The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-11-18


tner, there Gould be no plea for Involving
ithe,p il, the CONTROVERSY But AS the British
orders have made the decree Of France, de-
,claring. contrary to the law Of nations, the
British Islards in q state of blockade. the'
] immediate foundation of their destructive
warfare on our commerce, 1t belongs TO the
subject TO reniind YOUR government OF the IL
legal interreptionssssnd spoliarions suffered.
lprevious to that decree by the neutral COM
tmerce of the Upi,ed States, under the pro
ceedings OF british cruiSers and courts, and
for the most part in consequence OF eXpress
orders Of ..re government itself Omittiug
pro-,.s OF inieriornote, l refer te the eXten-
| sive aggressions on the trade OF the United
States, founded! on the plea OF biocke6cs,
never legally established according 20 reCog"
nized definitions to the still more extensive
violation of our commerce with ports OF her
enemies, not pretended to be in Il state OF
blockade /; & TO the British order OF councilis-
sued near the commencement OF the existing
war. This order besides its general in;er-
polation against the established law of matt
ons is Distinguished by a'speci.,! Ingredient.
violating that law as recognized by the
ICourse OF decisions in the Brush courts u
sabjectsto capture and Condemnation all
neutral vessels, returning with lawui car
| goes, on the sole consideration, that they
had IN their outward voyage, deposited con-
traband of war at hostile port. III the
commerce of the United States could there
fore III any case be Reasonably made the VIC
| tim and the sport of mutual charges and re-
Iproaches between beliigercnt parties, with
respect to the priority of their aggressions
ION neutral commerce, Great Britain must
look beyond the epoch she has chosen for IL
illegal acts ct her adversary, in support of
the allegation on which she Pounds her re-
! talating edict against our commerce.
| But the United States are given to under
stand tnat inc BRUSH sorer :i,,5,
aproof of its indulgent and amicable dispo-
sition towards them, mitigated the author-
SD rigor it might have given to its measures,
by certain exceptions peculiarly favorable
to the commercial interests of the United
States.
! forbear, Sir, to expires. all the emotions
with which such a language on such an oc-
casion, is calculated to inspire nation, which
cannot for moment be unconscious OF its
rights, nor mistake for an alienation of
wrongs regulations, to admit the val ditv OF
which would be to assume badges of humili-.
| alton never worn by an independent power.
The FIRST of these indulgcncies is a con-
mercial intercourse with the dependencies
of the enemies of Great Britain. and it is
considered as enhanced by its being rievi-
alton in favor of the United States from the
ancient and established principle of mari
time law prohibiting altogether such an in
terCourse in time of war.
| Surely, Sir, your government in assuming
this principle i'll such terms in relation to
the U. 5. must have forgotten their repeat
ed and formal protest against it, as these
are to be found in the discussions and COM
muncations of their minister at London, as
well as in explanations occasionally made OH
that subject to the British representative
here. BItpernit me to ask, more particu-
larly, how it could have happened that the
principle is characterised as an ancient and
established one. I put the question the
more freely, because it has never been de-
MED that the principle, as asserted by your
government, was for the first time introdu-
| ced during the war of 1856. It's in fact in
Variably cited and described in all judicial
and other official transactions, . as the rule
OF 1856" Itcan have no pretenson there
fore to the title of an ancient rule
And instead OF being an established rule
or principle, it is well known that Great
Britain is the only nation that has acted up
on, or otherwise given a sanction TO it, Nav,
{ 1t is not even an established principle in the
practice of Great Britain herself When
first applied in the war of 1856, the icgaLt-
ity of neutral trade with encmy's colo
MES was not contested byit In certain ca
J SEES only of the colonial trade the allegation
was. that the presumptive evidence arising
from circumstances against the bona fde
neutrality OF the ownership justified the
condemnation as of enemy's property. If
the rule of condemnation was afterwards
during that war, converted into the princi-
pie now asserted. it could not possibly have
been in operation in its new shape, more
than very tewycars During the succeed
ing war of 1878, it is admitted by every Bril-
tish authority, that the principle was never
brought into operation 1t may be regarded,
in fact. as having been silently abandoned
and within the period of war since its com
mencement in 1898, the manner in which
the principle has been alternately Contract
ed and extended, explained sometimes in
one way, sometimes in another rested now
on this foundation, now on that, is no secret
ia those who have attended to it's history and
progress in the British orders of council and
the British courts of admiralty.
With the exception, therefore, of 4 De-
riod, the last in modern times from which
authentic precedents of maritime law will
be drawn, and throughout which the United
States more interested in the question than
any other nation, have uniformly combatted
the innovation, the principle has not in the
British tribunals been in operation for long
er term than three, four or five years, whilst
in no others has it ever made it's appearance
but to receive decision protesting against
it.
ouchis the antiquity and such the autho-
4