Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1840-04-16

Of these resolutions. The former aff!rms
the acknowledged principle that ship
or vessel, on the high seas, in time oi
peace, and engaged in Lawful! voyage,
is. by the law Of nations, under the exciu-
siy, Jurisdiction Of the State to which her
flag belongs, and the second, that if forced
by stress Of weather, or other unavoidable
cause, into port ola friendly power. she
would lose none of the rights appertaining
10 her on the high seas; but, oil the con:
trary, she, with her cargo and persons on
board, including their property and all the
rights belonging to their personal relations,
would be placed under the protection which
the law Of nations extends to the unfortu-
nate in such cases.
Itis on this solid basis that the rights OF
our citizens rested. The laws OF nations
their paramount authority, overruled, III
those cases, the municipal laws of Great
Britain, even within her territorial limits;
and it was 10 their auihoritive voice that her
Government yielded obedience in com.
pensating our cilizens for the violation oil
rights placed under their sacred protection.
Having now. established the principle
necessarily implied in the allowance OF
compensation in the cases Of the Comet
and Encomium, il will be an easy task to
show that is equally embraces the case OF
the Enterprise. 1t is admitted by the
British Minister, that there is no other
distinction between Land the other two,
except that it occurred before, and the
others after, the act abolishiug slavery in
tho colonies went into operation; aud it
must, of course, be equally comprehended
in the principles embraced in the first and
second resolutions, iC virtue of which COM
pensa,ion was made, as has been shown;
unless indeed that act had The effect Of
preventing it, which | shall now show
it could not, according TO the law of ma
lions.
A simple but decisive view will be suffi-
cient for this purpose. have just shown
that the act OF Parliament, for abolishing
the slave trade, although it expressly pro-
hibited the introduction of. slaves within
the limits Of the British territory, or detain-
ing them IN that condition, when brought
in; so far from overuling, were overruled
by the principles embraced in these reso-
lutions. Ifthat act did not overrule the
laws of nations in those cases, how, ask,
could the &C, for the abolition Of slavery
in the colonies overrule them in a case in
every essential circumstance acknowl.
edged to be the same? Can. a possible
reason be assigned? The authority by
which the two were enacted is The same,
and the one as directly applicable TO the
case as the other. If, indeed, there be n
difference, the one for the abolition of the.
slave trade is, Of the two, the most aPnli-
cable. That act directly prohibits the in.
PRODUCTION of slaves within the British do
miniou, in the most unqualified manner, or
the retaining them, when introduced in that
condition; while the object Of the act for
the abolition of slavery in the colonies,
waste emancipate those who were such
under the authority OF the British laws.
1t is true, i; abolishes slavery in the British |
dominions, but thar is no more than had
previously boon done. az far. as slayes>
brought into her dominions were concern
ed; by the act for abolishing the. slave trade.
And vet we see that act was oyerruled by
tho law of nations, iu the case Of the Comet
and Encomium. How, then, is it possible
that of two laws, enacted by the same au-
,hority, bothto the same case, should he
overruled by the law Of nations, and the
other overrule it? Ilis clear that it is i'm ]
possible; and that ifthe one cannot divest
ihs rights of our citizens, neither can the
other; aud, of course, that the principle on
which compensation was allowed in the
cases of the Encomium and the Comet,
equally embraces thatof The Enterprise.
Both acts were, in truth but municipal
laws; and, as such, neither could overrule
the laws of nations, nor diyest our citizens
of their rights in the case under considera-
ton. In The nature Of things, the laws Of
nations, which have for their object the
Of their intercourse of States,
must be paramount 10 municipal laws,
where their provisions happen to come in-
to conflict. Ifnot they would be without
authority. Ifthis be so, there can be 20
between the three cases,
ard, iu that case, our citizens would have
No just claim for compensation in eilher.-
1t follows; that the principle which embra-
ces one, embraces all. There eau be no
just distinction between them; and Ishall
next proceed 10 show, that, in attempting
to make distinction where there is no diE.
ference, the British negotiator has been
compelled to assume the very point in con.
,royersy between the two Governments.
In doing this. | propose to follow his argu-
ment, step by step, and prove the truth of
my assertion at each step.
He sets out with laying down the rule,
by which he asserts that those claims should
be decided. which he says, sis that those
claimants must be considered entitled to
compensation, who were lawfully in pos
session Of their slaves within the British
territory, and who were disturbed in their
legal possession Of those slaves, by fuuc-
tionaries Of the British Government" /
object not to the rule, If our citizens had