The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-22
mo. 100.

yeSN N"uSS vi SoiiilldthI 10 the united States,
Until the final report of the commissioners
under the 9TH article of the treaty of 1894
which was not made until last year, it is atl :
mittcd that their arbitraneut was not cbli-
Satory on the parties iii the sense ia which
1t is now commended to be. Every nterme-
date declaration, however, by Great Bri-
( tam, OF her sense on the subject, must be
considered as binding Gil her, as it laid the
foundation OF commercial enterprises, which
were thought to.be secure while within that
limit Your lortiship will permit me to cfer
you to several examples OF this kind, which
were equally formal and Official, in which
the sense OF his majesty's government was
declared very differently from what it has
been III the late condemnatcns In Robin
sons reports, VOL ., page 500, cease tic Pol
~, Lasky, mastery it seems to have been
clearly established by the learned Judge OF
the Court OF admiralty, that an American
has a right to import the produce of an enc
lny's colony into the United States, and to
send it on afterwards to The general com
merce Of Europe; and that the landing the
goods, and paying the duties in the United
States, should preclude all further question
relative to the voyage. The terms g for his
/ own use,' which are to be found i'm the re-
port, are obviously intended to assert the
claim only that the property shall be Ame-
rlcan, and not that of an enemy but admit
.
wards to the general commerce OF Europe.
II is not possible that those terms should con.
vey any other idea. y bona jfde impovatio,
! is also held by the judge to he satisfied by
the landing the goods and paving the duties.
/ ms therefore is, think, the true import OF
that decision. The doctrine is again laid
down in Still more explicit terms ky the 90
Vernment itself, in a correspondence be-
tween lord Fawkesbury and my predecessor,
Mr. hing. The case was precisely similar
to those which have been lately before the
court. Mr., King complained in letter of
March 10, 1901, that the cargo Of an Ameri-
can vessel going from the United States q a.
Spanish colony, had been condemned bv the
vlce-admiralty court of Nassau, on the ground
that it was of the growth ofSpain, whicS deci-
sion he contended was contrary to the law
! OF nations, and requested that suitable in
structions might be dispatched to the pre-
per officers in the West-lndies to prevent
like abuses In future. Lord Hawkesbury in
reply of April 11th, communicated the re-
port OF the king S advocate-general,i in which
! it is expressly stated that the produce of an
enemy may be imported by neutral into
ms own country and re exported thence to
the mother country; and in ike manner in
that circuitous mode, that the produce and
manufactures of the mother Country might
ind their way to its colonies; that the land
! ing the goods and paving che duties in the
neutral country, broke the continuity of the
voyage s legaiizeI the trade, aitho' the goods
were re-shipped in the same vessel, On ac-
count OF the same neutral prcpyctors, and
forwarded for sale to the mother country OF
the colony. 1t merits attention il this re-
port $50 clearly and positive!yis the doctrine.
laid down, that the landing the goods and
paying the duties in the neutral country broke
the continuity of the VOYAGE that it is stat
ed as doubtful point whether the mere
touching in the neutral Country to obtain
fresh clcarances will be considered in the
light OF the direct trade that no positive in
hiOltion is insisted on any but the direct
trade between the mother country and the
colonies. This doctrine in the light herein
stated, is also to be found in the treaty be
tween Great-Britain and Russia, june II.
1901. b. the I'd section Of the Cd article
the commerce OF neutrals in the productions
or manufactures of the enemies Of Great
Britain, which have become the property cf
the neutral, is declared to be free; that sec
ton was afterwards explained by a dcclara-
tory article of October 20, Of The same year
by which 1T is agreed that it shall not be un-
derstood to authorize neutrals to carry the
produce or merchandise of an enemy either
directly from the colonies to the parent COM
try, or from the parent country to the colo.
mes. In other respects the Commerce was
lett on tie footing on which it was placed by
that section, perfectly free, except in the di
rect trade between the colony ard the pa.
rent country. 1t is worldly Of remark that,
as by the reference made iii the expianato
ry article Of the treaty with Russia, 10 th.
United States of America, it was supposed
that those states and Russia, Denmark and
Sweden, had common interest in neutral
questions so it was obviously intended, from
the similarity of sentiment which IS o,serva
bic between that treaty as amended, and the
report OF the advocate general above -.nenti-
oned, to place all the parties or the same.
footing. After these acts Of che British go
vernment, which being Official we're made
public, 1t was not to be expected that any
greater restraint would have been coutcui-
plated by it, on that commerce than tuev
impose, that an enquiry would ever have
been made, not whether the properly with
which an American vessel was CHARGED be-
longed to citizen of the United States or
an enemy, but whetherit helOngc5 to tt,sor
that American: an enquiry whuh imposes
a condition which it is believed hat 10 m
dependent nation, having a lust sense e
what 1t owes to Is rights or its honor. can
ever comply with. Much less was it to be
expected that such a restraint would have
been thought Of, after the report of the com
mi5sloners above 2dverted to, which sce-cI
to have placed the rights of the United
Statesincontcstbly ON a much more liberal.
and, a3is ccntendcd, just footing.
1t is proper to add that the decree e fine