The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-19

stated according to the report OF some OF the
mastery that they acted by order, as is to
be presumed, OF the government. As this
proceeding was sudden, without notice and
without example III the conduct of the pre-
sent war, as it has embraced considerable
number of vessels, and may he extended to
many others, it was impossible for me to re
concile it with the friendly relations subsist-
ing between the two powers. 1t is therefore
my duty to request of Your lortiship such in
formation respecting it, as / may transmit
without delay to my government. OF mea-
sure so highly important 20 the rights and in
terests of the u. States, no erroneous opni-
on should be formed, no incorrect idea chi
tertained. 1t is proper here to observe that
the decisions ofthe courts to which ..ilAdcd
IN mine OF the Sth, the principles of which
are considered by my government as subver-
sire OF the established law OF nations, were
given in the case Of the &c Essex" a few weeks
SINCE, and In these of the "Enoch" and
Mars" on thu Esd and cath ultimo. These
decisions impose restraints on the commerce
ofneutral nations with the enemies ofGreat
Britain, which, it is contended, derive no
sanction from that authority The princi-
clplc on which they are founded asserts a
right IN Great Britain to RESTRAIN neutral ma
tons from any commerce with the colonies of
an enemy, in time of war, which they do
not enjoy in time of peace; or in other words
denies, in respect toneutrals, the sovereign
ty OF an enemy in time of war, over it's own
colonies, which remain in other respects
SUBJECT to its authority and governed BY it's
laws. 1t cannot well be conceived how there
should be difference ON principle, in the
rights OF neutral powers TO a commerce be-
tween any two ports of an enemy not reg,i-
iariy blockaded, and any other two of its
!ports; how it should be lawful to carry on
such comm rec from one 20 ttoanother, ( the
parent Country, and not from its colonies TO
the parent country. AS the board of COM
missioners under the 9TH article of the trea-
ty OF 1894, Ill revising the decisions of the
British courts, founded on the instructions of
! OF November 6, 1895, Condemned this doc
trlnc, there was Just cause TO expect, that it
would never have been revived. 1t is under
stood that no other power admits it, & that it
is also lepugnant to the practice ofGreat Bril-
tain herself, with respect to her own colo
MES in time of war. Il is easy to shew that
the doctrine is of modern date even in En-
gland; that the decisions of her courts have
not been uniform, and that those in the cases
referred TO have carried the pretension to an
extent, which by assuming cognizance, ifnot
| jurisdiction, in the interior concerns of the
United States, is utterly incompatible with
the rights OF sovereignty and the eIfrespect,
which as an independent nation, they can
never lose sight of. | forbe ar however to en-
ter further into this sub ect at present, in the
expectation that L shall be honored with
such information from your lordship, of the
views of his majesty's government, as will
be satisfactory to that which / have the no
nor to represent.
have the honor to be, my lord,
(Sisned) JAMES MONROE.