Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-04-22

=
appeal, to revise the decisions of the high
court of admiralty, which he represents TO
have settled the doctrine. But he makes
hat reservation, if indeed it was intended
AS one, in such terms as to preclude the
idea, that it would ever be taken advantage
Of, especially when tits considered, rhat the
report was adopted by the government, and
communicated officially, by the secretary
of state, to foreign minister. 1t ~ GER
tain, however, that through the courtof APP
peal, the new encrcachment on the rights
OF the United States was made, which pro
duced the controversy which ensued i'm
mediately afterwards.
The discussion which took place be-
tween lord Muigrave and myself in
1905, on the subject of the seizure
then made, treated the encroachment
in that line as the special cause of COM
plant on the part of the United States.
Although the British pretension to
inhibit even the direct trade, had not
been countenanced by the government,
yet the commerce of the u. States had
been made in certain degree TO ac-
commodate with it by the merchants.
They were content to decline the d.
rect trade, and to prosecute their en-
terprises through the u. S. equally
with the mother country and its colo
nies. 1t was natural, in the course Of
controversy which involved such i'm
portant interests, that the rights of the
parties should be taken up on principle,
and carried to the greatest extent. To
the light thrown on the subject by a
very able ESSAY, which | received from
you, was much indebted, and l ac-
knowledge in this communication, the
aid which it afforded me, with peculiar
satisfaction. A vindicarion, however,
of TIE cause On principle, however ex-
tensive the range might be, could not
affect the origin Of the controversy,
nor give to the article entered into for
It's adjustment construction different
from that which, by well established
rules, is fairly applicable to it.
From this view oil the several orders
Of the British government, and from
the exposition given Of them by the
courts, and by the government itself,
it appears that the sole object of those
that were issued after that Of the 9Th
Nov. 1898, was to inhibit the direct
trade of the u. S. between enemy CO.
lonies and Europe; that they did not
touch, and were not intended to inter-
fere with the trade between the United
States and Europe, even the parent
country. and fortiori between the u.
States and Asia and Africa. 1t was,
indeed, the object of the order of Nov.
9th, 1898, to suppress the commerce
of neutral powers with enemy colonies
altogether: but that being abandoned,
the next idea which occurred was to
embarrass that trade by forcing it
through neutral countries. Here,
then, arose new question, which turn
ed entirely on another principle. That
a neutral power had a right TO carry or
trade from its own ports, in any arti-
cles, though of foreign produce, which
had been incorporated into the stock
Of the country not contraband Of war
and to all countries, was not controver.
ted. That point, otherwise clear and
inlisputable in itself, had been long
settled in the highest tribunals, and by
the most eminent jurists in England,
The circumstances which constituted
such an incorporation of foreign arti-
cles into the stock of the country, had
also been settled by the same authori-
ties. Still the question which now a.
rose, turned on this latter point. Ir
forcing this commerce through neutral
ports with a view 20 embarrass it, il
became necessary ITO give the greatest
effect to that expedient to increase the
difficulties in those ports, which was
done in the manner already stated.
1.-THE instructions of the British go.
vernment did not inhibit the trade in
question, the adjustment contained in
The article under consideration, could
not affect it. That article supposes 4
difference between the parties relative
to trade with enemy colonies, and the
instructions which Interfere with it.
The 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 IRE
sistible, because there did not exist G.