The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-22

Of State, f1fOr TO the joi1t n,iSSi on of hin
and Mr.. Pinkney; Part 2, accomhany-
ing the message Of tie President of the
q. S. received on the 22d Of March, 1908.
LETTERS
FROM Mr.. Monroe 70 Mr.. MADISON.
(CoNTINUED.)
! Remembrance by the minister hlenihoten-
tio,-y of the United Safes, to The Bril-
tish government.
GREAT CUMBERLAND PLACE, NO. 10,
September %, 1906.
MY LORD,
l flattered myself, from what past in our
| last interview, that I should have been no.
nored, before this, with an answer from your
| lordship, to my letters, respecting the late
| seizure of American vessels. / understood
| it TO be agreed, that the discussion which
| then took place should be considered as in
| official, as explanatory only of the ideas
which we might respectively entertain on
| the subject, and that your lordship would
afterwards give me such reply to my let
| tiers, respecting that measure, as his majes-
| tvs government might desire to have COM
lmunicated to the government of the United
States. In consequence, have since wait
| ed with anxiety such communication, in
the daily expectation of receiving it. 1t is
| far from being my desire to give your lord
| ship any trouble in this business which can
avoid, as the time which has since elapsed
sufficiently shews. But the great impor-
lance of the subject, which has indeed be-
come more so, by the continuance Of the same
policy, and the frequency Of seizures which
are still made of American vessels, place
me in n situation of peculiar responsibility.
My government will expect of me correct in
formation on this point, in all its views, and
am very DESTROYS of complying with its Just
Expectations. / must, therefore, again re
| quest that your lordship will be so good as
to enable me to make such a representation
| to my government, of that measure as his
majesty's government may think proper to
| give.
| l am sorry to add, that the longer have
reflected Oh the subject, the more confirmed
have been in the objections to the measure
If we examine it in reference to the law of
nations, it appears to me to be repugnant to
every principle of that law; if, by the I'M
Outstanding, or as it may be more properly
called, the agreement of our governments
respecting the commerce in question, COLI
slider it equally repugnant to the principles of
that agreement. In both these views your
lordship will permit me to make some adj
ditional remarks on the subject.
BY the law of nations, as settled by the
most approved writer's, no other restraint
is acknowledged on the trade of neutral natl
ons, with those at war, than that it be i'm
partial between the latter; that it shall not
extend to articles which are deemed contra
band OF war nor to the transportation of
| persons in military service nor to places
actually blockaded or besieged. Every o.
Their commerce of neutral with a belliger-
ent, is considered lawful commerce and
every other restraint on it to either of the
hall hrrf f,,l
trant.
| The list of contraband is well defined, as
are also the circumstances which constitute
a blockade. The best authorities have uni
ted in combining the first to such articles as
are used i'll war, and are applicable to mill
tary purposes; and requiring, to constitute
! the latter, the disposition of such force,
consisting of stationary ships, so near the
port, by the power which attacks it, as to
| make it dangerous for the vessels of neutral
power to enter it. The late treaty between
Great-Britain and Russia designates these
circumstances as necessary to constitute
blockade, and it is believed that it was never
viewed before i'll light more favorable to the
invading power.
The vessels condemned, were engaged in
commerce between the United States and
some port in Europe, or between those states
and the West-India islands, belonging to an
enemy of Great-Brtain.-In the Europe
an voyage the cargo consisted of the pro-
auctions of the colonies; in the voyage to
the West-Indies, it consisted of the goods
of the power to which the colony belonged,
and to which the ship was destined. The
ship and cargo in every case were the pro-
perry of American citizens, and the cargo
had been landed, and the duty on it paid, In
the United States. II was decided that these
voyages were continuous, and the vessels and
cargoes were condemned on the principle
that the commerce was illegal. beg to re-
fer more especially in this statement, to the
case of the Essex, an appeal from the judge
ment of the vice admiralty court at New-Pro-
violence, in which the lords commissioners of
Of appeals, in confirming that judgement, es-
tablished this doctrine.
1t requires but slight view Of the subject
to be satisfied that these condemnations are
incompatible with the law of nations as above
stated. None Of the cases have involved a
question of contraband, ofblockade, or Of a.
ny other Kind that was ever coptcsted till of
late, in favor Of beliigerent against neu-
trail power. 1t is not ON any principle that it
is applicable to any such case, that the mea-
sure can be defended. On what principle
then is it supported by Great Britain! What
is the nature and extent of her doctrine
What are the circumstances which recon-
mend, the arguments which support it! The
information Oh these points VIC cannot refer
to the well known writer's on the law Of natl
Ons; no illustration can be obtained from