Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1809-12-18
and 20 obstruction was

lawful. 10 an evil Wiiei' -. IS
many Others under similar c'f !'.
which are daily expected to arrive e tn's
Island. and in consequence OF inc fehs W. =
of thr American non intercourse, may al
feet not only the individuals immediately
;n,.rss,ed but the community at large, by
s,onp;ns the means of procuring necessary
,,,ch articles, through this channel. Mf'
Gillbank. therefore requests your ADVICE
and opinion, as well respecting the Presehe
seizure. as to what may be done to oov'a'e
the evil in future.
Il this vessel and cargo liable to seizure
and con6seation, for the breach OF any laws
or orders in council? And if strictly liable
10 seizure, any circumstances or MEANS ~
application to the governor or OTHERWISE ~
obtain the release of this vessel and cargo
And should she not be liable to seizure,
VIVA, redress have Wilkinson and Gl.ibanks,
or Ioel West 8. Co. for such seizure! IL
this seizure is legal, ars there any, ana
what steps can be adopted, to obtain legal
permission for the importation la.o TINS
island. of American produce IN Spanish
vessels or such license as would protece
them from seizure whilst 80 employed
Your advice generally, on ,his subject IS
required.
Ihal some doubts whether this vessel and
cargo came under any Of the orders IN coan-
Gil. But upon consideration, those doubts
are in a great measure removed. Inc case
i ca,,,;nlv hard. and arises entirely out OF
the peculiar situation of the commercial re-
lations of the United States.
The question is, whether a Spanish yes
sci may import legal cargo belonging to
American merchants into British port in
the West Indies.
am Inclined to think, that such trade
IS protected by the Cd, Sd, and 4th sections
of,br order in council OF the 4ih July, 1903.
The Sd section gives all Spanish vessels free
admission into British ports, as before the
war. The 18th declares that all Spanish yes
sells shalt be suffered to carry ON ana trade,
uozv considered by his majesty to be lawfully
carried on in ',eutra! ships.
There can be no doubt but that tbs cargo
might have been imported in an American
vessel, both under the Order in Council of
the 18th April, 1903, (Which is not repealed
by the late Order of the Oath May, 1902
and the existing proclamation. The 4,h
section, which have quoted. gives the
trails IN 6o;h e SaA9isEAh he British almost
equally sacrifice the monopoly and carriage
of provisions, and it was compelled to do so
in order to induce The Americans to CONT
nue. the supply, Notwithstanding the embar
90 and non-intercourse laws. It was o5yi.
Gus that this supply could scarcely be car
ried on in American bottoms, but it might
in Spanish vessels, therefore this privilege
was confined 10 the lstter-stll, however,
doubt remains whether the present Court
will consider itself bound by these Orders in
Council, wh>Sh are certainly in violation of
the navigation act, and the validity of which
has been questioned more than once by the
present Judge
Irccoleet case in which British goods
had been imported in this island in an Anne
rican vessel to Cuba-she was detained and
Ebell.d. | considered that both were pro-
tected by the Order in Council, OF the 11th
Nov. 1907, which declares that all British
manufacture. should be restored, on whate-
yer voyage bound, andto whoever the pro-
perry belonged. This Judge took two days
TO consider the questioa-and after much
hesitation came to this resolution, hat his
Majesty in Council could neither alter nor
modify an act Of Parliament. The vessel
and cargo were condemned. fh imsers-
tive obligation of the Orders IS not cues
toned in the Prize Court-bas~ that Court |
is especially constituted by his Majesty,a |
il. some measure under his control and will !
only. And ifthe Court decided on the Or |
ders to which have referred, both vessel !
4 L