Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1815-03-25

contained no stipulation agairtt renewal |
otthe practice of impressment, who had |
been willing to withdraw the declaration of |
war before the practice had ceased. In re-
gard to the treaty. he said, it could not be
expected that a treaty of peace could con
tam all the stipulations necessary to be en-
tered into between nations who had just ter
minated war. The treaty of Mr.. JAY,
tor instance, was little more than supple
ment. not substitute TO the Treaty of
Peace OF 1898. In the case of the late peace
IN Europe, the treaty of Paris contained
merely provision that there should be
peace, and other questions of territory and
right were reserved for further negotiation,
winch negotiation was in train at Vienna,
where Questions of the highest Importance
were now agitated between those nations
VINO mad been parties to tho peace. If OUT
uea'y IS Silent on the subject Of the fishe-
RES 1t IS also silent on question equally
important 10 Britain as the fisheries are 10
usI-the right To free interc curse with our
iIoian tribes The right OF searching our
vessels, to which is charged against the
treaty that it contains no limitation, is bel
i'gerent power merely; and in time of
peace no pretension is set up to it on the
part OF the British. It had been said it was
was 1t necessary, Mr.. said. when the
practice of blockade had ceased, and no ore
pretended that the practice was jus,i-
naoie on the ground of right or public law.
Mr. J. demonstrated by facts and reasoning,
mat the United States had at all times
oeen willing to conclude a treaty when the |
practice OF impressment should cease on the
part OF the British. No right is YET coded
ny the treaty and every assertion 70 the
contrary is incorrect. Mr. j spoke at
some length, and would have gone more
futiy into the subject but for the lateuess OF
the hour
Mr.. STOCKTON spoke in explanation,
and IN support of his position that the rights
asserted by us and not recognized in the
treaty, we're thereby yielded.
MR. E?PES rose to reply to the position,
which had been laid down bv Mr. Stockton
IN regard to the common law. respecting
treaties If the war IN Europe continued,
* the practice OF impressmeny also continu
ed, at the tine the treaty was conc uded, the
argument OF the gentlemen from y would
nave been irresistible. But, the facts are
the very reverse Before the conclusion of
the treaty the practice had ceased--it no
niger mad existence. The abandonment by
the United States can in no way be con-
o. pSu ~ SuufdCe any Otner ptaCuCeS 9nG
CLAIMS than those that are actually in ex
istence If the gentleman's position was
correct, it applied with equal force to the
opposite side of the question /; and the gen
ileman WOULD heartily contend that Britain
has forever abandoned her right 70 block |
ade an enemy's port or impress her own CT
tIzens during war. What in fact are the !
circumstances? Great Britain claimed a
right to impress our seamen and to estab
llsh iliimitabie blockades. We resisted
both professions. In the mean time, be
tore peace, circumstances occur which
make them both useless to her. and both
are withdrawn by Great Britain AS the
war was commenced by us to resist, and by
BRIAN to enforce those pretensons. the crn-
clusIon. it any, IrresistabIy lows, that thar
and not this government has abandoned its
claims.
MIR GROSVENOR said, en- hassant,
that either he or the gentleman from Va.
had totally mistaken the principles of ma
tional law.
The question, haviag been loudly called
for. was at length put, and of course ter
minated this interesting debate.