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

lava, when they come in conflict VIII
them, howcan the distinction, attempted
10 be drawn between The rights Of property
in things, OF irrational animals, and in per-
sons, be justified? or how can The allow.
ance of'compensation in the cases OF the
Comet and Encomium be explained i
put the question. Was the law for the a6:
clifton Of the slave trade, violation: Of the
laws of nations! Aud if not a violation,
as j. certainly was not, how came COM
pensa,ion to be granted in those cases!-
Can an answer be given! And if not,
what becomes ofthe distinction attempted
TO he taken! But another meaning may
be intended; thatit was no violation of the
law of nations to extend the act for the
abolition ofslavery in the British terrilo.
RIGS, 10 cases such as tho Enterprise. il
that is intended, it would be like all The
other distinctions which have been attemp-
ted-bulan assumption of the point in con-
trovery. =,
Ihave now stated, in his words, every
argument advanced by the British nego-
iiator to sustain the distinction which he
has attempted between the cases Of the
Comet and Encomium, and thai Of The
Enterprise, and have, I trust, esta ablished,
beyond controversy, that there is no ra:
rational GROUND whatever for the distinc-
ton. When again pressed OH the subject
by our Minister, who was not satisfied
with his arguments, he assumed the broad
ground that. Great Britainhad the right 10
forbid the recognition Of slavery within
her territory; and as our claim was in
consistent with such right, il could rot be
allowed, and on this closed the correspon-
dence. 1t lis easy to see, If she has such
right, in tho broad. and unqualified sense
in which it is'laid down, and applied. TO
the case in question, it extends to all
rights whatever, whether it be right of
property in things and irrational animals,
or growing out of personal relations;
whether founded: in consent or not. All
are. either the creatures Of po,iiivesenact-
ments, or subject to be regulated aud con-
trolIed by municipal laws; and she has
just the same right to prohibit the recog-
ni,ion Of any one or all of those rights
within her territory, as the one 10 ques-
ton. Blu, rho can doubt that such pro.
hibition, Il extended TO cases Of. distress,
such as the Enterprise, would be a most
fragrant violation OF the laws Of naions. as
understood aud acted on by all: civilized
nations, and even as admitted anl acted
on by herself; in the'cases Of the Comet
and Encomium IT
To US this is not mere abstract ques-
ton, nor one simply relating to The free
use Of the high seas. 1t comes nearer
home. Itis one Of free and safe passage
from one port to another Of our Union; as
much so 10 us, as question touching the
free and safe use of the channels between
England and Ireland on the one. eide, and
the opposite coast Of the contiite1t on the
other, would be to Great Britain. To un-
derstand itadeep Importance to- W. it must
be borne in mind, that the island of Ber-
muda lies but a short -distances off our
coast, and that tho channel. be.Reen the
Bahama islands and Florida,siS not loss
than TWO hundred miles iT T'lenglia and ON
thatthraueh this long, narrow and-dificulI
channel,. the immense trade betFeen our
ports on the Gulf Of Mexico and"qbe Ar
lantic coast must pass, which, at no dis
tant period, will constitute moro than half
of the trade of the Uhion. The principle
set up by the British Government, if car.
ried out to its full extent, would do much
to close this all-important channel; by reri-
dering it too hazardous for use.- She has
a,>l,, IN ,;,. n sndo6 ,;ta o~t.ns:nr ,o IL =,
principle applied to the caseaofthe Enter
prise, and the work would be doue; and
why has she not as good right to apply
it 10 a cargo Of sugar or cotton, ;as 10 the
slaves who produce it! - "a.
have now, trust, established, TO the
satisfaction of the Senate, what proposed
when I commeuced; that the principle on
which compensation was allowed in the
cases of the Comet aud Encomium, equal.
Iy embraces that Of the Enterprise that
no Just distinction can be made between
them !; and that the British nego,iator, in
attempting to make distinction, was
forced to assume the point in controversy.
And hero I might conclude my remarks,
as. far as these resolutions are concerned !,
hut there are other questions connected
with this subject, no, less important, which
demand attention, and which shall pro.
ceed 10 consider.
It,is impossible to read the corespon.
dence between the two Governments with
out the impression that the question in
volved in tho negotiation was Que of deep
embarrassment 10 the British ministry.
The great length Of the negotiation, con-
sidering the simplicity and paucity of the
points involved, the long delay before an
answer could be had at all, and The man.
ifest embarrassment in making ths dis
,inction between the cases allowed, and
the one rejected, plainly indicate that there
was some secret, unseen difficulty in the
way, not directly belonging to the ques-
tons involved in the cases. What was
that difficulty7 If l mistake not, it will
be found in the condition Of thiugsin En-
gland, and especially in reference % those
in mower. II is INV wish 10 do the Min