Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1811-12-28
From the Lsndcn Morning Post Of Mop. !.
THE QUESTION OF NEUTRALITY.

THE QUESTION. OF NEUTRALITY.
The verdict returned in the court OF King $
Bench on Wednesday, as mentioned In our
paper of "Wednesday (namely, In the case OF
Buckers against Ainslie) has caused a great
sensation in the mercantile world. The
plaintiffs had by virtue of license granted
to themselves and any other British subjects
or neutrals, shipped the property (for the re-
covery of the value of which they now bro,t
their action) on board the ship Fortuna, ASSOC
ciating with themselves in the benefits OF the
license Messrs. Snidt and Co. OF Riga, who
were the consignees of the goods at issue.
The goods were seized and conhscated, and
the payment of the loss sustained was resist
ed by the defendants on the ground that
Messrs Snidt and Co. being residents OF Ri
ga. a Russian port, did not come within the
description of persons covered by the license,
being neither British subjects nor neutrals,
but alien enemies. In the course OF the ar
guments upon the sause, the counsel and the
court laid down some principles and some
doctrines particularly worthy OF attention.
The attorney general insisted that acts OF hos
tility committed by any power against US, did
not place us in state of war with that pow
er, which could only be produced by reci-
procation of hostile acts, warranted by de-
claration from our government, or by the Is
sue of letters of marque and reprisal. In the
existing relation between this country and
Russia, there was no reciprocation of hostili-
~ OH our part, no declaration of war issued
by our government, no letters of marque and
reprisal. Mr. serjeant Best, for the defend
ant, maintained, that mutual and notorious
acts of hostility, without declaration or let
tiers of marque, were sufficient to dives, the
parties of the character of neutrals, and to es-
tablish that of enemies; and for the manifest
existence of these reciprocal acts of hostility,
he referred to the known seizure of the Rus
sian feet in the Tagus by sir Charles Cotton,
in the naval part of the convention OF Cintra
and to the equally known and frequent sell
lures of British vessels in Russian ports; but
it does not appear that these last seizures
were sufficiently made out in proof, and the
seizure of the Russian fleet in the Tagus
was described on the part of the plaintiffs, as
a measure of necessary policy, rather
than of hostility. Lord Peterborough held
a kind of middle course, not agreeing
with the attorney general that there could
not be state of war, however hostile
one party may be, without an express and
general retaliation on the other, warranted by
a declaration, or letters of marque, or some
other evidence equally decisive. His iordship
conceived that general acts of hostility COM
mit,ed by one party, Invested that party of the
character and rights of a neutral but he did
not not think that the same forfeiture was in
Cured by single acts Of detention and seizure
which may arise from contravention OF official
regulations, or other measures Of local and
temporary policy; his lordship appeared ra-
Their inclined to think that the conduct Of Rus
STA had gone beyond the latter limit, and was
such as to place that power in state OF hosti-
lily towards us and he thought the grant of a
licencc an indirect declaration to the same eff
feet on the part the government, as licences
were neither granted nor requisite for voyages
to friendly or neutral ports. He endeavored to
apply the relative facts given in evidence to the
case; but they were extremely deficient The
facts of the case itself were clear s confessed
His lordship having uponrthis left the matter
to the Jury, they gave verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs. This, we think, was perfectly right.
Our government has never professed to be at
war with Russia, but has, on the contrary, studi-
ossly avoided any declaration or act that could
warrant that construction. Our policy has
been evidently whatever the hostile acts of
Russia may apparently have warranted and
called for) to abstain from retaliation for acts
which, perhaps the restraint imposed upon
Russia may have placed in light to be view
ed by our government more with a counte-
nance of pity than of anger. Conjoined with
this motige of indulgence is the obvious poll
cy of preserving, as far as it can be preserv-
ed, even an occasional and uncertain, and some
lines hazardous access for our commerce to
the Russian ports and, the more latent but
equally sensible policy of preserving foun-
datien for the renewal of our former amity
and alliance with Russia, by forbearing to
push the present contingent to extremity, &
if not actually compulsory at least unnatural,
and therefore, probably not durable Interrupt
ton. The seizure of the Russian ships in
the Tagus was to prevent their being used
against us; and it must be reco!lected, that
when we seized the Danish feet at Copenha-
gen by force and arms, we did so, without
giving to the act the character of hostile
measure: nor was il till some time after