The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-05-21
DOMESTIC.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
PAR TIT.
LETTER
From Mr.. Monroe to Mr.. Madison.
RICHMOND, February %, 1908.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
Pa r T "
(coNoLUDED.)'

RICHMOND, February %, 1908.
(CoNoLUDED.)
will now proceed to the other topics,
which are adverted to in your letter of May
20, 1907, and ON which / shall be as concise
as possible. In your examination of the
treaty you notice several of primary impor-
lance, which you conceive to have been inn
properly arranged in the articles which re-
ferto them. l will pursue in my remarks the
order which YOU have traced.
You consider the l1th article as objecti-
enable, in having shut to our commerce i'm
portant channels which we're left open to it
by the decisions of the British courts, and
the principles contained in the comm unica-
ton from Lord Hawkesbury to Mr.. King
In support of that opinion you observe, that
as the article stipnlates that the United
States may carry the manufactures and pro-
auctions of Europe from their own ports, to
any colony OF the enemies of Great-Britain,
they arc prohibited by it from carrying the
manufactures or productions OF the coun-
tries beyond the cape of Good Hope, in like
manner, to such colonies. You observe also,
that as the United States are authorised to
carry from their own ports theiproductions
of enemy colonies to Europe, they are prohi-
bited from carrying those productions to the
southern coast OF the Mediterranean, or be-
yond the cape of Good Hope, or to any other
enemy or, neutral colonies in this quarter
persuaded that you will be satisfied,
on further consideration, that this constrac-
ton of that article is unfounded. 1t is not
| the object of the article to regulate the gen.
eral commerce of the countries, or to COM
promit their claims in any case to which the
regulation does not explicitly extend
The. regulation prescribed byit applies to
case OF controversy between the parties, in
point immediate contact, audit was the
object of the article to adjust the controver-
! sy III that point If we advert to the issue
which was made up between them, as clear
| ly defined by the orders of the British govern
ment, the decisions of the courts of admiral
ty under them, and the discussions which
took place between the governments on the
subject, we shall find that in no view can the
construction which you impute to the article,
be supported. .
The issue lately made up between the par
! ties, invoived solely the question, what cir
cumstances or acts, to be performed in the
.ee:.c: c:::::ee::-:- :=siss necessary; !. .teaa
the continuity of voyage from the colony of
an enemy to its parent country,or some enc
my country in Europef This point had been
settled, as was presumed, by former decisi-
ons of the British courts of admiralty, and
explanations of the British government, in a
manner which was so far satisfactory to the
United States, as to justify a belief, that if
those decisions and explanations had been
adhered to, the existing controversy on this
subject would not have arisen. But in 1905
the British courts of admiralty insisted on the
performance of new acts in tho United States
or, what amounted to the same thing, extern
ded by construction, the doctrine of former
decisions In such manner as to make the
performance of new acts, such too as were
OF nature highly onerous and oppressive,
ihdispensably necessary. On this special
point the parties were at issue, and the sole
object of the article was to adjust, by tempo
rary arrangement, the controversy on that
point. The rights of the parties, in every o.
Their instance, not within the scope of the adj
justment, were to remain, of course, untouch-
ed, &, in that particular one, to revive at the
expiration of the term limited for the dura-
ton of the article.
A concise analysis Oft the several orders of
the British government relative TO tine trade
OF neutral powers with enemy colonies, will
place, in clear point of view, the ground of
the controversy between the parties, and the
precise object and effect of the regulation
proposed by the article under consideration.
L he first order bears date on the 9th No
vember, 1898. 1t directed the British CRUZ
zers to bring in for lawful adjudication all
vessels loaded with goods, the produce of
any colonyof France, or carrying provisions
or supplies for such colony. That order "a
mounted, in express terms, TO- declaration of
war against the neutral powers, and it was
issued in that spirit by the British govern
ment. The policy, however, which dicta-
ted the order, did not last long Events
soon produced change of policy, and with
1t a revocation, or, to use the TECHNICAL
phraseo!ogy of the admiralty, a relaxation
OF the order. The ID order was of the 8th
of Jan. 1894 1t directed the cruizers" to
bring ia all vessels loaded with goods the
produce of the French w. India Islands, & CO.
ming directly from any port of the said ISL
ands, to any port in Europe" This order
being directory, prescribed the case in which
neutral vessels engaged in such trade
should be seized, and thereby confined the
seizure to that case only. No vessel engag-
ed in that trade which did not come within
the scope of the order, could be touched -
Thus the effect Of the order was to inhibit
the direct trade of the United States, be-
tween enemy colonies and Europe, in the
productions ofthose colonies. 1t left the trade
free between the United States and enemy
colonies, and between the United States and
Europe, and of Course every other country
1t left it free also in the direct line, between
enemy colonies and Africa and Asia Nv con-