Portland gazette and Maine advertiser., 1808-12-05

could therefore in any cafe be reaion-
ably made the victim and the ipori
ct mutual charges and approaches be-
sween beliigereht parties, with le-
Up dto the priority of Their aggrel-
lions son neutral commerce, Great
Britain mutt look beyond the epoch
The has cholcn for illegal acts of her
adveriary Ira iupport of the aIlega-
ton OH which The POUNDS her retail
ating ed:6ts againlt our commerce.
But the United States are given 70
underltaud thar the Biitiih govern
ment has, as proof Gifts indulgent
aud snieable diipohtion towards
them, mitigated the authorized rigor
it might baye given to Its meaiures,
by certain exceptions peculiarly IA
.vorao.e to the commercial intereffs of
the United States.
J forbear, fr, TO exprtis all the
emotions with which fuch language,
on fuch an location, is calculated to
infpire a nation which cannot for a
noment be Unconscious of It's rights,
nor miitake for an alienation of
wrongs, regulations. 70 admit the val
idity Of which would be 70 afIume
badges Of humiliation never worn by
an Independents power.
The firit of thefe indulgences is
commercial intercourse with the de-
Tendencies of the enemies of Great
Britain, and il is coa6dered rs en-
HANGED by its being deviation in
favor of the United States from the
aneiert and efablifhed principle of
maratime law prohibiting altogether
iuch an intercourle in time ofwar.
Surely, hr, your government in az
tuning this principle in .iuch terms
ia relation 10 the United States,
mutt have forgotten ,Iseir repeated
and formal protects againftit, as thcfe
are to DC found in their dlfcuhons
and cotnmunications OF their minifter
AZ London, as well as in explanations
Cccaiiona!ly made on that iubjea TO
she Birth representative here. But
permit me to ak, more particularly,
how il could have happened that The
principle is characterized as an ancient
and eitablifhed one. ] put the quei-
zion the more freely, bccsufe it has
never been denied thar the principle,
as ahtrted by your government, was
for the firlt time introduced during
he war Of 1856. II is in fact inva-
riably cited and defcribcd in all Judi
cial and other official traniaetions
as rhe rule of 1890" /; can have
no pretenhou therefore to the title Of
an Gzc7eKt rule.
And inltead of being an et9a5kijBed
rule or principle, il is well known
that Great Britain is the only nation
that has a6ted upon, or otherwiie CIV
en- ian6tion to it. Nay, j, is NOT
even an eGabIiihed principle in the
practice Of Great Britain herleIf.-
When hrlt applied inv the war Of
1880, the legality of neutral trade
with enemy's colonies was not contef-
ted by it. Uncertain cafes only Of
the colonial trade, the allegation was
that the prcfumptive evidence arifng
from circu. '.tances againft the bora
tide neutrality OF the owner!hip luifi-
fed the condemnation as Of enemY's
properly. II the rule Of condemna-
tion was afterwards, during that war,
converted into the principle now al
ierted, it could not politely have been
In operation in its new ihape, more
than very few years. During the
tucceeding war Of 1873, il is admit
ted by every Britiih authority, that
the principle was never brought into
operation. It may be regarded, in
fact as having been filently abandon.
Cd {; and within the period of wal
tince its commencement in 1904, the
manner in which the principle ha:
been alternately contracted and ex.
tended, explained iometimes in enc
way, fometimes in another, relied
now on this foundation, now on
that, is no fecrct TO thofc who have
attended TO its hiltory and progrei;
in the Britiih Orders Of Council anc
the Brit;lh courts Of admiralty.
When the exception, therefore, o
a period, the Taft in modern time
from whiCh suthentic Drecedents q