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

1t was strange lot for him, he said, To
exhort gentlemen TO have some conf
dence III their Executive. lie tells us
as PLAINLY (saM Mir. H) as lie Can, that
the iaws now III force are insuihcientif
stfiicieat, WAY did he not send his i'll
slrucuons To the district collector and
oistrsc' atiornies 10 enforce them why
sshu here Tor amendment! ifmy EX-
ecu;ive. tsaid Mr.. H.) knowingas he must
every thing on the subject, the complaints
oi '"relgn courts, the weakness of the law,
recommend 10 me tiiIs measure, il is sui
hcient iorme TO believe il is accessory
but, IN addition 10 this, his own know
ledge o. the law and the practice under
1T, proved Ia him that it was insufficient,
and he hoped something would be done
eonciusWeiy OH the subject. This he ho-
ped, notin obedience to any foreign pow
er, but IN obedience TO justice and our
own laws, anu tn preserve the peace o; the
eountry. That the evil exists; thar these
degrading and dangerous practices are
carried on, almost openly, in defiance of
the existing law, is satisfactory evidence,
that the existing law is not sufficient TO
prevent or restrain them.
hlr. Calhoun said the question was, whe-
Their the bill did or did not 20 further than
necessary, to prevent eur citizens from
taking part i'll the war between Spain and
her colonies. In reply 10 an argument
by Mr.. Hophlnson, he said, lie still thought
to sellvessels tn either of the beiiiscrents,
was no violation OF neutrality-and that
trade IN arms and munitions. or III YES
sells stood on the same footing Spain
herself purchased vessels at Iiavanna,
Tor the public service, and she could not
object to an act III others, which she had
done herself. Mr.. C.. entered somewba,
at large into the question of legality of
permitting the sale of vessels to either
be!ligerent party, after their departure
from tile United States, and in his opin-
ION, the trade being legal, he argued that
the third section went further than ne
cessary IN fniiilment ofour neutral obi
gallons, by making the builder or the
seller OF the vessel, liable for the conduct
OF the purchaser. To sell armed vessels
IN our own ports TO a belligerent, he ac-
knowledged would be illegal, but main
tanned that they might be transferred af-
ter their departure beyond the jurisdic
ton OF the country. The third section
would he thought operate oppressiveiy.
nasmucll as ii made the vender in our
ports responsible for the Illegal conduct
OF tie party purchasing, and in that wav
throw burihens on commerce. not neces-
sary aud injurious
II this provision were demanded by the
neutral duties of the country, it ought
certainly TO be resorted to, he said. but
not otherwise but he thought il ought
not to extend its penalties further than
the conduct OF the first purchaser. The
experience and superiority of CIR ship
builders gave to theIrwo avalue which
nadeit more sought after, and he thought
N 10 Il al.
the profession should be restrained as
little as possible. The law of '94. had
contemplated warbetween two indepen-
dent powers, not one between a mother
country and IFS colonics-and if the de
feet OF that law could not preserve our
neutral character in the war now existing
III tie South, he was willing TO adopt a
remedy, but he would not go so far as 10
prohibit the sale ofvessels, while the en-
conragement ofship building was so inn
poriaht an object to the country. To
siew the hardships which might arise
from holding the seller responsible for
the conduct OF the purchasers ola vessel.
Mr.: C.. supposed The case of a vessel.
which being engaged in the North west
or China trade, should become unfit TO
return home, and be sold, and afterwards
converted to purposes prohibited bv the
bill In ITS present shape-to make the first
seller of this vessel, responsible for the
conduct of the purchasers, would be am
act of oppression he could not consent
to. He was willing to adopt additional
restraints; because the Executive had
asked for them, but he did not believe
any regulations could entirely prohibit
the trade proposed 10 be suppressed.
Mr.. Virgil again rose in opposition to
the bill, and in favor of expunging the
third section. bespoke at much length
III support and illustration of the opin-
IONS he advanced observation-disclosures to
the compact with Spain, to shew that no
existed for imposing the pro-
posed restrictions, and arguing with great
warmth against the policy and the Justice
OF cOunteracting by unnecessary severn
ties, the cause of the South American
patriots, &c.
Mr.. LoCades thoughtno one could read
the act of 1904, without believing that
something further was necessary 10 pre-
serve the character of the countrv for =
just regard to IFS obligations. There
could'uot, in adopting this measure. be
aHV appearance oi uuiairncss on orr mart
and whatever was the character # the |
contest referred To-, it was the obvious |
policy OF this country, to make lis elf.
zens conform 10 all the duties due from
the nation 10 Il foreign country. MIR. l..
confessed, that he hardly cared whether |
Tie third section ofthe bill passed orpot. |
There was some fear that this section |
"ouid only limit the Influence of the Ex- |
scuiiye authority, without producing the |
benefit Under tie existing |
aw, the cOllet tor had been sued II vs. |