Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-06-22

4
admitted law of nations, we shall find no
sanction to it, in that venerable code. The
sovereignty of every state is co-eXtenSive
with its dominions, and cannot be abrogated,
or curtailcd m its rights, as to any part, eX-
cept by conquest. Neutral nations have a
right to trade to every port of either bellige-
rent, which is not legally biockaded; and i'm
| all articles which are not contraband of war.
Such is The absurdity OF this pretension, that
your committee are aware, especially after
the able manner in which it has been here
tofore refuted, and exposed, thatthey would
| offer an Insult to the understanding of the
House, if they enlarged on it. and if any
thing could add to the high sense of the in
justice of the British government in the trans
action, i; would be the contrast which her
| conduct exhibits in regard to this trade. and
| in regard to- a similar trade by neutrals with
| her own colonies. tits known to the world
\ that Great Britain regulates her own trade,
in war and peace, at home and in her CO.
loDies, as she finds for her interest-that in
war she relaxes the restraints of her coloni-
al system in favor of the colonies, and that
it never was suggested that she had not
| right to do it; or that neutral i'm taking
advantage fthe relaxation violated bel
| ligerent right OF her enemy. But with
Great Britain every thing is lawful. 1t is
only in a trade with her enemies that the
United States can do wrong With them
all trade is unlawful
In the year 1898 an attack was made by
the British government OH tho same branch
of our neutral trade, which had nearly in
volved the two countries i'll war. That diff
ference however was amicably accommo-
dated. The pretention was Withdrawn and
| repatriation made to the United States for the
I'll, ,b. Ia, Il
fair to infer from that arrangement that the
commerce was deemed by the British go
vernment lawful, and that it would not be
again disturbed.
! Had the British government been resolv-,
ed to contest this trade with neutrals, it was
due to the character of the British nation
that the decision should ba made known to
the government of the United States. The
existence of a negotiation which had been
invited by our government, for the purpose
of preventing differences by an amicabie ar
rangement OF their respective preeensions,
gave a strong claim to the notification, while
it afforded the fairest opportunity for it.
But very different policy animated the
then Cabinet of England. The liberal con-
fdence and friendly overtures of the United
States were taken advantage of to ensnare
them. Steady to its purpose and inlexibly
hostile to this country, the British goverR-
ment calmly looked forward to the moment,
when it might give the most deadly wound
to our interests. A trade Just in itself
which was secured by 50 many strong and
sacred pledges, was considered safe Our
citizens with their usual industry and enter
prize had embarked in it vast proportion
of their shipping, and of their capital, which
were at sea, under no other protection than
tho law ofnations, and the confidence which
they reposed in the justice and friendship of
the British nation. AT this period the un
expected blow was given. Many of our
vessels were seized, carried into port and
condemned by tribunal, which, while it
processes TO respect the law of nations, o.
beys the mandates of its own government
| Hundreds OF other vessels were driven from
| the ocean, and the trade itself in a great
measure suppressed. The effect produced
by this attack on the lawful commerce of
the United States was such as might have
been expected from virtuous. independent
and highly injured people. But one sentiment
pervaded the whole American nation. No To-
cal interests we're regarded no sordid mo-
tives felt Without lookrs to the part which
suffered most, the invasion of our rights was
considered a common cause, and from one
extremity or our union to the other, was
heard the voice of an united people, calling
on their government to avenge their wrongs
and indicate the rights and honor of the
country.
From this period the British government
has gone on i'll a continued entertainment on
the rights and interests Of the United States,
disregarding in its course, in many instances,
obligations which have heretofore been
held sacred by civilized nations.
In May, 1906, the whole coast of the Con-
tineDt from the FIbe Tn Rrest incInsiye WOO
declared to be in a state of blockade. BY
) this act, the, we'll established principles of
the law of nations, principles which have
served tor ages as guides, and fixed the boun
dairy between the rights of belligerents and
neItrals, were violated. BY the law of ma
tons, as recognized by Great Britain herself
no blockade is lawful, unless il be sustain
ed by the application of an adequate force,
and that an adequate force was applied to
! this blockade, in its full extent, ought not to
be pretended. Whether Great Britain was
able to maintain, legally, so extensive a
blockade considering the war in which she
IS engaged, requiring such extensive ma
; val operations, is a question which it is not
necessary at this time TO examine. 1t is suf-
ficient to be known, that such force was not
applied, and this is evident from the terms
; of the blockade itself, by which, compare
lively, an inconsiderable portion of the coast
only was declared to be in state of strict
and rigorous 6Lockade. The objection to the
| measure is not diminished by that circum
stance. If the force was not applied, the
blockade was unlawful from Whatever cause
the failure might proceed. The belIigerent
, who institutes the blockade cannot absove
itself from the obligation to apply the force
under any pretext whatever. For a bclli-
gerent to relax q blockade, which it could