Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-01-23
FOR THE ARGUS.
CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS
Cor. MoNRoE's CORRESPONDENTS,

4
Communicated 70 Congress BY he President on
ihe sch Norender, 1911.
| - NO. VII.
The law cf neutrality originated from the
| crielties and the contagion of war. It grew
, up among civilized nations as an amclorati-
OH Of an evil ipscparable from social exist
ence. The principles upon which it is found
ed are calculated To soften the rigor OF nos
| tilities, and to carry into the most ruthless
conflict the feelings of humanity. Depar-
| tnres frori this law are always sure to be fol-
| lowed BY corresponding misfortnnes TO che
v:oators oft. If the neutral, by the wanton
infraction of his rights, suffers privations, the
belligerent party never fails to partake in
them. When Great Britain set up the un-
lawful Rue of'56. she ought to have count
ed, from snCh beginning, upon terrible Gala
mites. She has, indeed, cut off the trade en-
tirely between France and her colonies, (and
| when l speak of France, wish to be under
stood AS meaAing the whole continent of Eu-
rope, but what has she gained by it? This
original wrong has effected more McH its o6-
lject for it has acted retributively upon the
wrong-doer. Listen TO the complaints OF the
Jamaica planters; look at the manufactures
and at the warehouses of England at the
policy of France and the situation of Amcri-
Tea and what do they exhibit? What, but
that Great Britain, in destroying the trade
between France and her distant Dependent
cies, has cut herself off from the commerce
Of the world Like the silly Phalars with his
brazen bull, she suffers by the wicked genius
OF her own politics, and groans under enor-
nous calamities, the unlamentcd victim of a
new continuance to veX mankind.
The necessity for neutral party during
the prevalence of war is obvious and that
| M &c NJ Il
nifest by the prevailing practices of Great
Britain and France. These two powers may
not inaptly, in relation to the. United States,
be compared to q fair Of shears, which have
completely cut off America from her rights
. In consequence of this cutting off, the two
great belligerent powers have had to play
the part Of neutrals themselves. Hence we
frequently hear of their granting licences to
each OTHER for reciprocal supplies of their re-
spective merchandise or productions.
This monstrous departure from all esta-
, blished rules is an incipient stage Of the APP
ppoach of more barbarous practices. The
British, commanding, in great measure, the
high seas, will, in course of time, under CO.
Tor of various principles, become completely
piratical. Already their conduct indicates
; such state of things. Blockadcs, which
formerly required a stationary force compe-
tent to render entrance dangerous near the
mouths of particular haTbors, and a. warning
previous 70 capture, have been now go con-
strued that under declaration of blockade
OF whole empire by a British privy' council
their cruizerS arc authorised to make cap
lures not only in the vicinity of the empire
thus blockaded, but on the shores of'the mex.
= trai, three thousand miles off; and, in fact
c in their very waters. The cupidity of En-
I giish commanders unites with the profligac,
of their government, and the ancient and no.
nerable ideas OF war, consentaneous to an o.
| pen and manly conflict with an enemy, have
by these modern deviations from law, beer
transformed into selfish and avaricious pur
suit of gain. France, whether from polio,
: or principle is not material has abandoned
such pursuits, thus taking away from Grea
Britain all preteXt for continuing them un
der the plea Of retaliation. But Great Bri
tain does continue them. And wherefore
p Certainly there appears in the letters of he
. ministers no reason solid enough to justif,
s them in point of law; and therefore we mus
a resort to interest to find the solution. Tn,
manufacturing and planting portions of Grea
Britain require sale for their productions
and France and her allies and Dependence
will not buy them: Here is one, and, perhaps
the greatest reason of interest that has Undue
ed the British cabinet To relinquish law fo
outrage: But another. and not a contempti-
d bic one, is to be found in certain sort o
h corrupt necessity of feeling the mazv ofth
: English nary. That voracious institution
If having nothing to feed on but American trade
n (because it has devoured every thing els,
d that was food for it) may not the ministry b,
e afrem to restrain it from that gluttcny t,
IS which it has been so long accustomed IL
Il effect, has not finrder become essential t
o tie existence OF the British navy1 And woulc
J. It be possible to keep together thatimmens,
II maritime force but for the havoc and destruc
n ton which it is permitted to make on thu
IF merchandise transported on the ocean,
d ! We find the decisions of the British Court
of admiralty supporting these conjectures--
n those courts which, at one time, were ceIe
/. brated throughout the world for their impair
II i-tial determinations. Sir William Scott ad
'nitted, in the case of the Fox and others
o that the court was bound by the provision
; OF the law Of nations but, said he, the kinj
in council possesses Legislative rights owe
2 this court, and has power to issue orders ant
Y i78fTG1CtioHs which it is bound to obey and en-
force" Now, it must be very plain to AM
rational capacity, that a court undertaking t
decide between nations must, to maintain IL
true character, determine agreeaby to tn,
law Of nations; for, If the king in council o
one nation possesses "iegistqfiue rights oveI
the court" and has power to bind it by or
ders and Instructions, then that court cease!
90 be court under the law Of nations, and !,
3 a couit acting under the king in Council. Sil
!, William Scott appeared to be aware Of Til,
- conclusion and, to obviate it, delivered 8
= sophism to this amount, tilt he UoKia ire
!, 9HR1e that the ordeys If fhe kmg IN council
:. 7crrc not in ohfosifioN To The Ei,v If natfDns