The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-05-21
mo. 6.


lof, especially when it is considered, that
the report was adopted by the government.
and communicated officially, by the secretary
| OF state, to u foreign minister. 1t is Certain.
however, that through the court of appeal,
the new cncroachment on the rights OF the
Uni;ed States was made which produced
the controversy which cnsued Immediately
afterwards.
The discussion which took place between
lord Mulgrave and myself in 1905, on tie
subject of the seizures then made, treated
the encroachment in that line as the special
canse OF complaint OH the part OF the Uni.cd
States. Although the British pretension to
inhibit even the direct trade, had not been
countenanced by the government, VET the
commerce of the u. States had been made in
certain degree to accommodate. with il by
the merchants They were content to de-
cline the direct trade, and to prosecute their
enterprises through the u. States, equal.
~ with the mother country and it's Colonies
1t was natural, in the course of a ccntro-
yersy which involved such important inter
ests, that the rights Of the parties should be
taken up on principle, aud carried to the.
greatest extent. To the light thrown OH the
subject by very able essay, which rcceiv-
ed from you, was much indebted, and &C
knowledge III this communication, the aid
which 1t afforded me, with peculiar sat;sfac-.
on principle, however extensive the range
might be- could not affect the origin of the
controversy, nor give to the article entered
into tor its adjustment construction differ
cnt from that which by we'll established rules
is fairly applicable to it.
From this view of the several orders of
the British government, and from the expJ
sition given OF them by the courts, and by
the government itself, it appears that the
col nj, fnrt DF 81
that OF the 9th November, 1928, was to in
hibit the direct trade OF the Il. States be-
tween enemy colonies and Earope that they
did not touch, and were not intended 10 in
terfere with the trade between the u. States
and Europe, even the parent Country. and /,
fortiori between the United States and Asia
and Africa. 1t was, indeed, the object OF the
order OF November 9th, 1793, to suppress
the commerce of neutral powers with enemy
colonies altogether; but that being abandon
ed, the next idea which occurred was toem.
barrass that trade by forcing it through neu
trail countries. Here, then, arose. NEW uucss
ton, which turned entirely on another prin-
clple. That neutral power had right to
carry on trade from its own ports i'm any
articles, though cf foreign produce, which
had been Incorporated into the stock of tl.
country not contraBand of war, and to all
countries, was not controverted. That Doirt,
I-,1
been long settled in the highest tribunals.
ana oy tic most eminent jurists in ENGLAND.
The circumstances which constituted such
an incorporation Of foreign articles into thu.
stock OF the country, had also been settled
by the same authorities Still the question
which now arose, turned on this | t el- ,,o;ut.
In forcing this commerce through neutral
ports with view to embarrass it, it became
necessary ITO give the greatest effect TO that
flse.r,t Il. l.
ports. which was done in the mancr al,ea-
dy stated.
Ii the instructions of the British govern
ment did not nhibit the trade in q ,cstio,..
the adjustment contained in the article IN,
der consideration, could not affect it, That,
article supposes a difference between tIe
parties relative to trade with enemy Colonies
and tie instructions which Interfere with il
he article could not operate in any trade TO
which the instructions did not extend, and
concerning which there was no controversy
In the present case the conclusion is the.
more irresistible, because there did not ex-
ist even possibility of controversy in rerard
to that trade.
But 1t is inferred, that because it is st;nu-
lated, that the produce of enemy colonies
may be carried to Europe from the q. 5, aSrs,
that the ports of Asia and Africa are sl,..,
on them, and that because tits stipulated that
the manufactures or Europe may be carried
from the U. States to the West Indies that
those OF Asia and Africa are prohibited from
being carried there. This objection ha, Been
already obyiated. Had tAe instructions of
the British government inhibteJ ti,at trade
and controversy between the governments
arisen from the inhibition, as the ar',ie g dog.
not extend to the case, tie most that could
have been Inferred would have been thar II
was unprovided for, and that the rights ~
the parties would remain in tire same stare
respectingt, as if the article had NOT i,ren
into. 1t iseasy to explain the cause
why the term Europe" was introda iced in
to the article, in reference to the pores To-
which colony produce might be carried. aad
g European" i'll reference to- the man.,fac-
lures which might bc carried to enemy colo-
Mes and to shcw that they were adopted
with view to open on the widest scale the
ports which had been at any time shat oY
them by the British orders Although rbe.
policy OF these orders as well as of the r,,.;n-
ciple on which they are founded, is more
particularly applicable to the direct trade
between enemy colonies, and their motheY.
yet US the term Europe" had been
adopted in the notifications that were na1p
in them, first at the instance oftEe T.. States.
and afterwards at that Of the neutF;sl ,I,,ro-