
the case or the colonial trade, would be
strengthened by the specific provision, in a
subsequent article. for the case. of block
AIDES.
1t cannot be alledged that the spccifca.i-
on OF the two cases of eHemy's property and
contrahand of war, is necessary to prevent
uncertainty and controversy; the u. States
having sufficiently manifested their acouies-
cence IN these Causes of capture. IF there be
a source OF uncertainty and controversy. il
is in the expressions "ofker lawful cause. >,
and "otherwisc conhscable," & this source
could not be increased by the change here
| proposed.
ARTICLE 9.-This article is anirnprove.
| ment OF that on the same subject, in the
| treaty of 1894 ; inasmuch as it excerpts from
the list of contraband, tar and pitch, when
not bound to port of naval equipment: S,
when so bound, substitutes presumption for
| forfeiture. 1t has an advantage also, in the
clause renouncing the principle of the British
order OF June 1908, against vessels returning
from places, to which they had carried con-
traband of war.
On the other hand, it would not have been
o.
vernment would, in treaty with the United
States, have insisted on no stipulation less
favorable than her stipulation on the same
subject, with Russia; especially as the ma
val stores exported from the United States
are equally the growth and produce of the
country.
Consistency; again, as we'll as reason. evil
IDENTITY required that the exception in favor
| OF tar & pitch should have been extended to e.
very species OF naval stores, equally appli-
cable TO other uses than those of war. & des
tined to places, etker than those of naval e.
quipment.
Lastly, it is observable, that even turpen-
tine and rosin are not included with tar or
pitch, In the favorable exceptions, though of
character so kindred as to leave no pre-
text for the distinction
Neither has the British government the
slightest ground for regarding as concessi-
on, the stipulated immunity of a vessel,
which, on her. outward voyage, had carried
contraoand to hostile port. The principle
asserted by her order ON that subject. is an
innovation against the clearcst right of neu
trails, as recognized and enforced even by
British courts. The very language of the ar
tiCle implies that this is a hretence for the
innovation.
These considerations urge a re-modifica-
ton of the article and they are strengthen
ed by the great dislike of the President to
formal recognitions, at this particular mo-
ment, or principles combated by some and
untavorable to all neutral nations So ineligi
bic indeedin his viewis any step tendinp.in the
least to retard the progress of these princi-
pies, that naval stores are to be lett on a
stipulated list of Contraband in the event on
ly, OF an intieXible refusal of the British 90
ment to omit them nor are they to be re-
tanned in any event, without an addition or
explanation that will except turpentine and
rosin, as well as tar and pitch; there being
no plausible motive for the distinction and
the quantity and value of the two former ex,-
ported from the u. States, being found, on
enquiry, to make them of equal Importance
with the two latter. 1t can scarcely be sup
posed that the British government will insist
on this understandable distinction 1t snot.
indeed, improbable, that it has been a r,erh
inadvertence. Such an inference is favored
by the circumstance of your speaking. IN
your comment on this article, of tar and tur-
Pentine as being the two exceptions. What
ever the true state of the case NAV be If &c
thought better to omit a list of contraband
altogether, than not to include in the excen-
ton from 1t turpentine and rosin, as well as
tar and pitch.
L ARTICLE. io-T'he abuse of blockades
mas been so eXtraVaSant, and has produced
so much vexation and injury to the fair com
MERGE OF the u. States, that as on one hand
1t is of great Importance to find a remedy
so, on the other, it is the more necessary
that the remedy should be such as not itself
to admit of'abuse. The considerations whicl,
reconeiled you to the tenor of the article, as
at least constructive approach TO a solid pro-
vision tor the case, are allowed the weight
which they justly merit; whilst the course
which your discussions took are a proof of
the eXertions which were used to give the ar
tcle more satisfactory FORM
The failure, however, of the British com
mlssioners to substantiate favorable con-
struction OF the article, by proper expla-
natory letter addressed to you, with their
reasons to insert in the treaty definition of
blockade, Justify apprehensons that the
vague terms which alone were permitted to
compose the article, would be more likely to
be turned against our object, by courts and
cruizers, and perhaps by less liberal cabi
net, than to receive in practice the more ia
vorable construction. which candor anticipat
ed.
The British doctrine of blockades exem
plitiedb by practice, is different from that of
all other nations, as well as from the reason
and nature of that operation of war. The
mode OF notifying blockade by procamati-
onS q diplomatic communications, ofwhat too
is to be done, rather of what in fact has been
done, is more particularly the evil which is
Ito be corrected. Against these nominal
i,Irs-l- fl1.- A.