Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1809-06-22
- .sh.fbsr Z vas 3 k1hsly GAG

s, uh.thsr i was \ t'hsly fat
5;ctate Of wisdom.
o ,Ss gentleman from Virginia says
' Dts H smbarro has been measure calcu-
|Aat !ns = - work the ruin Of this country
|lstsd on s, o s has been confined e a.
.' We that is psrnlclous e1I rs: naye
nsI'1ss s., hare and here only: ihls s5r, =
been ' n.reut language from that which has
very olp - !, he aoor Of the British House
Dssn S, ~ and Of the House 81 Lords,
q Commons sses o s The first respsciability IN
By ssass ''atry and should suppose, that 9
fn nal: s {, of the British nation' fssllng an
lclilzsn = = IS prosperity, would at least
.intsress ,able Of Judging Of the effects Of
BE as eapaD's : . az Citizen Of this country
susn .1 as here whilst is effects were ope-
rsma'n here viii beg leave for mo-
Is.n y. = ,' call the attention Of this house to
mem : = 1,rrnville saws on this assure,
s s,,l' he incidentally mentions "a, another
s sast which had been contradlcted IN
'as country and even in this house.
1 1a'S Fisk here quoted parts of lord Gren-
~. M sneech, published in the Alexandria
c -, some time ago. He states that
3 'y;sws the embargo to have been alarming
:.S;;,s Effects; he states ii in his place nthe
british house Of lords. It will not, after
his be contsnded, | presume, even BY
,hoss ! who say that the measure was ruinous
: this country, that it was not injurious to
crrar Britain, who was really the aggressor
mon the indisputable rights of this coun-
re. The embargo, however, was mea-
:nre which the honorable mover Of the re-
soution had the honor to oppose lie was
6r giving up this system of restriction: u
was the same system which had been COM
msnced in eighteen hundred and fve-slx,
whichhe considers one ofthemost disastrous
periods and the commenc cement OF the most
| disastrous system which the country ~ever
Witnessed and since the sytem received
his jealous opposition throughout, IS he
therefore desirous now TO depreclate It's Ct
| frcts. as ruinous to this country He was
opposed to the non-importaticn act, passed
Mn 1906. Why was this act passed: lhls
country found itself hound to do something
| for the protection of commerce. What was
| the state to which this country was then
reduced! New principles. it was assert
led, had been interpolated in the laws OF
nations the admiralty courts had made
Isuch decisions as to authorize the cap-
lure Of every neutral vessel on the high seas
FIRST, BY deciding that touching at neutral
ports did not legalize the voyage, but, that
Fl ought to be considered as a direct voyage
from the hostile colony to Europe. Upon
this construction, the Mercury with cargo
of sugars from the HAVANA, having touched
at Charleston, and bound to Europe. was
condemned in 1902. Under this decision,
unexpected as it was novel, much of our
merchants property was captured and con-
demned.
Next the British admiralty courts held
it requisite, to shcw,that the cargo had been
+anned IN the neutral port, and the duties on
Importation paid, and also that the first IN
bur ance had been made for a voyage. to ter
~sstietS III q iiOtAtt ~Ouiiti I'LL ~ ~ 90
helda as inthe case Of the Essex, condemned
nMay, sos that the duties on importation
hould be actually paid in the neutral eoun-
ry that TO secure them by bond, and sub
beet to drawback. on expectation was not
Sufficient.
These extraordinary decisions surprised
many of your merchants, and subjected
much more ftheir property to capture and
Condemnation. 1t was invading their rights
from a quarter least expected, and in man
her they were utterly unprepared to meet.
Under these various unfounded construe-
lions of maratime law your merchants were
Extremely elnbarrassed-and what was their
language upon the occasions This house
vas filled with memorials and remonstran-
les, of merchants and others, from ONT end
the country to the other, protesting IN the
old language of free and independent men