The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-11-24
Gbe Gnqutrer.
RICHMOND. NOVEMBER "a, 1909.
POINTS IN DISPUTE BETWEEN GREAT
BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.
No. IT..

Gro1cfS Whlch nave been called forth By the
tsvo great subjects in dispute between the
two nations, viz: the imhreSsn,cnt Of sea-
men and the colonial trade. There are O.
Their Permanent POINTS for adjustment be-
tween Great Britain and the u. States, as
r'fcs for the conduct of each during a
STATE OF wAR-these are of great, though
neutrality-suspicious. 10 the two first which
have been mentioned. --Amongs the prn-
cipal of which are |, the case of Biockades.
2, # Comfrodand Of Maria these, as in
the two first. no proposition has been urged
by the last administration, which was not
strictly warranted by the rights of the u.
States, and the laws of nations.
1. Bleckades-" The fictitious block
ades." saws the Secretary of State in his
letter of January S, 1904. "proclaimed by
G. Britain, and made the prctext for viola
ting the commerce of neutral nations, has
been one OF the greatest abuses ever COM
mitted on the high seas. During the late
war they we're carried to an extravaganza
which would have been ridiculous, if in
their effects they had not inflicted such Sc.
rious and extensive injuries on neutral ma
tions. Ports were proclaimed in a state of
blockade frcpious to the arrival of any force
at them, were considered in that state with
out regard to insern,issions in the presence
oil the blockaG'ng force, and the proclama-
zion lett in operation after its final deEar.
sure, the British cruiZers during the whole
time SeiZing every vessel bound to such ports,
at gphafeUcr distance from them, and tho
British prize courts pronouncing condemna
tons whenever 81 knowledge of the procla
nations, at the time of sailing could be IRE
snmed. although it might afterwards be
known that no real blockade existed. The
whole scene was perfect mockery, in which
fact was sacrificed to form and right to
power and piuuder. The u. States were
among the greatest sufferers"
During The present 7var, the conduct of
the British government has been still more
outrageous than the last, although cases of
this atrooious description had not occurred
At the time of the composition of Mr. Ma
disen's letter. Among these, it is only ne
cessary to select the weeping Instructions
OF May l6, 1909, which put at once under
blockade the whole Coast, from the Weser
to Rrest--a distance scarcely short of 900
miles, and more than the 5000 ships of Bri-
tain could effectively seal up. These orders
were mischievous in themselves, but thew
were still more so, when they became the
preteNs OF the retaliatory French Berlin
decree of November, 18O6-out Of which
the orders OF January and November. and
the Milan arrete of December. 1907, have
successiveiy emerged The late British
order of council, which seal almost the
fact but legitimate scion of this mon,trous
stock--ana there is every reason to fear.
Enough these orders may be rescinded-bv
some tutnre stipulation, yet unless there be
some cotemperaneous provision against the
abuses OF this principle of blockade, that it
may successvely extend its cancerous roots
in.o the very heart Of our trade, and virtu
ally defeat the benefits of this repeal.
I'm evil OF this alarming port required
Some serious rc ncdF. But the one PROPOSE d
by the last administration, was not only
gTeeabic 10 The laws of nations, but to the
impartial sentiments of q. Britain herself
On similar occasions. twas literal trans-
eript from the 4th article of the treaty of
the l7th June, 1901, between Russia and C.
Britain, in che following terms: =" I'm order
60 deterWne what charaCterizes blockaded
port tha, denomination is given only 70 a
port, where there is BY the disposition of
tn power which attacks it with Ships stati-
snedor sufficiently near. an eUident danger
an CDfering." Besides this general reeuIa
non, some provision was thought necessary,
as TO the notice to be givenofa blockade. -
Out minister was instructed to propose. that
no vessel was to be g considered IS violating
= IN any manner the blockade. unless on her
approach towards such (blockaded) port.
she shall have been previously svarned a
gaihst entering the same but as the Bri
tsh government had persisted sin consider
ing n0'ihcation OF blockade, or even of
an intended blockade. 10 a ,9reign govern
.Went, or itS ministers at London as n mo
tee TO ITS Citizens" some remedy was tn he
required for this abuse
liie OH article in the treaty of Messrs.
Monroe K Pinkney, though good in one res
,pect, did not provide against these haher
Prnclamations ofbl kade No vessel going
toaetockdded port. was tob be captur d. un,
Tess she had known Of the bIockade-but
what was 70 be Blockade, was not defined.
jn MS crtHque, therefore, on the treaty.
the Secretary of State thought il better to
strike this clause from I'll treaty altoyet her.
aud 10 trust to the laws of nations, and 10
the treaties which had defined them.
Q. Confraband Of Har-This too had
been used as pretext for very serious abu
ses against the ri.,its of neutral nations -
4 ne etio''s Of Great Britain, as a beliiger-
fAtna'i0a. had been to enlarge the list of
contraSan6, with view Of narrowing III
lredc OF neutrais, as well as extending the
ID q OF maritime hiuHder Not only z,oz,oI
ano military stOres, but the raw Uufer;oIs
Tor them, have been put under their reoui
s'uon. Nay, froviSionS themselves. which
are OF use to all nations, whether they are
Al war or an peace, were actually corn
pressed, by the ingenuity of the British mi.
histers INTO the famous treaty of MIR. Jaw.
ss professionally contraband bot under Ger.
Lon circumstances substituting pre cmp.
,ich for forfelture'
Fo'ps provision on these points, 50 sssenti