The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-05-03
A LETTER
TO THE HON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS,
'-dmeni6er Of t5e Senate Of Massac htfsets,
THE
PRESENT STATE OUR NATIONAL
arr II IRS So
With Remarks apon Mr.. PlcxERINo's LErTER,
To the GovERNoR Of .he MoNwrALTH.
BY JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
A LETTER
(CoNcLUpEp.)
WAsH1NcroN, Marea 81, 1sC

The second point upon which Mr.. Pick
Ncring defends the prctensions of Great-Bri-
tain, is her denial to neutral nations OF the
right of prosecuting with her enemies and
their colonies. any commerce from which
they are excluded in time of peace. His
statement of this case adopts the British doc
trine, as sound. The right, as ON the ques-
ton of impressment, so on this, i; surrenders
at discreton-and it is equally defective in
point of fact
In the first place, the claim of Great Br-
tain, is not to " a right of imposing on this
neutral commerce some limits and res
.rdints'-but of interdicting it altogether,
at her pleasure, OF intcrdicting 1t without a
moments notice to 'neutrals, after solemn
decisions of her courts of admiralty, and
formal Acknowledgements of her ministers,
that it is a lawful tradc-And, on such
sudden, unnotifed Introduction. of bouncing
upon all neutral commerce navigating upon
the faith of her decisions and acknowledge
ments, and of gorging with coniiscation the
greediness of her cruizers-This is the right
claimed by Britan-This is the power She
has exercised--What Mr.. Pickering calls"
limits and restraints" she calls relaXations
of her right.
1t is but little more than two years. since
this question was agitated both in England
and America, with as much zeal, energy and
ability, as ever was displayed upon any
question of national law. The British side
was supported by Sir William Scott, Mr..
Ward, and the author of War in Disguise
But even in Britain their doctrine was refut-
ed to demonstration by the Edinburgh re-
viewers. In America, the rights OF our coun-
try were maintained by numerous writers
profoundly skilled in the science of national
and maritime law. The .dnsgver to War in
Disguise was ascribcd to a gentleman whose
talents are universally acknowledged, and
who by his official situations had been re-
quired thoroughly to investigate every ques-
ton OF conflict between neutral and beiliSer-
ent rights which has occurred in the history
of modern War. Mr.. Gore and Mr.. Pink
ney, our two commissioners at London, under
MIR. Jays Treaty, the former, in a train of
cool and conclusive argument addressed to
Mr. Madison, the latter in a memorial of
splendid eloquence from the Merchants of
Baltimore, supported the same cause ; me
MORALS, drawn by lawyers of distinguished
eminencc, by Merchants Of the highest cha
racter, and by statesmen of long experience
in our national councils came from Salem,
from Boston, from New-Haven, from New
York and from Philadelphia, together with
circumstances to the same effect from New
buTyport, Newport, Norfolk and Charleston.
This accumulated mass of legal learning, of
commercial information and of national senti-
our shores, & from one extremity of the union
to- the other, confirmed by the unanswered &
unanswerable memorial of Mr.. Monroe to the
British minister, and by the elaborate re-
search & irresistible reasoning of the Epami-
nation OF the British doctrine, was also made
subject of full, and deliberate discussion in
the senate of the United States. a COM
Inittce of seven members of that body, after
three weeks of arduous investigation, re-
te,1t Res he fret of oh
was in these words Resolved, that the
capture and condemnation, under the or
fers of the British government, and adju-
dications of thsir courts of admiralty Of A
Inerican vessels and their cargoes, on the
pretext of their being employed in trade
with the-enemies of Great Britain, prohibit
ed in time of peace, is an unprovoked aggres-
sion upon the property Oft the citizens of these
United States, violation of their neutral
rights, and al cncroachnient Riton their na-
sionGk INDEPENDENCE"
On the 18th of February, 1906, the ques-
zion upon the adoption OF this Resolution,
was taken in the Senate. The yeas and nays
were required; but not a solitary nay was
heard in answer. 1t was adopted by the
unanimous voice of all the senator's present.
They were twenty eight in number, and a.
nong them stands recorded the name of Mr..
Pickering
Let us remember that this was question
most peculiarly and Immediately of CONNER
rial, and not agricultural interest that it a.
rose frersl n CALL loud, energetic and unan-
nous, from all the merchants of the United
States upon congress, for the national nterpo-
sition that many ofthe memorials invoked
all the energy of the legislature, and pledged
the lives and properties of the memorialists
in support of any measures which Congress
might deem necessary to vindicate those
rights. Negotiation was particularly re-
commended from Boston, and elsewhere
negotiation was adopted--negotiation has
faled-andnow Mr.. Pickering tells us that
Great Britain has claimed and maintained
her rightE He argues that her claim is Just
and is not sparing of censure upon hose who
still consider it as serious cause of COM
plant
But there was one point Of view in which
the British doctrine on this question was
then only considered incidentally in the Uni
ted States-because it was not deemed ma
teTial for the discussion of our rights We
examined it chiefly as affecting the principles
as between a belligerent and a neutral pow
CT, but in fact it was an infringement Of the
rights of war, as well IS the rights of peace
1t was an unJustifable enlargement of the
sphere of hostile operations. The enenies
OF Great Britain had by the universal Law
of Nations, right to the benefits of neutral
Commerce within their dominions (subiec
to the exceptions of actual blockade & ron.