The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-26
mo. 40.

derstood to have been contemplated alone
with like provision against.te impressmept
vi seaneh, IN the late act OF congress prohi-
: biting the importation of Certain CLASSES rs
British manufactures, that, as was en;oined
with respect to the provision against i'm.
pressment, no Ss.hnicyion IS 10 be entered
tato, nor consistent suitI q continuance .T
) fiat act, nnieSs the ftroriSicis zvih 1.esteck
10 the colonial trcde DC also obtained.
In remodelling the provision with respect
10 enc colonial trade, You may with great
proprety urge a distinction between thu.
West-India colonies, and the very distant
ones in the East-lndies and elsewhere, and
| the reasonablcnesS of limiting 10 the former
the exception of the direct trade with their
4 parent countries out of the general neutral
right The distinction is supported by seve-
raj considerations, particularly by the great
| er difficulty, in the case OF The more distant
/ colonies, OF previously knowing, and eyeptu-
ally proving, the regulations as they may have
! actually stood Ill the time of peace and by
the ruinous delays and eXpences attending
| the Judicial Investigations. The British
| courts have In fact admitted the distinction
| so tar as to presume the lawfulncss of the
neutral trade with the East-India colonies,
as being generally open in peace as well as
war; whist they reverse the presumption,
with respect to the West Indies.
In addition to what is proposed on the sub
ject of blockades, in vi. and VII. articles
| me herseperance. Of Great-B,ftain in con-
! stderi1iS ratification Of a blockade, and e.
zen of an intended blockade, TO a foreie7i GO
| Uernment, or IFS ministers at London. as q
| notice TO its citizens, and as renderine a peg
sci fghereUer found an de8tinatio1 to The
notLhed port, as liable. 10 caHturc, calls for
a special remedy. The palpable Injustice of
| the practice, is aggravated by the auxiliary.
rule, prevailing in the British courts, that
| the blockade is to be held in legal force. un-
| til tie governmental notification be expressly
resclnded; however certain the fact may be
that the blockade was never formed or had
ceased. You will be az 10 loss for TOPICS to
| enforce the inconsistency of these innovations
with the law of nations, with the nature OF
| blockades, with the safety of neutral com.
| merce ; and particularly with the commune
! cation made to this government by order Of
the British government, in the year 1904 -
according to which, the British commander
and vice-admiralty courts, were instructed
not to consider any blockade OF the islands
OF Martinique and Guadalupe as existing.
unless III respect of particular ports which
may be actually invested, and then not to
capture vessels bound to such ports, unless
they shall previously have been warned not
| to enter them
| The absurdity Of substituting such diplo-
matte notifications in place of special warn
| ing from the blockading ships, cannot be bet
ter illustrated than by the fact, that before
The notification OF a proposed blockade of
Caoiz, In the year 1905, was received here
from our minister at London official infor-
nation was received from Cadiz, that the
blockade had actually been raised by an en-
emy's feet
1t may be worth your attention. that p dis
tinction has been admitted by the British
prize courts, in consideration Of the distance
OF the United States from the European
oiockades, between their citizens and those
OF states less distant the notice required fo,.
the former being more positive than is MD
necessary for the latter. You will be able
to avail yourselves in the discussion, and per-
| maps In the modification of the article, ofthe
reasons on which such distinction rests.
| -. lCo'ifdentiai-not hrinted.1
mere remains as an object of great i'm
Portance, some adequate provision against
insults and injuries committed by British
crulzers, in the vicinity of our shores and
harbors- These have been heretofor, q to
PIC OF remonstrance, and have ina late in
stance, been repeated with circumstances
| peculiarly provoking, as they inciuds ,b,,
murder OF an american seaman Within the
Inrisdictional limits of the United ,s.e.es.--.
Mr.. Monroe is in full possession Of the docu-
mentS explaining former instance Here
with will be received those relative to the.
late one. They not only support ics} de-
va - StHt'"ly Ph'li9t4l.lCnJ Oh lnG
kofienders, and Of indemnity for the spofiati.
rYs, but call for some stipulations guarding
AGAINST such outrages i'll future. With This
| yiaw, it is proper that ali armed belliger-
emil ships should be expressly and efectuolly
reYtrained from making seizures or search
esq within certain distance fromourcoasts.
or taking stations near our harbors, commo-
dio|ns for those purposes.
IN defining the distance protected against
belJigerent proceedings, it would not. per-
hays, be unreasonable, considering the ex
tent of the United States, the shoalness of
theBr coast, and the natural Indication fi,,-
nishted by the well defined path of the GuiDh
Stream, to expect an immunity for the space
between that limit, aud the American shore
But Fat least it NAV be insisted that the ex
tent of the neutral immunity should cores
ponYl with the claims maintained By Great
! Bril- ain, around her own territory With
out any particular enquiry into the extent
! OF these itmay be observcd-1St That the
British act ofparliament, in the year 1875,
~ " Q. c. s., supposed to be that called
! they hoveriug act, assumes, for certain mr.
pofes Of trade, the distance OF four leagues
FROM the shores. I'd. That it appears daft
botS in the reign of James l. and of CbarI- -
NJ the security Of the commerce with t,e.
British ports was provided for, by express
prof hibtions against tie rowing or lowering
Of Y,eliigerent ships so near the neutral har,'