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

to them as its .citizens or subjects. NO
one denies that; but that is not the present
case. They entered not voluntarily, but
from necessity; aud the very point at issue
is, whether the British emuoiclnal laws
could divest their owners of. property in
their slaves on cnteftng British territory,
in cases such as the Enterprise, when the
vesser:has- been forced into their territory
by necessity, through an act Of Providence
TO save,lhe lives: :of. those on board. We
.deny:they can; and maintain the opposite
eround:-ihn, The law of nations in such
cases interposes2 and protects the vessel
and those on board, with their rights, a.
gainst the municipal laws Of the State, to
which they have never submitted, and to
which it would be cruel and inhuman as
we'll as unjust, to subject them. Such is
clearly the point at issue between the TWO
Governments; and it is not less clear, thai
it is the very point assumed by the British
negoliator in the controversy.
He felt, in assuming his ground, that the
general principle was against him, accord
ing to which the municipal laws yield to
the laws of nations in such cases; aud in
order to take himself out Of its operation,
he attempted to make distinction equal
ly novel and untenable. He asserts "that
there is distinction betweea laws bear.
ing ON the personal liberty Of man, and
laws bearing upon the property which
man may claim in Irrational animals. or
inanimate ihings;'' and comedies "thal if a
ship containing such, animals or things
were driven bv stress of weather into a
foreign port, it would be highly unjust
that the owner should be stripped Of what
belongs 10 him, through the application OF
the municipaIlaw Of The State 10 which ne
had not voluntarily: Submitted himself."--
Yes, it would. be both unjust aud inhuman;
and because it would be 80, it is contrary
to the law of nations, which is but the rules
Of justice and-himani,y applied to the in
tercourse Of nations; and therefore it is
that il interposes in cases like the present,
and places under its protection the rights
Of the unfortunate, even against the mu-
Dicipul laws Of the place.
But he asserts that the principle does
not extend TO the cases in which rights OF
property in persons are concerned, (for
such must be the meaning, or it is wholly
irrelevant TO the question at issue because
"there are are three. parties to. the lran,ac-
ton; the owner Of the cargo, the local au-
,hority, and the alledged slave; and the
third party is no less entitled than the first
to appeal to rf1e local authority for such
protection as the law of the land may af-
ford him." This is the position on which
the British negofiator mainly rests his ar
gument; and if this fails, the whole, must
fall TO the ground. 1t is not difficult to
see, from what he says Of two parties APP
pealing 10 the local authority that ne tao
lily puts aside the law Of nations, and as
sumes the parties to be under the munich
pal law Of the place; and, also that those
laws, and not the law Of nations, are the
standard by which their rights are 10, be
judged;: but is it not manifest this is an as
in another form, Of the'p0int 10
controversy! Against it, unsustaihed apd
unsustainable, by authority or reaso1,.
oriast i.:..., .-...no enU
hiehes, authority of iheB BrhisrGov2
ernment itselE-in tho cases Of the Comet;
aud Encomium, backed by unanswerable
reasons. =
Ifthe distiuclionbe true at all, between
property in persons and property in things,
or irrational animals, it was, to tho full,
as applicable to those cases as tits 10 that
of the Enterprise. In them the right Of
property in persons was involved; and the
three parties included, to the same extent,
as in that. Nor was personal liberty less
concerned. AS far as British laws could
affect The rights of our citizens, the negroes
belonging to the Comet and Encomum
were as free as those belonging to the En-
terprise. An ac, Of Parliament, as has been
shown, forbade their iutroduction; and for
feited the rights Of their owners, thereby
making them free, with rights to maintain,
as far: AS British legislation could make
them so; aud yet, after full and mature 'in-
vestiga,ion and reflection for the same rule
applied 10 them, which, it is conceded,
would apply in similar cases 10 property
in things, or irrational animals. Now, l
ask, if The act for the abolition Of the slave
trade, which directly forbids the introduce
ton of negroes as slaves, and forfeits the
rights of,heir owners, did not, as we have
seen, justify the distinction in the cases OF
the Comet and Encomium, now attempted
to be made between the TWO descriptions
of property, how could the act for The abo-
lition Of slavery justify it in the case Of the
Enterprise |! In the former, there were
all the parties, with their respective rights,
lust the same as in the latter; aadifthe To-
cal authorities were not bound to recog.
Mise and protec, the negroes in the one
case, why, ask, were they in the other !
Can satisfactory answer be giyen!, And,
ifnor, what becomes ofthe distinction, with
all its consequences. attempted to be de-
duced from il! -,
The British negoliator, as if conscious
OF The weakness OF the position, attempts
Immediately to for,ify it. He says: "lf,
indeed, municipality be made, which
violates the laws Of nations, a question Of
d.. 81 80,