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

49,. s'
And the catalogue of naval aggressions on
our part, which is here abridged. may be
seen extended in the letter of Mr.. Madison
to Mr.. Rose, of the 5tb March, 1908.
| If these facts had ever been denied, or
the differences drawn from them successful
| iy controverted, there might have been some
difficulty in the question of provocation ;
but as this has never been the case, the pro.
cess has been very simple. In passing the
different items in review before as, we have
only to ask ourselves the question, upon
each, would England have submitted to
this !---and If the answer of our hearts to
each be no, and still more if the natural
answer of every man in the Kingdom must
necessarily be thac its whole force should be
employed to repet such invasion of our
rights what must be the reply to the ques-
ton on the aggregate sum of the evils thus
Inflicted f-Reiia, horriid BeN9.
| You are now perhaps prepared TO consi.
| der me as justifying, in every point of view,
| the declaration of war on the part of the
| United States this, however, is not the
case. / am only controyerting the pretence
| that this measure was an unfrovoked ag-
gresSion on their part. What would you
| say, for example, if, in a war between
| France and Spain, (England being neutraD
! a son or a brother of your own, or even a
L "
iish ship by a scoundrei French captain,
scourged at the gang-way of French man
ut war till he was compelled to do the duty
/ ct French sailor, and join the execution
| OF murder upon the Spanard. (for murder
| It must be to him, who is no enemy TO the
| Spaniard) and finally TO lose limb or a life,
| IN such a contest would you consider tn is
| no provocation What would you say if
you were ruined, and your family reduced
to beggary, by the capture of your ship and
cargo on an innocent and lawful voyage p
a voyage which could not be charged with
fraud or immortality, much less with any
! Crime calling Tor SO heavy punishment I;
| lawful by the laws Of your country lawful
by the law of nations lawful by the con.
| stitution of that law by the very nation coma
hitting the wrong, until the tortuous rapa-
city and temporary policy of that nation re-
| CURED new construction; lawful by the
| DdIscreet avowai of the very administrati~
| on under whom the seizure was made and
| lawful by the repeated and emphatic con
| struction given by every member Of the adj.
rniDistration that issued the decree that was
made the foundation of the seizure by their
successors i'll ofice--Would you consider
this no provocation
On the Bird article, I fear we must enter a
little more coPiously. 1t is an effort of the
President TO repei an insult, co nontbie, which
if have right idea Of the subject, is not
less so to the people of England than to the
| government Of the u. States and beg to
4. Call the particular attention of your readers
Ito it, as fragrant instance of successful i'm
position on their creduIty, and prominent
indication OF the necessity ofiuve5tigating for
| themselves the evidences of q fact on which
the peace of nations may depend. Nothing
| is more prevalent than the notion that Anne
RIGA has been an accomplish of France in
the assertion of those maritime doctrines
which we have contested; nothing more
certain than the contrary.
The professions of France are threefold.
i. That free ships make free goods.
9. That naval stores should not be consi<
dered coutraband Of war.
8. That an investment by land as well as
by sea, is necessary TO constitute legal
blockade.
enter not at present on the question of
the retaliation, upon your friend the injas.
tce of your enemy; that subject shall he
considered anon these are the questions of
Maritime Rights, asserted by France, which
the pubic has been led to believe and which
ninety nine III the hundred do believe to be
equally asserted by the american Govern
; ment.
1t is in vain 10 oppose mere assertion to
an opinion so inveterate, or even TO chal
lengc authority il supper: of ii: the reply
would be like thatI received this day from
very respectable man, who conceived that
he had given all necessary attention to the
subject. that though documents we're NOT
at mis- fingers ends, ne was sure they exist
ed, and 1t was only ON the best authority
that he had a:certaincd the fact" Let as,
however, have recourse to the Hfera scrija.a.
In the 7,h article of the treaty with Ape
,rica, in 17o4, the right e. euemy's properly
in neutral ship is expressly recognized
II any property of an enemy should be
found 90 board such vessels, that hurf o1fv
zohich belongs TO The enemy shgI be maze
nike, and the vessel shall be allowed to
proceed with the remainder without any ion :
pediment."
Has America since contested this right of
the Bellgerent $50 far from il, in the in
struc,ions OF Mr.. Madison for forming the
treaty OF 1906, we ind these words She
(Gfeat BinaiB) will find in both, (received
authorities and usage,) that neutral YES
Sc does not protect certain objects denomi-
mated contraband OF war, including enemies
serving in the war, nor articles going into
a blockaded port nor, as I've has main tain
ed, and as NE haze nor contesfed, enemy 5
properly Of any kind" In the 9Th article
OF the above treaty this instruction was car.
red into effect. The OH Conforms with the