Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-04-29

nations, which it will not be in the power
of the u. S. to redress.
Weighty considerations would dssuade
from such a deviation from strict eouali-
~ towards bellgerent nations, if stipulated
at time least liable to objection. But il
would be impossible to justify stipulation,
IN the midst or war, substituting for an ex-
lstiiig equality, an advantage to one of the
bcliiSerent parties over i-s adversaries I;
and that too, without any compensation to
the neutral, shiel'.ing its motive from the
appearance OF mere Partially. Hitherto
the U >. have avoided, as much as posi-
Die, such embarrassments and with this
view have gratuitously extended to ali BEL
iigerents the privileges stipulated to any
OF them. Great Britain has had the benefit
OF this scrupulous policy. She can, there
fore, with the less reason, expect it to be
reiinquished for her benefit.
The last paragraph of the 18th article,
establishes just principle as to the res
ponsibility OF a neutral nation, whose ter
ritory has been violated by captures with
In Us limits f.; but by extending the pyinci-
pie to the two miles added TO our jurisdic.
ton ly the 9Th article, qualified as that
addition is, II is made peculiarly important
that AN amendment shoufsi take place.
Passing by the failure of a reciprocity,
either in the terms, or the probable ope
ration OF the responsibility, The u ). seem
to be bound 10 claim from The enc mics of
Great Britain, redress for a hostile act,
which enemies may not have renounced
their right to Commit within the given
space; making thus the u. s. liable 20 the
one party, without correspondent liabili
~ to then, iii the ether party; and at the
same time emitting Great Britain to redress
rrt,at .f !.
she has reserved to herself right TO COM
mit against them.
Should all the ether belligerent nations,
contrary to probability, Concur in the all
dluon OF TWO miles to our jurisdiction, this
construction would still be applicable to
their armed ships, those unarmed alone
being within the additional immunity
against British cruizers, and the armed, as
well as the unarmed ships CT Great Britain.
being expressly within the additional res
ppnsibihtv OF the u. s.
Sixth No treaty Can be sanctioned by
the ". 5. under tae alternative presented
by the decl;lratory note on the subject of
the French decree of Nov. 81 II is hoped,
that the occasion which produced it will
have vanished, and that it viii not be re-
bewed in connection with u future sigma
ture on the part of Great Britain. The ut
most allowable in such case would be a
f111did declaration that in signing or rasi-
lying the treaty, it was understood on the
part OF Great Britain, that nothing therein
contained would be a bar to any measure
vii ch, if no such treaty existed, would be
lawful as a retaliation against the easures
or an enemy. And with such declara-
zion, it would be proper, OH the part of the
United States, 10 combine an equivalent
protest against its being understood that
either the party or the British declaration
would derogate from any rights or immu-
mites, against the effect of such retalia-
ting measures, which would lawfully APP
pertain to them, as neutral nation, in
case no such treaty or declaration existed
Having given this view Of the alterati-
ons which are to be held essential, pro-
coed to nolce such others as, though not
Included in the ultimatum, are tobe regar-
ded AS more OF less deserving your best
exertions. This will be more convenient.
iy done by review of the several arti-
cies IN their numerical order.
The I'd, 9TH, and 5th, all relate to the
trade and navigation between the two coun-
tries. The two first make 10 change in the |
siipulations of the treaty of 1894. The last |
has changed, and much for the better, the |
provisions Of thar treaty on the suDisct of
Two important questions, however, en- |
ter into AN estimate of these articles.
The hrst is, whe sher they are 10 be un-
dersiood as bar to any regulations, such |
as navigation acts, which would merely |
establish a reciprocity with British regula- !
f'ons. From the construction which seems
TO have been always pot or the same stipu-
lations in the treaty Of 1874, il is conc!u-
ded hat no such bar could be created, and |
consequently tina. the articles are in that
respect unexceptionable. II may be well,
nevertheless, to ascertain that the subject
Is viewed in this light by the British gov
The second question is, whether the par
ties be, or be not, mutually restrained from
laying duties, as well as prohibitions, un
favorably discriminating between articles
exported 10 them, aud like articles export
ed to other nations
According to the construction put by the
United Sia'es on the same clauses ~ the
treaty Of 1874, the mutual restraint was
applicable TO determinations Of both kinds.
The British discriminating duties on ex.
pors, introduced under the name of con-
Voy duties, and since continued and aug
nented Under oiher names, were accord
ngly augmented, during the existence Of
ne treaty, as inirsctions 10 its text. The
British government, however, never YIELD
"a TO cur construction, either in d scussiyn
81 in practice. And it appears from what
passed in your negotiations on this subject,
hat the construction which is to prevail, {
81 49, !.