The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-29

so MANY WAYS taiiiy ptcciudcu themselves from
ia W maintaining. In addition to the ,nan,-autori-
ties tor this remark, already known to YOU, will
find ono oS the highest grade in 5t vol. Toinlins
edition OF Browns cases in parliament, D. S2S,
Hendricks aud others, against Cunningham and
others, MhcIc'it Was expressly admitted BY the
house Of lords, ina war case before them, that
cit is now established by repeated determinati-
Gus, that neither SLIPS nor cargoes, the property
of. Subjects of neutral powers, either going 10
trade at oi coming tj,op, the French West India,
islands, with cargo purchased there arc Liable to
capture and therefore, when ship and cargo
30 circulnstanced ARE seized and condemned, the
seizure and condemnation shall be reversed, and
the v:e Of Tho; ship and cargo accounted for and
paid To- The owners by the captors"
rs IT mas generally happened that the British
Instructions issued to the vice admiralty courts
snd naval commanders have not first come to light
III Briush prints inclosc one of November II,
,wf%h has Just made its appearance in ours. AS
ii relates TO the present subject, it claims atten-
tio as proof that all question as to the legality
st the voyage, in Russian trade with tho enc.
mics OF Great Britain, is excluded. by limiting the
right of capture to cases where tic innoceace or
ownership of the articles are questioned. The
instruction may at leas; be considercda as co-ex
tens;,e in It's favorable import with the article in
the Russian treaty, which YOU have been autho-
rised to admit into your arrangements and i'm
that view, as. well on account ct its date, the
instruction may furnish convenient topic of ar
gunel;t or txpostu,ation-
IL the British government once consent that
the United States may make their ports meli-
nm of trade between the colonies of its enemies
and other countries, beli;gerent as well. as melt
trai. why should there be wish 10 clog at with
the regulations suggested Why not, in fact,
Consent to q direct trade by our merchants be-
tween those colouies and all other countries Is
II that the price may be Il little raised on the
consumers by the circuit OF the voyage, and the
charges incident to ti.e port regulations This
c:,nnot be presumed With respect 60 the enc
mes OF Great Britain, the object would be unim.
PORTRAIT With respect to her neutral friends it
wouldnot be q legitimate object. Must not the
answer then be sought in the mere policy of les
SEEMING the competition with, and thereby ftvorine
the price OF British and other colonial producti-
ons re-eXported by British merchants from Bri-
hs'i ports and sought consequently not in a bel
hserent right or even in policy mcrclybelliee-
reft-but in one which has no origin or plea but
those "a Commercial iealousy and monopoly.
BlookApES.
On this subject, 1t is fortunate that Great Bri-
tain has already, i'll formal communication, ad-
United the principle for which we contend 1t
will be only necessary, therefore, to mold her to
the true sense OF her own act. The words ofthe
communication are, that vessels must be zrarrei
not to enter" The term sparl technically I'M
ports distinction between an Individual no,ice TO
vessels, aad general notice by proclamation or
diplomatic commandments The terms nor tn
enter, equally distinguish anotce at or very near
tue Diockaded port, from notice directed against
the original destination or the apparent intention
OF a vessel no wise approaching suclr :, port
MAEcINAL JURIspIcrIoN ON THE HIGH SEAS
There could surely be NO pretext for allowing
leas than marine league from the shore that
berg the narrowest allowance found in any au.
thortlcs ON the law of nations If anv nation can
fairly ciaInla greater extent, the United States
t.aFe pleas which cannot he rejected; and if anv
nation is more particularly bound by its own ex-
ample not to contest claim, Great Britain must
be so, by the extent of her own claims to iuris
diction on the seas which surround her. Ii is
hoped NJ least that within the extent of one leagu.
you Will be able TO obtain etiectual prohibition
ct British ships of war, from repeating the ire
gularities which hare much vexe,l our com.
nerce and provoked the public resentment and
against winch an article III your instructions en-
phatically provides. 1t cannot be too earnestly
pressed on the British government, that in applv-
ing the remedy copied from regulations heretofore
enforced against violation of the neutral rights
of British harhors and coasts, nothing more viii
be done than what is essential To the preservafior
81 harmony between the two NATIONS I'M case
Is the temptation of the facility greater 10 ships
ut war, for annoying our commerce, than in their
lowering on our coasts and about our harbors :
nor IS the national sensbiity in any case more
justly or more highly excited than by such insults
The communications lately made to Mr. Monroe.
!'C'N w li!S COiiAuCt Oh BRUSH COnman.
defs, even within orr own waters, will strength
en- 'hc claim ior such an arrangement on this sub
Ject, and for such new orders from the British
government, as will be satisfactory security a.
galnst future causes Of complaint
EAST AND wEsT-INDIA TRADES
1t the West-Imdia trade cannot be put on some
such footing rs IS authorised by your Instructions
1t VIII be evidently best to leave it as it is and
ot. course with a freedom to either party to make
such regulations may be justified by those of
the other.
With respect to tlie East India trade. Won will
find very useful light thrown upon it, in the re-
marks of of which several coni.s -
forwarded IN October. They will confirm TO Won,
1he impolicy, explained in your instructions, of
putting the trade under the regulations admitted
into tiie treaty of 1894. The general footing of
other n"ions, in peace with Great Britain. will
be clearly more advantageous and on this foot
ing, i will be well to leave or place it. if no pec
lar aevssitages OF which there are limitations
~ remarks, can be obtained
IEDEMSfFICATIoNs.-
lbe Nistce OF these ought 10 be admitted bx
Great Britain, whenever the claim is founde don
violations OF ourrights, as obey may be recopn r
ed III any new arrangement or understandinar he .
tween tie parties But III cases, Of which there
are MANY examples, where the claim il st,,port :
ed by principles which she never contested. die
British government ought to have too much res
poet iVr lis professions ard IFS reputation TO hest;
tH'e IA Soncurrmg ~ provision analogous to chat
heretofore adopted.
AZ IS not satisfactory to allege that in all such
cases, redress may be obtained in the or,1iuar,,
4ft. Ill. I'LL.