The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-02-28

NC0As NHOS MI
want of Information. There is not one po-
sition which they have taken, from which
they may not be easily dislodged-,hcre is
not one aggression, which they nave assign
ed to the government of FRANCE, beyond
which il they had only pressed theirresearch-
es but a single step, they would not have
discovered some prior wrong and injustice in
the conduct of England.
Ioprove these assertions more distinctly,
it is proper to divide the period which these
gentlemen have considered, intotwo epochs.
The first embraces the French Ordinances
of l7O4 and '44-aud the "Rulc of war of
so" The last embraces all those Acts. De-
crees, Orders and Proclamations. affecting
the commercial rights of the United States
which have been issued since 1791-or during
The wars of the French Revolution.
Us 10 me first Ehoch-these gentlemen
assert, that the first wrong was coNmitted
BY France, not by G. Britain-that the Bril-
tish rule of the war of SO, (a) which has
Deem pressed into the service of those who
are desirous to find an apology, if not a JUS
tuaca'ion OF every outrage, committed by
France will not bear them OUT in the at
tempt--that it is not true, that G.. B. is
the only nation that has acted upun or other
wise given a sanction oit'-that there is an
ordinance OF France as early as 17O4, which
takes the lead in these aggresSions-hat this
ordinance adopted iii 1904, and repeated i'm
l744, declares all goods of the growth or
fabric OF an enemv's country liable to con-
hsCation, unless bound from an enemy's port
direcay to the port OF the neutral owner.
1t seems useless to examine the question
whether the French edict of 1704 was the
same with the rule Of war of SO. This is
one OF those great di scoveries. which was
reseri ed for the wondrous genius of limo
thy Pickering This great statesman, en-
viouS as If w "uld seem, of the unrivalled SUI
p%e'iority of the present Secretary of State
over his q"ohdam SET has tasked all the ma
iignitv ct his mind To de'ect Mr.. Madison in
some mistake. But in vain it is true, that
in some cases, the British ,ule of war of SO
IN Y cover the sumo ground with the French
ordinances of 1904 ard 1T44: bat in o.her
cases. the rules arc es,tn,aliv different in
their application. II. 7 ench edict pro-
hibits any trade in lie fr,duct.ons # he e.
HeHFY. eHCept to the ID. t:Iai county. The
rule Of so is thus >taed by an Intelligent
merchant of G. Krita;n(6) 1.-The lead ny
points OF discussion were, whether the pro-
perry OF an enemv on board OF a neutral ves-
sci should be Condemned under what cir
cGmstances and regulations = port might oe
1i1ckdtiei and wtIat articles were conrra-
band of Wal. But O.. Britain had once main
tanned n doctrine of an importance TO neu-
trails far exceeding any oihe1., and bv
which she could at once cx.inguish N her
pleasure, all. the increased trade which a
state OF war gave them. without makirgaay
compensation To" the inconvenience Of such
a state this was what is called the rule of
the war of 1756-which provided, that a
neutral had no right 90 CARR OF III ft:7ie Of
gvGr a trade hrohi6ited 10 rim in time If
fedce."-from this description Of the rule IF
80, 1t evidently results, that there are sone
Branches of commerce, rermitt6d bv the G.
dc of 1704, but prohib ted by the rule of
30. Ii during 4 period of war, France should
open TO us the ports Ct her colonies which
are smut against us in a time of peace, the
French edict permits this commerce, even
in French productions, to the ports of our
own Country. The rule of SO fo:bids it.
Ii III a war, the mother country permits the
htroduction OF certain articles, which were
excluded in a time of peaCe-it is a lawful
trade, under the rule of 17O4-but contra
balid under the rule of '56-The first admits
a direct trade between the colonies of the
mother country, except in the productions of
each other-the last may completely forbid
tt hesc cases are essentially different
indeed these two rules, considered as rules,
are framed OF different element and spring"
from different incidents. In some-perhaps
III a majority of great questions, they may
be productive o. similar results.
Admitting, however, their identity to be
complete-the a,sertions Of this Report arc
y Nv means Suplhieu. h)i5i the OruI-
nances of 1904 and 1744 were certainly of a
prior date to the rule OF '56. it will not ne
c%esSarily follow, that France has been the
first in herinvasions of neutral rights. ror
what will these gentlemen say, when we
shall be able to produce a prior and more
outrageous aggression on the part of England,
and which there is the stroi gest reason 70
believe, was the very first precedent for the
French ordinance itself? The researches of
the historic Muse will, however, place this
tact beyond a doubt-as evidently appears
by the following quotation from Vattel's Law
of Nations:
" But that limits may be set to these IN
cpnveniences, that the Of neutral
na'ians may subsist in all the freedom which
the laws OF war will admit, there are rules
to be observed, and on which Europe seems
to be generally agreed.
"Ghe first is carefully to distinguish com
mon goods, which have no relation to war,
rom those peculiarly subservient to it. In
The trade of the former, neutral nations are
to enjoy an entire liberty the parties az
war cannot with any reason deny it, or
hinder the importation of such goods into the
eremies country. In this. the case of their
safety, the necessity Of defence, does not au-
thorizc them, as by these the enemy does
not become more formidable. An attenut