The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-08-25

midway on the ocean, without any warning,
IS positive evidence that the blockade is OF .
" noninci, whilst the seizure Il ,-eai. The
doctrine OF blockade in this way. becomes
entirely reversed instead of being the &C.
1Hat snvcStnicnt OF tie port of an enem, , in
order 70 distress that enemy, it is a. mere
declaration Of i'svestment for the purpose OF
p'undering friend.
But If the testimony Of particular fact.
did not amply sustain the opinion tlst the
blochades instituted by Great Britain have
been, in general, irregular, and Injurious to
6onQ ./fdc American property, there is one
circumstance, in relation to that of the 10th
of May, 1906, that stamps upon it tie cha:
racter OF illegality beyon the possibility Of
denial. That blockade was not of anv tier
heutdr port or place, but it was q blockade
OF the coasts. riUers and horts, from the ri
YER Elbe to Brest, both inclusive; and this
designation embraces & continued ea-coast
f7lot iess than one thotSd,id MITES ~,
Now, although with respect TO the block
ade of one port, when the navy of the block
aiding power is large, the point Of actual in
vest!rent by = competent force may be rer-
dered doubtful, from the ability to invest.
and the difficulty of ascertaining that it is
not invested without interrnssion vet.
where the blockade embraces an extent of
coast, to the investment of which the whole
applicable naval force Of the blockading
power is not adequate, there can, in that
case, be no doubt at all. This is precisely
the circumstance that determines the cha
racter OF the blockade Of the 10Th of Nav,
1906.
The blockade comprehended a coast Of
one thousand miles, at least, in extent
The British had in 1906 only 243 ships of
the line, and 219 frigates--in all 462, ex-
Guiding small vessels. OF these, not more
than two-thirds were in active commission
and OF those iii commission not more than 90
have, in any instance, been devoted to anv
one service of blockade. And it is notorious.
that twenty vessels of war, were never. AT
any time, spilled to enforce the blockade of
May 10th 1906. But suppose we say TWEEN
ty ships TO one thousand miles of coast
that will be one shin 10 ftfv miles !! rms.
It is evident, is by no means sufficient, sup
posing the utmost vigilance TO be observed,
to render the entrance, along that space of
coast, nanltestly DANCE rous; and therefore
cannot be considered as a legal blockade.
The reader who will take the trouble to ex
anime Steele's lists, will find that this part
OF the arrangement is much more in my ia
vor than have stated it. One ship to eigh-
ty miles is much nearer the truth
This blockade of May, 1906, being. there
fore. unlawful. it follows, that in question
of retaliation for illegal edicts, it was pro-
per tor the party that was injured by tkcir
existence, TO require the abrogation Of that
which, In point of date, preceded the others
Thus, q. b. insisting the on repeal of the
French DEGREES as preliminary to the re
vocation Of her orders in council, because
the former bore date anterior to the latter.
it was reasonable that G.. Britain herself
should repeal whatsoever edict was illegal
that had preceded the French decrees.--
This, certainly, is plain comm on sense.
But the pamphleteers get rid of the ques-
ton, by alledging that the blockade of May
10th, 1906, was, at the time it was issued
considered by Mr.. Monroe, then our minis
ter in London, as made to fouor American
views and interests" Page 13.
Without, in this place. following the ad-
dressers through the duh monotony of YER
bal quotation, will distinctly state the truth
of the case. u
Mr.. Monroe was employed at the court of
London, not in negotiation on the subject
of biockades, but i'll adjusting {" the questi.
OH of our trade with enemies colonies -
This the addressers admit by their own QUO
tatons from Mr.. Monroe's letters, at page
Ii. Indeed, at page 10, the pamphleteers
expressly acknowledge, in their own Ian
guage, that MIR. Monroe. &c the time, "was
IN treaty on the subject of the c0rruing
trade" In reference to that trade, then. &
not To tue tUfV OF OIOCkaQe, the order OF Nav
10th, 1906, was considered as s' made to ia
DOR American views and interests" The
distinction is very obvious. 1t is one cues
tioD whether a blockadeis lawful, and it is
another whether or not it is made to favor
a particular trade The first relates to the
legality, the latter to the hoHcy, Of tie block
ade,
Be. why. the addresscrs enquire, make
the blockade OF May 10Th, 1906, sire qua
non in 1910, when it was not mentioned at
all in the arrangement with Mr.. Esskinc in
1909 2 'Until France (say the addressers,
page 15) pointed it out as cause of contro
versy, it was so far from being regarded as
a source OF any new or grievous complaint,
that it was actually considered by our go
vernm eDt in a favorable Light
! have explained the favorable lieht" of
,his blockade sufficiently. 1t was not made
a question in 1909, because it was supposed
not q exist. But on Mr.. Pinkney's enduir-
Ing OF Lord Wellesley in 1910, what block
AIDES OF date anterior to the Berlin and
Milan DEGREES, were considered by the Bri-
tish government as still existing, behold -
his lordship replied, that although the or
der o. May 10, 1905 was comprehenGed an
der the more extensive restrictions of a SUBJ
sequent order, yet thai it. could not be infer
red that that blockade was extinct On
this point, however. and the spolistions Of
our com merce iD general, the following mes
sage from the President to the House of Re-
representatives. (neVer before in print) will
81 o L..