Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1811-12-04

I" d" in the ilth clause Ct his alaies,ys.
structions for priyateers, issued on the ~
of March, 1910, which declares to be % 90
prize . all vessels which have made use :;
British convoy either in the Atlantic O, -
Baltic. ''-Att the tine Of this declar,s'
these vessels were in Russia on tic pc;D,
sailing, and wholly ignorant of it.
This IS brief history Of the coryo-
ses''-it is now my duty to protest agsio., =
principle assumed in the instruction refer
to, upon which they have been condemned.
Shall ecdeayor 10 slew TO your ExceiIe,,.
that it is wholly new, not founded IN. or So
ported BY any reasoning to be derived fy,,
the law of natlons---not even conferences -
precedents, and as wholly repugnant TO H.
doctrines heretofore held by Denmark i,s,;
as it is to the rights and to tie interest of ~
L. States.
That the belligerent has right to ascsrsi,
the neutrality Of vessels which he NAV me-,
with at sea. and therefore under certain en-.
picious circumstances to bring such vessel,
into port for examination, ! am not disposed
to DENY it may also be allowed that the beins
found under encmy's convoy does afford sucS
reasonable ground of suspicion against h.
vessels SO found, as to authorize their beir,
sent into port for exa,niD.tion---but this is the
full extent of the bellisersnt right on hi,
point; the examination had and the vesse,,
being found bonafde neutral, must be acoui,.
ted to say that the neutral shall be condemn.
ed on the mere fact that he was found under
enemy's CONVOY, is to impose upon him nc.
cessiy of sailing without protection even e.
gainst his own seperate enemies for the Csc
might we'll happen, indeed has happened, ,ha,
though neutral with regard TO the belligerent
powers. he has had an enemy against whom e!.
Their ofthc beliigerents was disposed 10 protect
him-of such protection the American com.
merce has often availed itself during the war
between the L. States and the Barbary pow.
ers, nor was j. ever supposed by either Ct the
great belligerent powers. that such commerce
so protected by its eneray had thus become
liable to capture and conhscation; the case
might also occur, that of two allied bellies.
rent powers, third power should be enemy
as to one and neutral as to the other; In that
case, his seeking protection of the Common
enemy of these allied powers against that of
them to which he was enemy, could not sub.
ject him to capture and confscation by the al
lied power with respect to which he was neu.
tral his right In either of those, and in all
cases to protect himself aga;ns. bis enemy by
availing himself Of Whatever CONVOY offers,
is unquestionable. state these arguments a.
gainst the 5road ground taken in the royal in.
structions above quoted but ii will be said
that the belligerent having also III unquestion-
able right to ascertain the neutrality OF vessels,
and the belligerent rights being paramount
to neutral rights where the two happen to DO
in collision, hence the attempt of the neutral
to deprive the belligerent of his right by put
ting himself under convoy, forms Of itself
ground Of Capture and coniscation. To tbs
answer.
Firstly, that the bellige-ent rights wher.
they Came into collision with those of neu,rals
are not to be deemed in al cases paramount
aud that nothing can establish such general
rule, but force, which is nc, law Or Justice.
Secandly, that no presumption necessarily
arises against the neutral from the mere cir.
cumstance Of his being found under enemies
convoy-but that this point will depend upon
the peculiar circumstances of each case.
Thirdly, that where the beiligerent s neu-
tral rights conflict. 81 other circumstances
being equal, the plea OF necessity ought to DE-.
eide the question in favour of the neutral: in
the case supposed, the beiligerent is seeking
the mere exercise of a right, but the neutral
is occupied in his SELF. preservation.
Fourfhly, superadded to this reason in e.
your Of the neutral right, is one springine cut
of the imnu.able principles of equity ;-lor
since according to modern practice, the neu.
trail has no representative in the ;udiczture by
which his cause is tried, that it is no longer
an unmpirage or court of arbitration, so his
claim TO favorable leaning towards his righ,
in all questionable cases is very much strength.
ened
But it is also proper to enquire whether the
vessels IN question did in fac, put themselves
under convoy. with view to avoid exarr:na.
ton by Danish cruizers. Now It appears in
the first place that they did not seek convey
tor any purpose, bnt that they were forced
into it: Apart however from that question
there were net any Danish laws or ordinance.
which they knew Of subjecting them to cap.
| ture, nor could they apPrehead or anticipate
| any such, the less as they had previously pas
sed through the sosnd or belt in sofe,v and