Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-04-29


os war, anddes,ined to places, other than |
those of na. alequipment
Lastly, il is observable, that even tur-
lpentine and rosin are not included with tar
and pitch ia the favorable exceptions, tho
of character so Kindred as to leave no
lpretext for the distinction.
Neither has the British government the
| slightest ground for regarding as conces-
sion, the stipulated immunity of a vessel,
which, on her outward voyage, had carried
contraband to hostile port. The princi-
lple asserted BY her order on that subject,
is an Innovation against The clearest right
OF ncutrais, rs recognized and enforced e.
ven by British courts. The very language
Of the article implies that this is fire
fence for the innovation These conside-
rations urge n Reconsideration of the ar
ticle ; and they are strengthened by the
great dislike of the president to formal
lrecognitions, at this particular moment, OF
principles combatcd by some, and unfav
orable to all neutral nations. So ineligible
Indeed, in his view, IS any step tending in
the least to retard the progress OF these
principles, that naval stores are to be left
on stipulated list of contraband, in the e.
vent, only, of an inhexible refusal Of the
British government to omit them nor are
an addition or explanation that viii except
jturpentlBe and rosin, as well as tar anC.
pitch there being no plausible motive for
the distinction; and the quantity and va
lue OF the two former exported from the
United States, being found, on inquiry, to
make them of equal Importance with the
two latter. 1t can scarcely be supposed
that The British government VIII insist on
this unwarrantable distinction. Ii is not
indeed improbable, that it has been mere
llnadvertence. Such an inference is favor
ed by the circumstance of your speaking,
IN your comment en- this article, OF tar and
| fttT7ieNfine, as being the two exceptions
Whatever the true state of the case NAV
be, X is thought better TO omit list OF
contraband altogether, than not TO include
IN the exception from it, turpentine and
rosip, as well as tar and pitch.
-.frfic'e 10. The abuse of blockades has
been so eStrava giant, and has produced so
much seXation and injury to the fair ccm-
merce OF the y, s. that as on one hand it
is OF great Importance to hnd remedy
so, oD the other, il is the more necessary,
that the remedy should be such as not itself
To admit OF abuse. The conside rations which
reconciied you to the tenor of the article,
as I; least constructive approach to a so
weight which they justly merit whilst the
course which your discussions took, are
proof OF the exertions which were used
to give the article more satisfactory form
The failure, how ever, ofthe British COM
missoners To snbstantiate favorable con-
Istruction OF the article. by proper expla-
natory letter addressed TO you, with their
reasons tor refusing toinsert in the treaty
a definition of blockade, justify apprehen-
SIGNS that the vague terms which alone
were permitted to compose the article,
would be more likely to be turned against
our object, By Courts and cruizers, and per-
haps by less liberal cabinet, than to re-
ceive in practice the more favorable con-
struction which candor anticipated.
The British doctrine of bloclades ex
emplified by practice, is different from that
OF all other nations, as well as from the
reason and nature of that operation of war.
The mode of notifying blockade by pro-
CARNATIONS b diplomatic communications.
CT what too is 10 be done, rather of what,
IN fact, had been done, is more particular |
~ the evil which is to be corrected, A. !
gainst these nominal blockades, the article |
does not sufficiently close the door. The
preamble itself, which refers TO distance OF
situation, as frequent Cause OF not know
ing that blockade exists, tho in one view
giving the u. States the advantage of ia
Vorable presumption in another view, car !
res an admission unfavorabe to our prin. |
cipie, which rests not on the distance oil
situation, but on the nature of the case. |
and which consequently rejects in al ca |
ses The legal sufhcency OF notifications i'm |
Tie British mode. The preamble is liable !
10 the remark also, that it separates our
cause from the common one of neutral ma
ticnS IN 4 less distant situation, and that
me principle of 1t may even he pleaded a.
gaihst us IN the case of biockades in the |
West indies These considerations would !
nave been outweighed by the advantage Of
establishing satisfactory rule on this sub
Ject, I'D favor Of our trade but without
such provision in the article, 1t is tho't
less advisable to retain IT, than to trust to |
the law of blcckades as laid down by all |
writer's OF authority, as supported by all |
treaties which define il, and more especi.
ally as recognized and communicated TO
The y States, by the British government,
through its minister here, IN last |
not 70 mention the influence whichth course
OF events and the sentiments of the mari |
time nations in friendship with Great Bril-
tain may have, in producing reform on
Ihe last paragraph, tho subjecting per.
SOILS IN civil rs well as military service of
an enemy, 10 capture in our vessels, NAV
prove valuable safeguard to ordinary pas. |
schgsrs and mariners, against the wfongsI
wHicn they now frequently experience, and |
winch affect the vessel as well as them |