The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-08-25
DOMESTIC.
From the NGhoact InleAigencer.
REVIEW =

From the NGnonct intetiigencer
=, REVIEW r
Of an .4ddress Of the Federal Minority IN
lie american House of Representatives
againsf War 1rith Greaf B,ita;n.
BY A REPUBLICAN,.
CONTINUED.
"a VIE Law of Blockade has been we'll de-
L fined by the British Governments. The
instructions to commodore Hood of the 5th
or January, 1904, which were issued ex-
pressly in consequence of the remonstrance
of the American Secretary Of State, as ap :
pears from MIR. Merry's letter 20 Mr.. Ma
olson of the 18th of April Of that year, give
the legal definition in these terms:
g. Net to consider any blockade as exis-
ting. onles5 in respect of Particular ho5fs,
which may be actually invested, and then
not to capture vessels bound to such ports
unless they shali previously have been warm
ed not to enter them. "-Pubiic Docun.ents,
Second Session, 1ofh Congress. l..
Mr.. Foster, the late Britt sh minister, in
4 letter to Mr.. Monroe OF tue Sd of iuiy
1911, lays down the rule asadmitted by G.
Britain in the following words
" No blockade can be justiFable or valid.
unless it be supported by an adequate force
destined TO 0saintci,, it and to expose to
hazard all vessels attempting to evade its
operation" PAD. Doc. 1Ss SEES. I2fh Con.
In fact, 10 nation understands the law of
Blockade better than G. Britain, and none
observes its prescriptions less.i
:" In theory (say the addressers) the
principle is admitted by Great Britain. -
It's alledged, however, that in practice
she disregards the principle Page II.
Wi!h this remark the pamphleteers con-
tent themselves And changing the ques-
ton from that of a general disregard, in
practice, ct the principle of blockadss, to
an enquiry into the effect of particular
blockade, they do not once touch the evil
that is the great cause Of complaint h~
1t is quite clear, that it is not of the least
Importance what the British admit the law
to be-in theory, SO long as their hrcctice is
contrary TO law. Concessions of right upon
paper, are no satisfaction for actual wrongs
committed at sea. ,5i re
The circumstances that have marked the
deviations of Great Britain from her own
doctrine, are chiefly these /. Capturing
sur vessels without due notice of blockade /:
=. Capturing them without warning, after
notice: 3. Capturing them at places remote
rom the scene OF blockade, when our YES
sells were not attempting to violate the
blockade /; that is to say. during a block
ade of particular port, seizing, in virtue
at 1t, American vessels In the Atlantic O.
cean.
The wrong is not of new date. 1t was
iest, sharply reprobated. at least as long
ago rs the year 1899, By the federalists.S
MIR. King, writing from London to the Sc
cretary OF State on the subject on the 18th
OF July OF that year, makes the following re-
presentation
I" Seven or eight of our vessels, laden
with valuable cargoes, have been lately
captured and are still detained for adiudi-
oil
voyages 10 and from the Dutch horts de-
ciared 10 be bLoekaded. Several notes have
passed between lord Grenvile and me up
on this subject, with the view, on my part.
OF establishing more limited and rcasona-
ole Interpretation of the law of blockade
than is attempted to be entered by the En-
gllsh government" Put. Doc. Sd Sea. lin
Congress.
Judge Marshall, one of the ablest federal
lawyers in the Country, wrote, as Secretary
OF State, to Mr.. King, on the goth of Sept
1900s thus: .-.-...
1" This is vexation proceeding directly
from the government, and which may be
carried, It not resisted, to a very Injurious
extent. Our merchants have greatly com
planned OF it with respect TO Cadiz and the
ports OF Holland. If the effectiveness of the
blockade be dispensed with, then every
fort Of all the 6eiigerent toners man, ut
all times, be declared in thqt STATE, and the
commerce OF neHtroksbe therein Subjected
TO universal culture" PUB. Doc. Sd SEES.
1Ifh Congress-" s
What Judge Marshall predicted might
happen, has come TO pass. The British
Orders in Council are blockade of nearly
all Europe, and they send their ships Of
war to capture our merchant vessels as they
depart from our own shores. This, in Ell
fect, is a blockade ofthe oceGn.
it appears, then, shat the present admin
istration view this subject as their prede.
cesscrs and some of their present opponents
viewed it. 1t IS, therefore, no new preten.
sion no innovation; 10 newly invented
maXim of the french code.
Biocsades, in themselves, are atbrevia-
tons 81 the rights OF neutrals, who, not Be-
ing parties to war, ought nor 20 Be restric-
ted by II from their usual course of com.
nerce. We may all remember how ella.
morous and pertinacdis The British have
been against allowing q trade in time of war
that.was not allowed in time of peace. IT,
naysask, nothing can be enjoyed in time
OF war that was not enjoyed in time oil
peace, with what prOpriety can any thine
enIQyen'ln time Of peace be taken away In
time OF war The rule would work both
way a1d go to prevent blockades alto.
gether.
But the law of nations decides differently
in both cases. Bockades are permitted
provided they are confined to harfiHuioy
hotfs. that are actually invested by = coy,.
hetez{skgtice. Being rather, in any shab.,
an itfTitgement OH the rights of the neu
" "a 49,