Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1815-04-12

| hent IS given up, or the ground Certainly
sot ground that an obstinate litigant would
admit of "a departure from principle thar
mad received some sanction from prac
tice )" all that the American government
has ever required, Co legalke a blockade is,
in the very words of our treaty with Russia
IN June, 1901, that there should be ships
stationed sufficiently near the port to create
manifest danger of entering. And accor-
dingiy when the question was called up, in
the correspondence between Marquis Well
lesley, British Secretary of State, and Mr.
PinSpey, American minister here, we find
the latter, in a letter of the 14,h January
| 1911, repelling the insinua.ion OF French in
iiuence in the councils of the United States.
IN style OF fsrvid eloquence which his
great opponent could never rebut. 6 1t is
by no means clear that IL may not fairly be
commended, on principle and early usage,
that a maritime blockade is incomplete,
with regard to states at peace, unless the
place, which it would effect, be invested by
land as we'll as by sea. The United States
hdUc called for the recognition ofno such
rue. What have to request of your
! bordship therefore is, that you will take our
views and principles from our own mouths;
and that neither the Berlin decree. nor any
other act of any foreign sta;e, may be made
| TO speak tor us what we have not spoken
for ourselves" There is a redundance Of
evidence 70 the same effect, which mas been
printed for parliament and forthe public,
but which nobody reads. | shall not how
ever trouble you at present with any more
OF it. but Just observe that have sought in
vain through the whole correspondence,
| and In every act and deed of the American
| government that has come to my kno wi dye,
| tor any thing al all contradictory of what IS
| here asserted. will remark too, by way
OF episode, that in this acquiesceRce IN our
doctrines, America has gone farther than
any of our high and mighty friends in Eu-
urope have done, or zuH do--mind the fu
ture. The manner in which this plai state
OF facts has been SO perverted as to maxi
the direct contrary pass upon the public,
aud hereby excite that hostile spirit, which
nothing out presumed combination with
France could provoke, will be next consid-
cred.
No. III.
We re now 20 advert to the manner in
which the truth has been so prevented as to
Undue the public mind with a notion, (di-
rectly contrary to the fac.,) Of American
n stility TO our mlriti n rig rs: And,
IN respect to free ships making free goods,
lit must be admitted that if the dssire of the
| American government were equivalent to a
demand, this privilege has been deman
ded.
! AS we had treaties with every state in
Eur ope. save Sweden and Russia, and even
with the states of Barbary. in which this
freedom was allowed it is no matter of
| wonder thar it should have been a subiec.
! OF discussion ar the time when the before-
mentioned treaty was made. General
Washington considered it part of the mod
eru law of nations to.compare small with
great, so did /. The CONVENIENCE resulting
from such general rule, and the great
number OF sdpulations whereby il was a.
/ dopted In practice, led easily to the conclu.
| sion- that it might be considered as having
| glided into the code through the avenue of
4 conventional law and this opinion pre-
| walls even now in every state in Europe but
our own.
On the other hand, it cannot be- denied
that a special stipulation, far from estab.
fishing lis own object as general rule, is
in the nature of an exception that establish
es the contrary aud in this view of the
case. the greater the number of stipulations,
the more multiplied was the evidence, that,
! in the law, as it stood. neutral ships had
not the right to protect euemy's property.
Still with so many treaties fayoriog the
measure and nofamMent that with France
| as late as the year 1887 it would
have been rather unneighbsrly, and contra
! UerecHndianl, 10 have refused 1t to the u
nted States. But here lay the difficulty
At the time of those compacts, both the
| parties were at peace, or in contemplation
| oft; but at the time of Lord Grenville's
treaty with Mr.. Jay, America was at peace,
| but England at war. Now il would be
/ seen at once that the reciprocity, which,
when both parties were at peace or both at
war, gave an equal chance of benefit de-
| pending or the contingency of which party
should be FIRST at peace while the other was
at war, would be all on one side, to use an
| expression of Mr.. Pitt, where America
could Immediately enter on the freightng
of the enemy's goods, The American go.
yernmeat was too candid to turn deaf ear
to such'sn argument as this /; and it will
! be found in the 18th article of the treaty
before cited, that the parties agreed to re.
| sumo the discussion, after a peace should
! have placed them on an equal footing.
| But, sir, isthe inference to be drawn from
this, that America supports France in her
| pretensions On the contrary do say
that the more DESTROYS she is of establish
ing the rule T; the more numerous the in
| stances in which the practice has been
heretofore admitted aud the greater the
! number ofstateS that maintain the doctrine
as principle ; the less right have we to
say that America is hostile to our preten,
1 slOus. and the more reason 70 aver the rno