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

country, aiih,' it should no; accomplish the OBJ |
ject which had been 50 ardently desired. The |
only difference between the plan which VIC |
sanctioned and that which it proposed, WAS
that the whole arrSnycment should be informal. |
Had tic administration resortcd 70 war as i
pr ici-2hlc alternative, been wiling To leave
the buriuess unsettled, its polio; AMI example
mie.- hare been plead against US /: but in of
tcr,ng io acccnt The same conditions in all in
Formal mode, and TO withdraw, in some form,
th= nGniDfortstion law ~ n motive TO il, il
she w,d that the considerations v;iic had been
respected by us had as much weight with it
bui the conduct OF tie administration fur
rishcs other strong arguments in favor vi the
arrangement proposed by thc American con-
nissiorers. BY engaging to Observe the ;nfor-
NAL arrange T;,ent which we were Instruct ed
IL entec into, rs long as &. Britain shon,d 90
serve il, it seemed as II the u. =. would be de-
pri,ed Of the right of Insisting on other terms,
however favorable the opportunity for it might
be, while c. Britain woaid ID, at liberty to de-
part from such arrangement whenever the C.
vents OF war furnished her an adequate mo i've
for IT. This WAS the opposite OF our artangc-
meat rs have stated above, by which, as ave
presumed, che wuuld be bound, and we fee
Certainty to our merchants was Ill important.
Any tsir we'll defined rue, within which lhev
night prosecute IN safety their enterprises, al
tho It might f.li short in some respects of our
qlont colisi rs which put every thing at haz-
ard. In any event 1t wAs an object &c great
importance so keep the rcace OF the country
in our own bands, by retaining the right to
resort 10 war when it suited us, and then only
will row proceed to tie othcr topic, which
are alvcricd to in yoar letter Of May 90 1907,
and on which shall be ss concise as p1ssb T.
In Your examination OF the treaty you notice
several of primary Importance, which you con
reivc 20 have been improperly arranged in the
articles which refer TO them Twill pucsue in
my remarks the order which you have traced
Yo; consider the 18th article as Obiscti m
able IN having shut to our commerce impartsnt
channels wlnch were left open 10 IL, by the
deciscns of the British courts, and the ptin-
ciplos contained in the communication from
lord Haw s-esbury TO Mr. KING. In support o :.
that opinion YOU observe that as the article sti
pala,ss tha. Tie u. States may carry the ma
I,iisctllrcs and psocuciOns OF Europe, from
their owI ports, to any COLONY Of the enemies
of c. britain, they are prohibited by it from
carrying The masuficiurcs or productions Of
the countries beyond the cape of Good Hope,
in like m.rner, 70 such c0l"nies You obseiv We
;lisu thststs t:e u. States authorised to car
W from their own ports the productions of enc
my colonies to Europe, they are prohibit, d
from carving those productions TO the south.
ern coast of the Mediterranean, or beyond the
Cape Of Good Hope, TO eny other enemy or neu-
trial colonies III this Quarter.
an per5uadcd that you will be satisfied, on
further consideration, hat this construction of
that article is unfounded. It is It the OBJ
ject Of the article TO regulate the general com
inerce Of the countries, or TO compromit their
claims in any case to which the regulation
does not explicitly extend. The regulation
prescribed by it applies to OF ccnrover
sy between the parties, in point of immedi- :
ate contact, and it was the object ofthc article
to adjust the controversy iii that point. If We
advert to the issue which was made up betwee n
them, clearly defined by the orders of tn G.
British government, the decisions of the courts
of admiralty untcr them, and the discussi IL
which took place between the governments on
the subject, we shall find that in no view can
the construction which you inpute 70 the arti-
Gle, be supported.
The issue lately made up between the parties
involved solely the question, what ciFcumstan-
ccs, or acts, TO he performed in the neutral
country, were necessary to break the continu-
ity of voyage from the colony OF an enemy to
It's parent country or some enemy country in Eu-
rope This point had been settled, ~ Was
presumed, by former decisions of the British
courts of admiralty, and explanations OF the
British government, in rnaanr.' which was
so far satisfactory to the L. States as . justify
abelief, that f those decisions and exp matt
ons had been adhered to, the existing contro-
versy on this subject would = Z have arisen -
Bat in 1903 Che British courts Of admiralty M
sisted on the performance ofne y acts IN the u
States, or, what amounted 30 the same thing,
extended 10y construction the doctrine OffurneI
decisions in such amanncr rs 80 make the per-
formanc. OF new acts, such too IS were OF q
nature highly onerous AMI oppressive, in.lis.
penS.bly necessary. o. TINS special point the
parties were at issuc, and the sole object OF
the article was to adjust. b., temporary arrange
ment. the controversy on thai point. The
rights of The parties IL every other instance,
not within the scope Of Tia adjustment, were
10 remain, of course, untouched. AID, in thai
particular one t. revive At the expiration IF ihe
term ilDiied for TIE duration fthc article
4 concise analysis OF he several crdcrs
OF the British government relative TO the
trade OF neural powers with enemy colo
pies, viii place, in clear point of view,
the gIound If The controversy between inc
parties, and the precise object and effect o.
the regulation proposed BY the article un.
der consideration. The first order bears
d te on the oh November, 1898 j. direct.
ed the British cruisers 10 bring in FOR law.
fIl Indication all vessels loadcn with
goods, the produce ofany coIsny of France
or carry ng provisions or supplies for such
colony Inat order amounted, in expires.
terms, TO "A declaration # war agsinsc the
heutral powers, and il was ssued in that
spirit by he British government TIE po
Icy, however, whica dictated the order
did not LAST long Events soon produced d
81. e.