The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1812-10-08


OF our vessels and their cargoes ata great dis
tanee from the port blockaded, under pretence
Of the blockade. IL is evident that an admi-
rally order is very unsatisfactory proof that the
force directed by il to be applied, is applied |;
whilst the captured of our vessels, on their
passage, midway on the ocean, without any
warning, is positive evidence that the blockade
is only nominal, whilst the seizureis reaf The
doctrine of blockade in this way, becomes
entirely reversed instead Of being the actual
investmens of the port of an enemy, IN order TO
distress that enemy,it is a mere declaration Of
invefnienf for the purpose OF plundcring
friend. But if the testimony oil particular facts
did not amply sustain the opinion that the block
adcs instituted BY G.. Britain have been, 10 ge-
neral, irregular, and injurious to bona tide a.
mencan property, there is one circumstance,
IN relation 10 That Of the 10th oil May, 1906,
that camps upon it the character OF hlegality
beyond the possibility Of denial. That tiock-
ade was not of any harficniar port or place, but
il was blockade ofthe coasts, rivers and forfs,
from the river Elhe to Brest, both inclusive
aud this designation embraces a continued sea-
coast Of nor less fhan one thousand miles.
Now, although with res pcct to the blockade
of one port, when the navy of tho blockadins
power 10 large, the point OF actual investment
by a competent force may be rendered doubt
ful, from the ability to invest, and the difficult
~ Of ascertaining that it is not Invested without
intcrmission yet, where the blockade embra-
ces an extent OF coast, TO the investment OF
which the whole applicable naval force OF the
bleckadiDg power is not adequate, thero Can IN
that case, be not doubt at all. Thisis precise
Jy the circumstance that determines tho char
I'll 4 l. Eel csk <( hHa.
The blockade comprehended coast OF one
thousand miles, at least, in exteat. The Bri-
iish had in 1906 only 243, ships of the line.
and 2l9 frigates--in all 462, excluding small
vessels. Of these, not more than two-thirds
were in active commission and OF those in
commission not more than twenty have, in
any instance, been devoted 70 any one service
of blockade. And it is notorious that twenty
vessels of war, we're never, at any time, ap-
piled to enforce the blockade Of May 10th,
1906. But suppose we say twenty ships to
one thousand miles of coast, that will be one
shih to Gfiy miles This, it is evident, is by
no means sufficient, supposing the utmost
vigilance to be observed, to render the en-
trance, along that space Of coast, manitestly
dangerous and therefore, cannot be consid-
cred as legal blockade. The reader VINO
will take the trouble to examine Stecie's lists,
will find that this part OF the arrangement is
much more in my favor than have stated It.
One ship to eighty miles is much nearer the
truth.
The blockade Of May, 1905, being, there
fore, unlawful, it follows, that in question
of retaliation for illegal edicts, it was proper
for the party that was injured by their cxis-
tcnce, 40 sequire the abrogNion Of that which,
in point of date, preceded the others. Thus,
Great Britain, insisting on the repeal OF the
French DEGREES as preliminary 10 the revo-
cation of her orders in council, because. the
former bore date anterior to the latter, II was
: reasonable that Great Britain herself should
repeal whatsoever edict was illegal that had
preceded the French decrces. This certain
ly, Is plain common sense. ~
But the pamphieteers get rid Of the ques-
iion, by allcdsing that the blockade of Msy
9th, 1906, was, at i!,e time II was issued,
considered by Mr.. Monroe, then our minis.
ter in London, as +" made to Javors American
views and interests" n. 10.
Without, in this place, following the Ad-
drcssers through the dull moUotony Of verbal
-quotation, will distinctly state the truth of
the case.
Mr.. Monroe was Employed at the court Of
London, not in the negotiation on the subject
Of blockadcs, but in adjusting " the Question
of our trade with enemies colonies" This
the addressers admit by their own quotations,
from Mr.. Monroc's letters, at page Ia. In
deed, at page Is, the pamphIetsers express
ly acknowledge, in their own language that
Mr.. Monroe, at the time, was in treaty on
the subject of the carrying trade" 10 refer
cnce TO that trade, then, and not to the iaw OF
blockade, the order of May 10th, 1906, was
considered as made to Jauor -American
views and interests" The distinction is very
obvious. Il is one question whether block
ade is lawful, and it is another whether or
not it is made to favor particular trade.
The first relates to the legality, the latter to
the hoiicy, of the blockade.
n L.