Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-03-23

our influence in Europe. 1t must be admitted
that the address of the agent tin the performance
of his trust, was upon a level with the candor
and frankness in which it originated.
We are we'll aware that our recognition of
South American independence was not paa,a-
bic to the taste of any of the European govern.
ments. But we felt that it was subject upon
which it became US to take the lead, and as we
knew that the European governments, sooner
or later, must and would, whether with good
or with bad grace, follow our example, we de-
termined that both Europe and America should
have the benefit OF it. We hope, also, that this
is the only return which we ask, and have a
right to ask, from the South Americans for our
forwardness in their favor, that Europe will be
compelled TO follow the whole Of our example;
that's, to recognize without condition and with
out equivalent. We claim no exclusive privi-
ege for ourselves. We trust to the sense Of
justice, as well as to the interest Of the South
Americans, the denial of all exclusive privie-
ges to others. The Colombian Government,
at various times, have manifested desire that
the United States should take some further and
active part in obtaining the recognition oftheir
independence by the European Governments,
and particularly by Great Britain. This has
Ministers of the United States in Europe, have,
for many years, been instructed 10 promote the
cause, by any means consistent with propriety,
and adapted TO their end at the respective pla-
ces of their residence. The formal proposal of
a concerted recognition was made to Great Bri
tain, before the Congress Of AK La Chapele.
At the request of Mr.. Torres, on his dying bed,
and signiGed to Us after his decease, Mr. Rush
was instructed to give every aid in his power,
without offence 10 the British Government, to
obtain the admission of Mr.. Ravenga Of which
instruction, we have recent assurances from
Mr. Rush that he is constantly mindful. Our
own recognition undoubtedly opened all the
ports Of Europe to the Colombian flag, and your
mission to Colombia, as well as those TO Bue-'
nos Ayres and Chill, cannot fail TO stimulate
the Cabinets of maritime Europe, if not by the
liberal motives which influenced US, at least by
selfish impulses, to direct, sim pie, and uncon-
ditionaI recognition. We shall pursue this po-
Icy steadily through all the changes to be fore
seen, of European affairs. There is every rea-
son to believe that the prepondera!ing tendency
of the war in Spain, will be to promote the uni
versal recognition of all the South American
Governments; and at all events our course will
be to promote it by whatever influence we may
possess
Gone Of the complaints of Mr.. Lowry, was re-
la,iye to the case OF the ship Caravan from Pro-
violence, captured by Colombian cruizer, and
carried into La Guayra, where the vessel had
been cleared as neutral; and the cargo condemn
ed as enemy's property Mr.. Lowry had invo-
kei the siipuations of various treaties estab-
fishing and recognizing the principle that free
,La ha If .tiO nj Ich
is denied by Mr.. Gual, who appealed to the n-
Nructons from Mr. Pickering, in 1907 :, 10 Mesrs.
Marshall, Pinckney, and Gerry, our ENJOYS in
France.
BY the general usage Of nations, independent
of treaty stipulations, the property OF an enemy
is liable to capture in the vessel of friend. 1t
is not possible to justify this rule upon any
sound principle of the law of nature; for, by that
law, the beligerent party has no right to pur-
sue or attack his enemy without the Jurisdiction
of either of them. The high seas are gene
raj Jurisdiction common to all, qualified by a
special jurisdiction of each nation over its own
vessels. AS the theatre Of general and common
jurisdiction, the vessels of one nation and their
commanders have no right TO exercise over
those of another any act OF authority whatso-
ever This is universally admitted in time of
peace. War gives the belligerent right to
pursue his enemy within the jurisdiction COM
mon to both; but not irto the special jurisdic-
ton of the neutral party. If the belligerent has
a right to take the property Of his enemy on the
seas, the neutral has right to carry and protect
the property Of his friend on the same element.
War gives the belligerent no natural right TO
take the property of his enemy from the vessel
Of his friend. But as the beligerent is armed,
and the neutral, as such, is defenceess, it has
grown into usage that the belligerant should
take the property of his enemy; paying the neu-
trail his freight, and submitting the question Of
facts to the tribunal of the belligerent party
1t is evident, however, that this usage has no
foundation in natural right, but has arisen mere
ly from force, used by the beligerent, and which
the neutral in the origin did not resist, because
he had not the power. But ii is usage,
harsh and cruel in its operation, and uni ust in
its nature; and it never fails in time of mari
time war 10 produce irritation and animosity
between the belligerent and the neutral. So
universally has this been foundio be its conse
quence, that all the maritime nations Of modern
Europe have shown their sense of it, by.stipu.
lating in treaties the contrary principle, name
ly, that the property Of an enemy shall he pro-
tected in the vessel of friend. Great Britain
herself, the most unwilling to admit this prin-
ciplc, because the most enabled to use forct
upon which the usage is founded, has recognz-
ed the superior justice and ex2ediency Of The
other prjnciDle nv stimulating II at dist ant in