The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-22

certain whether the crops were abundant,
supplies from other quarters had failed, and
eventually to decide, whether, under such
circumstances the parent country would have
opened the ports to neutral powers. But
these Offices cannot be performed by any
power which is not in possession OF the colo
ny that can only be obtained by conquest,
in which case, the victor would of course,
have right to regulate its trade as it thought
| fit.
1t is also said, that neutral powers have
no right to profit OF the advantages which are
gained i'll war, by the arms of Great Britain.
This argument has even less weight than
the others. 1t does not, in truth, apply at
all to the question. Neutral powers DO not
claim right, as already observed, to any
| commerce with the colonies which G.. Bri-
tain may have conquered OF her enemies, o.
therwise than on the conditions which she
imposes. The point in question turns on the
commerce which they are entitled to, with
the colonies which "Ne has not conquered,
but still remain subject to the dominion of
the parent country. With such it is con-
tended, for reasons that have been alrea-
dy given, that neutral powers have right
to enjoy all the advantages in trade which
the parent country allows them: right of
which the mere circumstance of war can
not deprive them. If Great-Britain had a
right to prohibit that commerce, it existed
before the war began, and of Course before
she had gained any advantage over her ere
mics. If it did not then exist, it certainly
does not at the present time Rights of the
kind in question, cannot depend ON the for
tune of war, or other contingencies. The law
which regulates them is invariable, until it
| be changed by the competent authority. 1t
forms a rule equally between belligerent
powers, and between neutral and beligerent,
which is dictated by reason and sanctioned
| by the usage and consent of nations
| The foregoing considerations have, it is
presumed, proved, that the claim of Grent-
Britain to prohibit the commerce of neu-
trail powers in the manner proposed, is re-
pugnant to the law ofnations. If, however,
any doubt remained on that point, other con-
siderations which may be urged, cannot fail
to remove it. The number Of orders of diff
ferent imports which have been issued by
government, to regulate the seizure of neu-
trail vessels, is proof that there is no esta-
bllShed law for the purpose. And the strict
ness with which the courts have followed
those orders through their various modifica-
tons, is equally proof that there is no other
authority for the government or their deci-
sions. If the order of the 9th of November
1898, contained the true doctrine of the law
of nations, there would have been no occasi-
on for those which followed, nor is it proba-
BILE that they would have been issued in
deed if that order had been in conformity
with that law, there would have been no &C
casion for It, As in the cases of BIZ ckade &
contraoand, the law would have been well
known without an order, especially one so We
Try descriptive the interest OF the cru, ers
which is always sufficiently active would have
prompted them to make the seizures, and
the opinions or eminent writer's, which in
that case would not have been wanting,
would have furnished the courts the best au-
thority for their decisions
l shall now proceedto shew that the deci-
sions complained of are contrary to the I'M
iderstanding, or what, perhaps, may more
properly be called an agreement of the two
governments, CT the subject. BY the order
tof the sixth November, 179S, some hundreds
OF American vessels were seized, carried into
port and condemned. Those seizures and
condemnations became thesubect OF an i.D
mediate negotiation between the two lions.
whclh terminated iii treaty, b. which it
was agreed to submit the whole subject To
commissioners, who should be invested with
full power to settle the controversy which
had thus arisen. That stipulation was car
RED into complete effect commissioners
were appointed, who examined laboriously
and fully, all the cases of seizure and con-
domination which had taken place, and finally
decided on the same, in which decisions they
condemned the principle of the order, and a
warded compensation to those who had suf-
tered under it. Those awards have been since
fairly and honorably d scharged by Great
Britain 1t merits particular attention that
part OF the twelfth article of that treaty.
referred expressly to the point in question,
and that It was Oil the solemn deliberation of
each government, by their mutual consent.
cxpunged from it. 1t seems therefore to be
impossible to consider that transaction, un-
der all the circumstances attending it, in a.
ny other light than as a fair and amicablc adj
Justment OF the question between the parties
one which authorized the just expectation,
that it would never have become again
cause of complaint between them. The |
sense OF both was expressed on it in a man |
Der too marked and explicit to az nit of a
different conclusion. The subject too was of
a nature that, when once settled ought to be !
considered as settled forever 1t is not like |
Questions OF commerce between two powers
which affect their internal concerns, and de- +!
pend, of course, on the internal regulations of
each. When these latter are arranged by
treaty, the rights which accrue to each par.
ty under it, in the interior of the other, cease
when the treaty expires Each has a right
afterwards to decide for itself in what man F,
ner that concern shall be regulated in flu /
ture, and in that decision to consult solely its
interest. But the present topic is of a very
different character. 1t involves no question
OF commerce or other internal concern be
tween the txuo I