Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1813-03-18

blockade,-and OF the impressment Of
their seamen under the character Of British |
desertcrs.
Onboth those points the rulers Of the two
countries are agreed, as far as the princi-
pie is concerned. America insists that no
place shall behold blockadcd, unless it is so
surrounded as to make it dangerous to en-
ter and we do not object 10 this definition
ct blockade. On the other question still at
issue. It may be shortly observed, that as
we have gone to war with America in de-
fence OF the supposed privileges Of naval
war, we would do well to ascertain to what
extent those privileges can be safely push
ed. Will the warmest advocates of mari
time supremacy now assert, that we have
not suffered equally with our enemies in the
contest of mischief which has been stirred
up between Us in Europe ? Admit that we
have ruined our enemy's trade-that our
hostility has been deeply felt in the misery
which it has produced in France-have
we ourselves not participated largely in the
general distress ! Ii is of little moment what
privileges we may be entitled to, according
TO the theory of the law OF nations since il
is plain, that if we push our abstract notions
OF maritime right to their extreme conse-
quences, no nation will agree in the result !:
universal war and misery will be the con-
sequence,-and every state will suffer ex-
,actly in proportion to its interest in peace
and go,d order. In such a struggle, it is just
as likely that we should be The first to cry
for quarter as oar enemies; and in point Of
fact, the FIRST concession has come from this
country. We were unable any longer to
bear the interruption of trade occasioned by
the Orders inCouncil and therefore these
measures were repealed.
II Is clear, therefore, that some limits
must either be fixed to the persecution of
our enemy's trade, or we must come in for
q large share of the raiseries resulting from
our hostility. However high we may hold
our abstract rights, they must always, when
reduced to practice, admit of some tempe
rament, and amicable compromise with the
rights of others. During the whole of the
last war. accordingly, such compromise
existed ; and the dreadfulorisis which has
befallen the present times was thus happily
avoided. The policy then pursued, though
not perhaps strictly consonant to theory,
was safe in practice. Its effect was, to per-
init, under certain restrictions, neutral
states to carry on the, colonial and coasting
trade of the enemy. But it laid the inter-
course ander some disadvantages. Itthrcw
considerable inconvenience in the way of the
price ofall his imported produce. Aud to
this extent. and no farther, is it possible to
carry the damage of naval war. In this
privilege of laying the encmy's trade under
some little increase of>charge, consists the
full value OF what has been 80 vehemently
admired IN this country, under the specious
appellation OF maritime rights. Naval war.
fare Cannot be pursued to the utter extinc-
tion OF trade. 1t cannot prevent mankind
from mutual exchange of their surplus
produce,--as this would be equivalent to an
interdict on the productive powers of ma
ture; and whenever it's pushed to such an
excess, it must reduce all who are engaged
An It. to one common level of distress and ru-
in. We would humbIy recommend, there
tore,a return to those established maxims of
maritime law, under which the industry of
nnoftending states reposed in security while
this country presented picture ofcompara-
tive comfort and peace. The labourer was
then peaceable and happy-he was enabled
to provide, by his industry, for himself and
his helplest offspring--he was not driven,
by want. to acts of riot and desperation.-
These are the evils which il is SO desirable
to prevent, and it cannot be denied, that
they lie deep in the policy of the country.
The impressiDg of American seamen into
the British service, which has naturally ari-
sen from the resemblance of the two nations
in language and manners, has given rise,
we fear, tompch deep rooted anlmosity. On
this subjec<< AoAyever. both parties. profess
complete Injoh of principle but the diff
Guilty consisfs{p 6ndipg some practicable
arrangemdft far preserving to each it's re-
spective hight hitherto British ships OF
war haze De- bipsthe practice of searching
IN l<f,tr fat
a summary manner, such Of their crew as
they judged to be British. Certificates OF
American citizenship, or other evidence,
might be offcred,--on which, it rested with
the British officer to decide Jso that every
American seaman might be Said to hold hrs
liberty. and ultimately his life, at the discre.
ton OF foreign commander. In many ca
ses, accordingly, native born Americans
were dragged on board British ships of war
they were dispersed in the remotest quar-
ters ut the globe--and not only exposed to
abe perils of service, but shut out, by their
situation, from all hope Of ever being reclaim
ed. The right which we undoubtedly pos
sess OF reclaiming runaway seamen, was
exercised. in short, without either moiera-
ZION or justice; and though the government
was no party in the first instance TO these
proceedings, yet there is no doubt that these
outrages might, with some little activity
have been prevented. The natural conse.
quence ofinjury is resentment and we are
not therefore To wonder il the Americans
came a little heated to the discussion OF thes,
long contested claims. But we have grca
faith in the efficacy Of Cancellation for tb,
termination of s,rife, whether foreign or do,
mestic II is seldom, we imagine, that shos,
who seek peace, as Mr.. Burke expresses it