The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-05-21
4 srasle, the rights Of the par,ies clnnnt

>'.AA'h 10 III exemption from tn2l TRADE from
'tne operation OF tho British principle, rests
@oa still stronger ground. admitting that it e
Yer extended TO it, which however am far
from admitting 1t can be shcwn that the
orders themselves, take it completely from
within the scope OF that principle. By IN
strucsing the Cruizers to seize vessels >cnra-
'gcd in particular trade, every other trade
is allowed. 1t is in that mode that what is
called a relaxation OF the British principle,
rs effected. The order reduces the princi-
pie TO it's own standard, or in ether words,
becomes the principle itself If this doc
trine is not true, it is impossible to designate
III what mode the relaxation, which is uni
Versally admitted, Of the British principle, is
wrought; or toprove that there has been any
relaxation al it whatever If the orders have
not that effect, of what avail are thcys That
they have that effect is proved by the dcci-
sions Of the courts, and the practice under
them. i am aware of the broad doctrine
held by the courts on this subject, but that
doctrine, necessarily ambiguous from the
dilemma in which the courts were placed by
the inconsistent orders of the government,
if not reconciieable to this construction Gas 1
think it is, when the whole subject is taken
into view is contradicted by the decisions
of the same courts and the explanations of
the government itself.
i say that this trade isnot inhibited by the
trade between enemy colonies and the mo-
Their country. But trade between the Uni
ted States and Asia or Africa, let the sub
jcct OF 1t be what it may, is not trade of
that kind. 1t is a trade with independent pow
ers at peace with Great Britain with whom,
we have a right to trade, by all the rules
which Great Britain has at any time insist
ed on. 1t would be of dangerous tendency
to admit that Great Britain had a pretensi-
ntPrfpra with cncb Ia in
case. After the goods are received into the
United States, no matter of what articles
they consist, or from what quarter they came
they arc the property of the country, and
may Of right be shipped to any other coun-
try. The British principle does not contro-
vert this doctrine. 1t asserts in it's widest
range the right only to seize them Oh their
route to the neutr.' country, and from it
to the mother country of the colony, or some
other enemy country of Europe, provided
they be not Incorporated info the stock of
the neutral country. If they are, they NAV
go under the arrangement made to the coun-
tries to which the British principle applies
But they require no sanction from the Bri-
fish government, to go to those to which it
does not apply. The destination of the YES
sci alone would, as l presume, dispel every
doubt of the legality of the trade, and pre-
clude all farther inquiry concerning it
The question of continuity of voyage could
never arise In such case. ii is certain
that the arrangement alluded to gives no
sanction TO it, and for the best of all reasons,
that the trade was not admitted, or even con-
tended to be comprised within the range of
British principle.
shall close my remarks on this point by
observing, that as the arrangement of the
acts to break the continuity of the VOYAGE
from the United States to the parent coun-
try, and other enemy countries of Europe,
In the produce of their colonies, and from
the United States to those colonies, in the
manufactures OF Europe, is confined strictly
TO that object, the rights of the parties re-
main uninpaired in every other circum-
stance relative to that trade that as the ar
t,cle contains no stipulation amainst thu, di-
rect trade from the colony to the parent
country, the right to carry on even that
trade is not necessarily suspended by it -
that il in any view it can be considered as
suspended, it is by implication arising out of
the whole transaction, rather than from the
stipulation itself How much stronger then
is tho conclusion already drawn from other
premises, that nothing is to be deduced from
that article to justify the construction which
has been imputed to it
The remarks above made, refer more par
eicularly to a trade between the United States
and Europe in the produce of enemy colo
siiss. hcy arc however equally applicable
10 the other objection stated in your letter,
of trade betweenthe United States and en-
envy colonies in the produce or manufac-
lures OF Africa or Asia. None of the or
ders alluded to, inhibit that commerce, and
1T is most certain that the article alluded to,
gives no sanction to such pretension
AS to the conditions by which it is agreed
TO break the continuity of the voyage, i have
to observe, that they are AS favorable as you
had expected. We were authorized to sti-
pulate, if better conditions could not be OBJ
tanned, that the goods should be landed, the
dutics haid and the shin changed. We sti-
pulated, only that the goods should be landed
and the duty paid, making the duty on Euro
pcan goods per cent and on colony pro-
auctions two. By exempting the party from
the necessity of changing the skip, an im-
portant advantage was certainly secured
BY fixing the duty at l per cent. in the one
instance, and at in the other, it was not pos
sible that the slightest embarrassment should
be thrown in the way of the trade. The du-
ty payable on manufactures consumed in the
country is about Is per cent. and on West
India productions 25 The trifling amount
made payable to the country on the re-ex-
portation of the articles, could not be felt by
the merchant. 1t would fall ON the European