Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-05-06

zion Of the British doctrine, was ale, r,a,,..
SUBJECT OF full, and deliberate .,ii,en,.,;,,',
IN the senate OF the u. s. A cor,o,;,,c..
seven members of that body, af,er ,;;s,...
weeks of arduous Investigation. ren,.....,
three resolutions, the first of which -,
Shese words, "reSotvca, that the can,n,4.
ana condemnation, under the orders of H.
brisish government, and adjudica,ions 80
thsir courLs OF admiralty OF American ye..-
ssis ana their cargoes, on the pretext Of
their being employed in a t,.a,,. vi, ~, w
enemies of G.. Britain, prohibited /, 80; VIC
of peace, is an unprovolSed asrresxjo,, r,,a'.
the property Of the citizens of ,hese IT q
violation Of their neutral rights. .,,I -"
e''croachment itfion their national fudcG.',s
dence." CO.
On the 18th OF February, 1906. ,he e,,...
ton upon the adoption of this rYs,I,,;,
was taken in the senate. fhc ~ .a,
nays were required; 5ut not 4 sol;r.ry 800.
was heard in answer. It was ;donica ~,
the unanimous voice OF AL TIE yena,',rx ~
sent. Ihey were twenty eight il, nam -,
| and among 1ncm stands recorded Tie 49,, -.
OF MIR. Pickering '''Ns
Let us remember tat this was = cues
ton most peculiarly and in,mr6ia,cf &C
commercfa, and not agricultural n,te,5os. ..
that 1T arose, from "a call, lond. ens,.,,,s;.
and unanimous, from all the mercbanis &c &C
the y. ,. upon congress, for the national IN
terposition; that many of the memorials
INVOKED all the energy of the Legislature
and pledged the lives and properties the
memorialists iii support of any measi,re,
which congress might dem ntcessarv ~
vindicate those rights. Negotiation vos
particularly recommended from Bos.nn .nr,
elsewhere negotiation was ad .oted nevo-
ciapon mas failed and now MIR. Pickering
tells US that G.. Britain has claimed ana
maintained her right He argues that her
Claim Is Just; and IS not sparing Of ccnsure
upon those who still consider il as !, ser;o,,,
cause of complaint
But there was one point of view in which
tile British doctrine on this question was
then only considered incidentally in the 1T
States; because 1t was not deemed materi
al for the discussion OF our RIGHTS. Wee
amned it chiefly as affecting the princinIes
as betweena beliigerent and neutral NV.
er. But IN fact 1t vas an Infringement Of
the rights OF war, as well as the 1iphts ~
lPeace. 1t was an unjustihable enlargement
OF the sphere ct hostile operations The
enemies eff Great Britain had by the uniycr-
Sal law OF nations u right to The benefits of
neutral commerce Within their dominion,
(suhJect TO the exceptions of acfua5 block
ade aud contrhbahd) as well as neutral no-
lions had a rightto trade with them. The
exclusion from that commerce by this new
{ principie OF warfare which Britain, in de-
/ lance OF all immcmorial national usayes.
undertook by her single authority to estab..
lish, but TOO naturally led her enemies 10
resort to new aad extraordinary principles,
! by which in their turn they might retail.
ate this injury upon her. The pretence
upon which Britain in the first instance
had attempted to color her injustice, was
a miserable fiction it was an argument
against tact. Her reasoning was, that
neutral vessel by mere admission in time
OF war, into ports from which it would
have been excluded in lime of peace, be-
came thereby deprived OF rs national cha
racter, and ipso iacto was transformed into
enemy's property.
TO be continued.