Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-03-27

United States. What breach of neutr Il
~ Is IT 10 suffer such vessel to depart our
ports (; and why are we required, in this
banner, 10 cripple the operations OF il,e
snip holders and ship builders Mr.. X
strongly objected 10 the latitude of dis
crenon given 10 collectors BY the tenn
or for any other cause" which subject
ed the vessels of our citizens 10 vcxalious
deieniions. This, he said, was one diff
terence between Tie act of 1894 aud thai
OF 1917 but there MAS vet another. By
Ire act OF 1917, moi only armed vessels,
out vessels maBliestly bniit for war, Tho
pun Tor sale only, were forbidden 10 60
rom our ports Without giving bond thai
thcy we're not 10 be employed in adm.
or assisting any military expedition, sc.
and so obviously unjuStwas this prurI-
SION, that The gentleman himself had
found II necessary 10 propose an amend
ment 10 narrow lis scope. Mr. II. con
GUIDED by repeating, that he could see
nothing IN our situation which required
stronger act than WAS deemed sufficient
in 1884, and he. therefore, hoped The acts
OF 1897 aud 1877 would be repcaled.
MIR. LOWNDES commenced his re-
marks, by redeeniing the act Of 1917 from
the charge which had been alleged against
II, as far as his opinion went, bv declar-
ing that act not 10 have been adopted in
consequence OF any foreign remon-
STRANGE, hut 10 have been the deliberate
expression oi the Judgment ofths and Of
the other house; aud, though he had lis
tened with the greatest attention 10 the
arguments 81 The gentlemen from Ken
turky and Louisiana. they had failed 10
sion OF lie opinion of Congress al he
last session ought now 10 be reversed
But, he said, there was less difference on
principle than he had expected to have
found between those gentlemen and
those who approved the act oil The last
session. The Speaker particularly had
conceded that The acts were umiawiul
which that law was designed 10 prevent !;
and the only difference between us, said
Mr. l.. IS that for the prevention OF these
unlawful acts we propose remedy
whlrh they will not accept. On the
question OF the crminaIiiy of enlistment
IN war between two powers with whom
we are IN amity, we perfectly agree. The
opinion oithe house and of the country,
Mr.. =. SAID, must be. that, so long as we
profess neutrality, We ought 10 observe ii
-tAat our neutral obligations should be
fairly and honestly fulfilled. And it was
because he thought il the duty vi Con-
gresS 10 prevent ourciti2ens, BY requiring
bond and security 10 thai effect, from EN-
gaglng III The existing war, that lie was
Wiling 10 continue the act which The
Speaker proposed TO repeal. He could
not think, he said, that there was any
thing new in the act of 1917; not merely
because simllarProvisi might be found
IN our own municipal regulations, but be-
cause analogous provisions existed III lie
laws of other nations. Mr.. l.. asked OF
the honorable Speaker, seeing that i'll
time OF war we require bond from priva-
teers, before commissioned, that they
will no; violate the laws oil nations, Why
in time of peace lie would not require
bonds from those suspected of The iuten-
ton 10 violate them. Mr.. L. considered
II an imperfect view Of The subject ia
suppose That The bond thus required was
only TO prevent injury being done to any
one power. Those who leave our shores
10 assall the property of one power, may
when they g9i TO sea, employ their arms
against any and every Dalion. Ii wa.
perfectly fair, certainly, that those who
left orr shores, with the means of mis-
chief on board, should give that security
against their involving The interests, ano
HCilihJS liIF DtdCc vi tittiI ChHlltIA, WHICH
bonds, such as are required By the law OF
1917, are calculated to afford. The gen
tleman from Louisiana appeared 10 liIinl
that there could scarcely be any thing ii
The cargo OF the vessel which ought to b,
taken as an indication of warlIke pur
pose. Now, MIR. /. said, though he die
noi think this clause maierial-not howe
yer thai he would repeal law because
Cx villa hla pnuf.t,aI .,he,,
luteiy meceSsaTy-yet lie thought tha
from the cargo the object of an expedi-
ton tltted from our ports might b. readi
ly inferred. Might there nol, he said, be-
that preparation ofiixed ammunition, &c
&c. which would afford strong pre-
sumption that the vessel was not intended
for irathc, bat prepared for way lie
thought this might occur where other
proof would fail. Mr.. l.. took other
views OF this question. He said he could
not regard this question as one Of mere
iuliilment of our duties TO the countries
al war, rs the vessels equipped in oul
ports might be employed against Other
countries with whom WE are at peace, a.
! we'll IS against those belligercnts. One
| consideration for such an act he wouI(
suggest, which ii was TOO late for as tC
deny, that we are responsible for inju
ries done by vessels Of Tie United Sta es
| after they leave our ports, before they ar
rive at foreign port. For such depreda
tons VIC are responsible, and have recoq
nized tie principle by paying claim
founded on it. Wehave bound ourselve
to respect the principle in name
equally obligatory, by prelcrrng claim!
founded on IT against other narions.-
Having done so, every consideration o
prudence, respect for the character O
our country, requires that we should cx
act the security which is demanded h,
| the act Of 1917 As regards those Win
| desire 10 trade in vessels Of war, il is ne
| ca.aaal.u IL. L.ru.-.l1 -. ~.