Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1808-11-16

fiiele neutrality of The ownership justified the,
condemnation assof enemy's property. Il
the rule Of condemnation was afterwards,
during that war, converted into the princi-
Die now asserted, it could not possibly have
been in operation in its new shape, more
than very few years. During the sue
ceeding war Of 17778, il is admitted BY eye
nv British authority that the principle was
never brought into operation. It may be
regarded in fact, as having been silently a
bandoned !; and within the period OF war
since its commencement in 1898, the man
ner in which the principle has been alter
nately contracted and extended, explained
sometimes in one way, sometimes IN ano-
thcr, rested now on this foundation, now
on that, is no secret to those who Eave at
tended to It's history and progress IN the
British orders5of council and the British
courts Of admiralty.
With the exception, therefore, Of peri
cd, the last in modern times from winch
! authentic precedents OF maritime law. viii
be drawn, and throughout which the q.
States, more interested in the question than
any other nation, have uniformly combated
the innovation, the principle has not in the
British tribunals been IN operation for
longer term than three, four or FIVE years,
whilst in no Others has il ever made itsap-
pea.ance but to receive decision protesting
against it.
Such;s the antiquity and such the autho-
rity Of principle, the deviations from
which are held OFT as SO many tavors con-
soling the United States fot the wide spread
destruction OF their legitimate commerce.
What must be said as to the other excep-
tons, which seem to have been viewed as
claims on the gratitude of the z. States -
Is it an indulgence to them in carrying on
their trade with the whole continent OF En-
rope, 10 be laid under the necessity Of going
first to British port, to accept a British Ii
cence and TO pay attribute to Tie British Ex-
cheauer, as If we had been reduced to the
colonial situation which once imposed these
INCORPORATING restraints.
What again should be said as to other
features which we see blended on the face
of these regulations !? If the policy Of them
be to subject an enemy to prvations, why
are channels opened for British trade with
them which are shut to neutral trade ? IF
lin other cases, the real object be to admit
a neutral trade with the enemy, why is it
required that neutral vessels shall perform
the ceremony of passing through British
port, when it can have no imaginable effect
but the known & inevitable one Of prohibit
ing the admission of the Il ade into the port
OF destination
: will not ask why a primary article Of
our productions and exports, Gotten wool,
is to be distinguished, in It's transit, by
heavy impost, not imposed en- other arti-
cles, because it is frankly avowed, in your
explanation of the orders, 10 be intended
as an encouragement to British manufac-
lures, and check to the rival ones Of
France. suppress also, though without
the ssirne reason for it, the enquiry, Why
less rigorous II strictions are applied to tic
trade OF the Barbary powers than are en-.
forced against that Of a nation, such as the
United States, and in relations such as have
existed betwetn them and Great Britain.
cannot howrysr pass without notice the
very understandable innovation contained in
the two last Of the orders. In one of them
certificate OF the local origin Of a cargo,
altho' permitted in the port of departure
and required in the port otdestination, by
regulations purely domestic in both, and
strictly analogous in.prineiple TO the regula-
tons III the commercial code Of c. Britain,
ismade cause of capture on the high seas,
and cfcondemnation in her maritime courts.
) In the other order the sale OF merchant
ship by belligerent owner to neutral, a.
though transaction as legal when fair, as
dealing in any other article, IS condemned
hN t,reral lrlle VII hn,at or, ofor,, IF ,Ar,,f