Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-02-06

violation of the law ofjustice by any TO-
reign power. Ii this were allowed, the
door would be open to every excess on
every pretence. Laying out OF this case
the oGious character which the govern
iaent OF the United States would ncces-
sarily incur, II these things were permit
ted with IMMUNITY, and viewing this as Il
matter OF simple Internal regulation, the
| principle WAS already established in our
| laws; and the question was, whether The
| fault oftlie non execution 0ttlc law should
rest on the Presidents of the Il. States, or
on the Legislative Body For his part,
| biz. L. added, lie was disposed to yet rid
OF il.
After an unsuccessful motion by Mr..
| Robertson, To strike out oi Sir. Forsyth
proposed amendment, the words, ." or D.
tier circan- tGhces'-ihe question WAS Ia
ken on that amendment, and decided IL
tie Affirmative.
Tie question was then taken on strik-
ing out the Sd section, and decided in
the negative-ayes so, noes 80 or LOO.
"A motion was then made that the com
mlttee oithc whole should rise, and re
port the bill as amended.
Mr.. Clay of Kentucky, Che ;Speaker,)
awaited himself Of the only opportunity
which rcmaiaed 10 him, as il was propos-
ed that the committee should now rise
and report the ii!i 10 offer 10 lis consider
alton few otser ations. As long as the
government abstained FROM taking any
part III the contest now carrying OH in
the soa;her part oithis continent, il was
uaqneSi.ollahy lis duty 10 maintain
strict neutrality. On that point there
was, ANA Couid be no difference Of opn-
ion. 1t Ought not, however, to be over
booked, tina, the two parties stood at this
government on equal ground. One Of
them had an accredited minister here, 10
watch over the interests, and 10 renca-
strate against any acts OF which IL might
complain. Whilst the other, being wilOi-
~ unrepresented, had no or-a.. through
which to communicate is grievances
i his inequality of condition III the con
tending parties, imposed upon us the du
ty of great circumspection and prudence
in what we might do. The gentleman
from Virginia, (Nlr. Randolph had indeed
commended in reply To the gentleman from
Kentucky, MIR. Sharp tiiat the doctrine
OF neutrality had no application 10 the
case, because one party was not recog-
nized by this government. But, Mr.. &.
said, whenever MAR exists, whether be-
tween Two independent states, or between
parts OF common empire, he knew OF
but two relations III Whlch other powers
could stand towards the belligerent the
OtiC vas tsid' Vi uSttEdtity, anu TIE OtDPr
tha! OF II beligerent. lie lloned flat the
gentleman from Virginia did moi mean
TO contend, what would seem 10 be con
sequence of his position, that we were
party 10 tl.e war, &eanaiiS Of OidSpain d.
gaInSt her colonies.
Being then III state of neutrality res
pectny The contest, amt bound To main
tain II, Tie question was, whether the pro-
Visions ofthe bill were necessary 10 tie
performance of tliat duty Ii vii! be re-
collected that we have an existing law,
directed against armamenis, such as are
described iii the bill. That law was pass
ed IN 1854. twas intended to preserve
| orr neutrality N the contest between
France and her enemies. The circum-
STAGES under which ii was passed must
| be YET fresh in our recollection. The
| French revelation had excited an univer-
sal eEt. uS;asm in the cause Of liberty -
| lie fame reached this country, and
| spread with electric rapidlty throughout
| the continent. l'h re WIS not STATE,
county, city, or village, exempted from
| It. An ardent disposition 10 enter into
| the conflict OH the side of France, was
| every where felt. General Washington
| Thought IT the interest of this country 10
| remain neutral, and the law of 1884 was
, enacted to restrain our citizens from to
/ hlilE lAdii III litc CONTEST. .! tbai law fidu
| been eiiectuai TO preserve the neutrality
| of this country during the stormy period
| OF the French Revolution, NC ought 10
! pause before we asSeiiI Ia the adoption OF
new penalties and provisions. If iIe law
| did not reach the case (Which lie Under
| stood 10 be doubtful from some judicial
| dcCislous) he was wilin1 20 lcgislaie so
far as TO make it comprehend it. Fur
| tier than That, rs at present advised, he
! was not wiling TO go.
But the present hill not only went fur
! tlcr, but in lis judgment contained pro-
visions not demanded of US BY our ncu-
tral duties. 1t contained two principles
not embraced by the law Of l7Of. Tie
FIRST was, the requisiion Of bond from
the owners ofarmed vessels, that persons
TO whom they migli! sell those vessels,
should not hSc them in the contest The
second was, the power vested IN The col
Ieclors 60 seize and deiaiI, under certain
circumstances, any such vessels Now,
with gard 10 the first provision, II Is moi
dcnicd iliai an armed vessel MAY be law
fully sold 10y al American citizen f0 u
foreign sgblect, other Than a subject OF
Spaii. Bat on what ground is il posi-
bic, then, 10 maintain HAT it is.tIc duty
Oi tie American citizen 10 become res
ponsibe ior Tie subsequent use which
may be made Of such vessel by the TO-
reign subject We are bound TO take