Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1813-06-03
VIRGINIA ARGUS.
RIG II NJ o Nd:
THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1918.
THE PRESIDENTS MESSAGE.

anu The perspicuity OF its expression. We
co graduate MIR Madison and the nation on
having al last succeeded IN freeing the public
'hihu rom the uresome detail of perverted facts
ana tle tedious repetition of exploded argu
| 'hents. The war, in that respect, has been e
minently useful. The political atmosph~rs
mas been clesnsed by it of all those logs and
"ists "lth which your Erskines, Roses, Jack.
SONS ana rosters, endeAvoFed 10 ubstFuct the
uue american intellect from perceiv,ng inter
eStng OBJECTS M their proper light. The alb
roSa'lOh OF the orders III cngncil, the undsnia
Ole cons equence of the opinions written home
oy Mr. Eos er that war would take place las
very materially operated TO simplify the Ian
Susge OF the executive prssage That abro
CATION, which III itself, wss,a very artiul trick
Oh policy IN the British cabinet, had not, how
ever, the effect expeckeS Ia Aondon. Our ru.
iers had saSacity enough 10 dlscern, that, to
ISnhqulSA the war. when not even one OF its
oDJeetS was enlirtLy obtained, would have been
70 eNnce An instability a.together, unbe becoming
their Characters and station. And it the or.
uerS IA council had been + scin,ied, with a de
ciarati0n that they never would DC revived, and
win promise OF 1mpeusstion Tor spoliali-
ons under them, II IS obviuu. ,hat To have Weld
Ell on sHeh terms, would have been to sanction
the prasuce o. impressng our seamen. which.
III The estunstiOn oi some of our best and wisest
men, IS much greater cause of war, as affect
,hB Pe'soHGI hbsTy, than the orders in council
~ war, therefore, IN true STRAIN of policy
that the President decided to continue tie con.
test on the score OF imprcssment, seeing that
the subject of the orders in council was only
reduced TO the degree which brought our dill.
ierences back 70 the point OF negotiation whilst
nothing at all was admitted or proposed in re
iation 10 The abandonment of the impress.
The controversy being. nevertheless, thus
lar narrowed, the President seizes with great
strength, and IN Phraseology not 10 be msun-
derstood by PEI sons acquainted With the law
OF nations, on the principle aud reasoning sp-
Picshie 10 the truth OF the q estioa COZ ce ming
impressment. In the following passage, which
i, not less just than it is luminous, we reoog.
nize one OF MIR, Msdison's haPp,rst Efforts -
"The British cabinet also must De sens bic
g that, with respect to the important question
at lmpressment, ON which the war so essen
"tiAiy turns, search for, or seizure of, Bril-
"tish persons or property on board neu,rAlve
sells un the high seas, is not a belligerent
right derived from the law of nations; and
ut IS obvious, that no visit search, or use
81 force, tor any purpose, on board the YES
sells OF one independ nj power, the high
seas, can, IN war or peace, he sanctioned by
the laws or authority OF another powes."
| In this passage we have two distinct and ir
! refutsble propositions.
LIST. That search for, or seizure of, Bri
t.sh persons or property on board neutral yes
sis on the l., h seas, Is not belligerent right
! derived from the law ofnations.
| This is inc0ntestible for he right of search
Is only admitted by the law of nations for IN,
purpose OF ascertaining whether the neutral
vessel has on board coDtrsband of war or enc.
| my's property. hus, the search is allowed
no. to ascertain whether, for example, British
! persons or property are on board, but whether
| the ship IS conveying to the enemy of G. Bri.
tain articles contraband vi war or the proper
| ty OF suhlec s or citizens of the natioA in
hostility with her.
| rs this pre- tension TO search for British per.
sons or property is not permitted by the law
OF nations, tie question is, can 1t I've righthllly
| enforced ny any statute or order IN council OF
Great Britain herself' Here Mr. Madison's
second proposition applies-he says
u IL IL obvious, that no visitor search, or
use OF force, or any PafpOsl. on board the YES
sells OF one indeP- ntent power, onsthe high
seas, can, IN war or peace, be s1hctioned by tic
laws or authority of another power.
This, also, IS 'ncontesible, The lawof ma
tions Is formed By tho eonstlst of nations, BY
immemoriai usage, and By general treaties. Il
! no other way can II be formed. No one ration
can abolish or alter the law Cfnasions II can
not even affect them 10y legislstan the egis
lauon o. one nation being mereis inunicpA
binding solely on its own subjects or citizens
aud having no force CT authority beyond il,
| own particular jurisdiction. The reason of IL
his IS evident independent nations have nc
superior and, therefore unless they concur
IN certain regulations they can have no law 40
plicsble TO the whole For one nation to sci
itself up 10 lcglslate, by an act of parliamt nj
or by an order Ia caui.cil, for anoiher nstion
- an act Il usurpation, Which Me nation who's,
independence is thus impaired may Justly a
vehge, and which every nation is Interested II
REFRESHING.
In this doctrine Mr. Madison is very decided
| ly supported by the highest British an hort,
mo 'ess than that Of the right honor. BILE sii
| William Scott and s John Nicholl, who, in .
paper drawn zap anh transmitted to john jay
Esq. American minister in London, on tn 10ti
OF September, 1894, disiiuctly state, that "b,
courts OF admiralty, acting aceordinF TO IN,
" ldw Of nafionr, and particular treGiies. al
: Captures At sea have immemorhlly been iudg
" ed OF IN every country OF Europe and thai
" any ofhsT method effyiai1 svouid ts ,,tarffsst
- " Eyusf, absurd, and fr76t4c1ieakIe" The
same reasonable doc rine prevaiIcd in 1853
and was sanctioned by Sit,George Lee, ther
Judge OF the English preroestiv~ court, DIR
Paul, his Britannia Majesiy's advocate general
sr Dudley Ride~, English attorney general
and by the celebrated lord Mansfield In truth
a court OF admiralty is court ofnafions, N,
law 81 nations only can prevail in IL ana INA,
'aw is not deryable from the declarations oi
acts OF any particular nation. Sir william
Scott, in later times, (sbout year or two a
go) when pressed on this head, aud r, mindec
that the court IN which he presided was a cour
exclusively under the law of nations, admitted
the fac, and, in reference TO the orders i,
council, sid re would not eresHD1e that the or
dtFs were contrary 10 the law Of nations This