Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-04-29


excepted. There can be no motive
with them, therefore, TO agree to the regu-
lation. They woald rather be tempted to
embarrass it, with view 10 continue as
much as possible vexations which lessen
the mutual good will Of The parties Aud
as by their not agreeing 20 the regulation,
the right is reserved To British cruizcrs&o
examine all vessels for the purpose of as
pertaining whether they may NOT belong to
a belligerent, the disturbance of our trade
might be little diminished within the addi-
uonal two miles. Besides the mere inter-
ruption of 4 search concerning the vessel,
it is hardly 10 be expected from the gene
raj spirit of cruizers, that the search will
not be extended TO the cargo; and If the
latter should be thus CT otherwise found
or suspected to be of coniiscable SORT,
that the temptation to capture would be
resisted, the less so perhaps, as the increa.
sed distance from the shore, and the in
creased difficulty of proof, would favor the
chance OF condemnation. or at least coun-
ienance courts in their propensity torefuse
damages and costs to the claimants.
To secure the advantage promised by
this article, the right of search ought to
be suppressed altogether, the additional
space enjoying in this respect the same inn
nunity as is allowed to the marine league.
10 this object the president wishes your
endeavors TO be directed.
Preserve for the 18th article another view
OF the subject, which will claim your at
tenton.
Irficie IS. The general provision here
copied from the treaty of 1894, though not
hitherto found of much effect, in control
ing the Righteousness of cruizers, and We
Try different from the special rules in favor
ofneutrals contained in most treaties which
touch the subject of search, enters very
properly into comprehensive arrange
nient between two friendly nations. The
introductory sentence alone, which consists
OF new matter, invites particular notice.
The expressions seas thc course oftke syo,-
may possibly permit" and "observing, as
much as POSSIBLE, the acknowledged pr;n-
ciples and rules of the law Of aations,"
however favorably intended by the British
|regociators, will not improbably be constru-
ed into relaxati,3 of the neutral right
IN favor OF belligerent pleas, drawn from
circumstances of which belligerent agents
Will be the judges. The expressions may
easily be so varied rs to refer simply 20 the
law ofnations for The rule, and to the friend-
ship OF the parties for the spirit, accord
ing to which the search is TO be conducted
II such an amendment should be deliberate
ly rejected by the British government, it
will be proof of lurking danger, that
VIII recommend an omission of what re-
lates to the subjectof search, in preference
ITO retaining l..
Articles IA, IS and 10, call for no patti
cular observation.
article II. So much of this article as
relates to the admission of ships of war,
would be advaDtageousIy exchanged for
general stipulation, allowing on this subject
he privilege granted to the most favored
nation. 1t would then be in the power of
the United States to limit the number adj
missibie at one time, whereas such an in.
definite admission of British ships imposes
on our neutrality like indulgence to the
fleets of other nations. Such an alteration
OF the article is the more reasonable and
important, as there will be little recipro.
city in its operation; the u. States having
but few ships, and the inconvenience from
BRITISH ships in our ports, being much grea-
ter than those from our ships, in British
ports.
The engagement to treat officers of the
navy with respect, is not only too indefinite
to be enforced by penal regulations. hut i'm.
pies reproachiul defect of hospitality and
civiliiy. In this light it was viewed du-
ring the discussions Of the treaty of 1894.
Inc clause probably grew then out of recent
complaints, well or i'll founded, of disres.
pectful conduct on some occasion towards
British officers If latter occurrences
were to be consulted, it would be more
apt provision now to stipulate for the pun
ishment OF naval commanders making in
sulting and ungrateful returns for the kind
ness and respect shewn them i'm our ports
and towns. The president makes almost q
point Of excluding This part of the article.
articles 1S and i9, already noticed.
Article 20. Considering the great num-
Der OF British merchants residing in the u
States, with the great means of influence
possessed BY them, and the very few Anne
rican merchants who reside In Great Bri-
tam, the Inconvenience which may be in
cident to such protracted right TO remain
during state Of war, is evidently much
greater on cur side than On the other. in
This view the stipulation is very UNEQUAL.
The liberal spirit ofitis, at the same time,
highly commendable. 1t were only to be
wished that the readiness on one side TO
MAKE sacrifices Of this sort, to spirit
which ought to pervade every part Of
treaty between the parties, had been less
met by an apparent disposition on the other
side' rather to extort from, than to emu
late IT,
article 81 Not agreeable, but not to be
an insuperable obstacle.
article %, is altogether proper.
.6rticte % This article. granting the
privileges of the most favored nation,
seems TO require explanation, If not alter