The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-02-20

\
shield Of the. u. States against France
, may be sua)ect to explosion.
The use o. convovs is apparent from the
very nature IF the subject-but we have
also a precedent in point. When tho victory
of Lord Nelson. at the Nile, had let loose the
prosecutions Of his country against the rights
OF Deutra's; after the reiterated com
plants ct the merchants and all ,he means
OF official representation with the beiliger
ents had been exhausted in vain. the Danish
and Swedish governments at last came TO
aresolution TO protec. their commerce eff
fectual;y by causing their fleets of merchant
men to be conveyed by ships of war"
Such is our situation-Shch must be our
resource.-It is indeed source OF regret
that ar Iris time, our ships OF war are not
numerous enough TO furnish greater facilities
to our own merchants and more efiectual
resistance 20 the enemy--to Weld more crn
voys for the many points of our coasts and
the variCns branches Of our trade but If we
cannot do every thing, we can ut least do
something. We can at least do better than
those who are constantly preaching up sub
mission through tae unfavorable contrast of
our resources with those of G.. Britain.
approve, therefore, of the means, tn ec-
ncrdi--some'o the dcfai:s, however, might
be regulated for the better.-ks this subject
rs perhaps the most important of any which
are now before Congress, ] shall beg leave
to state my objections with frcedom.-Let it
always be kept in mind, that there is no
other road 10 Irurh, 6ut free discus
sion Il. The first section Of the bill requires
the President Of the United States to employ
the public armed vessels .' to convoy vessels
owned by citizens of the United States and
laden with the produce of the U. States,
the property OF such citizens why limit
the protection to the produce of the United
States onlys Suppose the merchants of the
". ;. have obtained, in lawful exchange for
onr o7cn produce. the produce of other ma
tons, as tea, sugar, coffee and East India
goods-these articles might be in high de-
mand inthe N. of Europe are 6euG-
hde the property Of our own merchants-
why are they then, to be debarred from the
privileges of the convoy!
Ihe subsequent sections Of the bill seem
to be at war with this provison--the 4th IL
mits the right of visitation and search on the
high seas, tocaseS of "cncmy's hroh erty. of
articles by this law declared contra6and of
war" or of destination I" to port actually
blockaded. The 9th limits the right of
capture to the same cases.
The bill ought to be so amended rs to take
IN "uessels owned by citizens OF the United
States and laden with the hroherty of such
citizens. IF we give up.thus even INDIRECT
fy. the principle. that " free shifts make free
goods" we ought at least to avail ourselves
of the benefit of the contrary maxim, that
shields even the property of a neutral in the
hips of belligerent.
But ifit be thought proper to make an ex.
ception, i'll favor of the English pretensons as
to the colonial trade, it may be added. "pro,
vided lift be colonial produce, that it has been
landed in the u. S. and The duties paid on
it."-in the convention between Eng
land and Russia, in 1901, the right of trans
portation is even carried further for 80 it
is agreed, not to comprize in the number of
(enemy's property the merchandise of the
produce, growth or manufacture, of countries
at war which should have been acquired By
tie SUBJECTS ofthe neutral ho7oer, & should be
transported for their account; which mer.
chandize cannot be excepted in any case
fromthe freedom granted to the flag of the
said power"
2. The first section, too, limits the
convoy to vessels not bound " TO a b.ockadcd
port. or to any port or place belonging to or
in the actual possession Of any nation, haUing
N force, orders, edicts, or decrees against
neutral rights in violation of the laws OF ma
tions.' That is to say, to France, England,
&c. Of course our vessels, bound to France,
may be taken & contiscated by the English,
and rice versa. Is not this cause in di-
rect contradiction to the purposes of the
Dill! What is the use of conUoys? To pro-
tect our rightfut and hazvfuifrades. by force.
Why, merely protect a trade, which stands in
no need of protection! This bill conveys
our trade to the Baltic, for example-that
trade is not liable TO interruptions by the e.
diets of the beligerents-We therefore offer
toforce trade which is not prohibited by
the belligerents-and yet refuse to protect
one, which rs prohibited--that il. where pro-
lection is principally wanting, we refuse it
where not wanting, we are willing to give it.
Is this consistent!
And 7chy refuse to protec trade with
"any nation having in force orders, edicts
"or DEGREES against neutral rights in viola
ton of the laws of nations :" Why grant
conveys at all? The answer recurs, to pro
tcct lawful trade? And what is the aim of
MIR. Macon's bill, which has just passed thro'
the House of Representatives Why-to
iegalize the trade with France and England
that is. to make &a7yfu trade with
nations "haying in force" these very or
ders, &c. In one breath, then, are we to
declare a certain trade lawful. and i'm ano-
Their, refuse to protect it! Is this consist
eHt
1t may be said, perhaps, why not iegalise
trade, and yet refuse to firotcct it, WHY
not tell our merchants, they may risk it at
their pleasure. but that it is due to the re
sentiment which we feel for those iniuuitous
edicts, not to protect 4 trade with the nations
that thus insult us9 This is to say. that We.
reiinquish all controul over our merchants
they may carry on whatsoever trade they
choose to risk though the keels of their yes