Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1839-05-02

admitted by the British Government, the
dispute being only as TO the amount; while
compensation is totally refused in the case
of the Enterprize, on the ground of the
passage of the British Emancipation Bill
previous 10 the. seizure Of the slaves in
that vessel. q, - ~,
Lord Pa.merston admits ..thatif vessel
be driven by shipwreck or distress into a
British port, containing irrational animals
or,inanimate things, The owner could not
Justly be deprived of his property under
The operation of municipal law to which
he had not subjected HIMSELF" The con-
troversy turns then, as Mr.. Stevenson saws
on the principle asserted by the British
Government, that persons are not property.
IL This were true, there would have been
no more right to redress in the cases of the
Comet and Emporium than in The case Of
The Enterprze, for the passage of Great
Britain's emancipating municipal law in
The interval. could not affect american
property; and if slaves cannot no,o be pro-
perty IN the possession Of Americans, Meth
er could they have been previous to the
Emancipation Bill. But.lh they are as
much property now as they ever we're
aud that they always were rightfully the
subject Of property--we will slew, by
again quoting he authority ofBri,ish iu-
dicial decisions, which we gave more fully
in this paper in 1635-as these authorities,
though alluded to in general manner, are
no, specially referred to by Mr.. Steven
son: aud as they are decisive on the point
against Great Britain.~ s,'i-
Sir VIM. Grant, in delivering Judgment
IN 1910, in a case where the questions
raised were-frst, whether slavery were
agains, the laws of Nations; and secondly,
if so, whether the Slave Trade were not
also against them said - 7a'
"We cannot legislate for other countries"
I'VE cannot compel The subjectsof other
Nations to observe any other Man the first,
and generally received principles Of uniuer-
sal La,o." - ~,
Here we have the decision turning on
the municipal regulations of the British
Empire, that The Slave Trade, and of
course Slavery, is not contrary 10 the law
Of nations
Subsequently, the Diana, a Swedish,
vessel was condemned at; Sierra Leone;
upon appeal The sentence was reversed.
Sir William Scott, in reversing ii, said,
that The Court was willing to go against
the Slave Trade, as far as the law of Ma
tons, and the principles recognized by
English tribunals would warrant, but he
could not proceed on sweeping anathe-
ma, against PROPERTY5elonging to
the subjects of foreign Independent, States"
-"Our own country" he says, "has secu-
red the abolition of The Slave Trade"(and
now slavery)"aS far as British subjects are
concerned; but it claims no right Of enfor-
cling its prohibition against the subjects Of
those States which have not adopted the
same opinion, &C."
Afterwards, in 1917, in the case of lie
Louis, Sir William Scott said
Personal !Siarery arising out of forci-
BILE captivityis coeyal with the earliest
history ofmankind"-'is recognized by the
codes ofthe most polished nations3o anti
quily-under the light of Christianity it's :
elf, the possession Of persons 50 acquired
has been in every civilized conntryinVes-
ted with the character of property, and Sc
cured as such by all the projections Of
law" 81 fear it would have
been an extravagant assumption in any
Court of the Law of Nations to pronounce
that this practice, the tolerated, the approved,
the encouraged object o. lao. was prohibi-
ted by that" There are nalious: which
adhere to the practice. What is the doc
trine Of our Courts Of the Law of Nations,
relatively 10 them? Why that theirprac-
tice is to be respected, that their Slaves, if
taken, are to be restored TO them. and if
not taken under innocent mistake, restor-
ed acith costs and damages. .Altthis sure
ly upon the ground, that such conduct on
the part of any STATE. is no departure from
the law of nations"
Bur it seems that the law of nations is !.
now no longer TO protect the. rest of the
world, because England, in The plenitude
of her omnipotence, has issued her sic
uolo, sic jubeo'-and passed her West In
dia apprenticeship Bill! This matter can
never be permitted 10 rest here.
The BOUNDARY QuEsTIoN.-The N.
York Commercial Advertiser of the 17th
says, "We are enabled 10 state, on what
we believe to be good authority, that such
instructions have been transmitted to her
Britannia Majesty's Minister at Washing
ton, by the Great Western, as will obviate
The necessity ofsending a special Minister
TO London. The seat of negotiations or
final adjustment ofthe boundary ques-
tion is transferred from London to WASH
ington; and those negotiations win be
pressed to defnilive conclusion.