Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1856-12-30

word for word in the treaty between the Unite,
States Of America and her Britannia Majesty, signe'
this day. They shall lie ratified By the President U
the United States, by and with the advice md con
sent of the Senate thereof, and hy her Britannia Ma
i.s:y and tie ratification sl!a! hu exchanged al lii
| same time as those of the Ircny
GroRGE VI. DALLAS.
| GLARENpuS.
Done at London the l7th 6foasber, in the year 0
our Lord, SJ6.
For The Enquirer.
On the Consequences of Abolition Agitation
nud oil the Separation Of the Onion.
| NO VII
| In applying the foregoing views to the particular
case of The Mississippi it is clear that, in the even
Of separate propri-urshp the lower occupant would
have right either TO close Ia obs'rnct the pas
sage of the vessels and freights OF the upper occu
pants. But there is still better assurance that Their.
would be no such attempt because, in time Of peace
there can be no possible Induccment for such
course even il to be effected with certainty, and
without danger of war, or reprsas, from the upper
country.
The city of New Orleans derives nearly all u i'm.
| uense trade and wealth from the purchasing or
forwarding. and furnshing commodities in exchange
OF the products Of the higher waters OF the Mlsss.
| -ppi. and ut NAV be and must 5s Iereatier) mainly
from the nou slavehulding region. Now, under any
peaceful circumstances, what Inducements can possl-
| bly, operate oil the city OF New Orleans, or on the
on the lower river 10 exclude or 10 discourage by
burdensome exsctons, the free passage of the vessels
and products which brought Mi the business aud pro
fits of the city, and is 10 greatly beneficial to the
whole neigl boring country On the contrary would
not every reasonable facility he afforded for this trade,
TO prevent AZ much a. possible its being diverted to
New York and other Northern markesi II there
was no such action, and no motive for the proprietor
of the lower waters 10 obsruc the trade OF the up
per proprietor what ground would the latter have tor
| md Nnl
either tho upper or the lower power 20 TO war with
the other, for the benefits of navigation and trade
already fully enjoyed, and which eiloymenS could
only be prevented and certainly would be prevented
by The very act of war with the other powe-l The
contrary assumptions, The equivalent assertions Of
the danger OF and even necessity for war, merely on
this ground preposterous that they would not
deeerve TO he answered but for their extended cur
rency.
If government, or private association, con
structs canal, or new artificial! passage FOR havl-
gatiun through the territory belonging to the pro
pretor Of the work, the proprietor has undoubtedly
the right to forbid the passage to ali foreigners how
ever beneficial TO them the new facility might be-
Blu, was there ever such prohibition, even dis.
eliminating and heavier tolls and charges on fore ign
crs, ever adopted in such casel Or has any one
ever feared such impositions No such distractions
can possibly exist until self interest shall cease 10 d.
rect the cOnduct Of man. The State of New York
and Canada have both opened canals to unite the
navigation of the great lakes with tho Atlantic
Each Of these artificial passages may be used to great
benefit by the people OF the other country And, go
far from obs;riCting these uses, New York desires
aud strives TO be the carrier for Upper Canada and
the Canadian Canals are as open to convey American
vessels To the 81. Lawrence. But lately vessel la
den with -four sailed from Chicago, and without un.
ladiug trans.shpment OF cargo passed through
the Welland canal, around the cataract u: Niagara,
and from Like Ontario, through the RiJeau canal TO
the Ctawas and theuce into the 81. Lawrence, and
across the Atlantic 10 Liverpool.
In former times, there WAS much diplomatic argu.
meut and conflicting claims between the British and
American governments rs to the rights Of navigation
of the 81. Lawrence by American vessels. Probably
each party claimed too much-the American govern
meut for the perfect right Ia navigate the river, and
the British government the right TO exclude Ameri-
eau navigation. confess that do no. know how
the matter settled 10 the theoretical questions
of conflicting rights But, practically, presume that
in time OF peace between the two countries, Ameri
can vessels free to navigate the river rs Cana
dian vessels. From Lake Ontario 10 near Montreal,
the downward navigation is difficult, because Of
the numerous rapids, that il IL OF little use TO freight
and sailing vessels, or to any that could venture to
cross the Atlantic. To ascend The river II is necessa.
~ 10 use the aid Of the Canadian canals.
II s very true and is 80 obvious as scarcely TO
need being stated that the ofwar between
TWO nations occupying the upper and lower naviSable
waters of river, the different places Of produc.
ton and of sale thereon, would necessarily shut out
both parties from navigating the waters Of the other,
and would prevent the continuance OF the previous
friendly trade. But the prospect of this sure and
heavy penalty for war and o! the certain and great
losses which would thence accrue 10 both nations
would serve the strongest possible reason and in
ducement for the preservation of peace. Therefore,
if the Mississippi was held in separate occupancy
of is upper and lower waters, instead OF this great
river being continual pTovocG:lon 10 war, it would
be the strongest possible bond OF peace between the
proprietary powers. For neither power
could break the peace, without immediately and on
iirely cutting of the trade which had been the chief
source Of lis prosperity and wealth.
In cases OF war between two powers thus holding
The upper and lower portions of navignbe river,
though both countries would suffer greatly, it would
not be equally, undoubtedly, for military or naval ope
rations the holder of the lower waters or their outlet
10 the ocean, would have great advantage over the
upper proprietor. Hence 1t is fortunate for the
south and far the better preservation oil peace, that
in every Of such prospective divided proprietor.
ship Of navgablc rivers or straits, the weaker south.
srn will hold the lower, and the northern, which is
the stronger and also the aggressive power, will pos.
,ess the upper navigable waters The most noted
and important case is the Mississippi river. But,
though much the strongest, Il is not the only such
bond of peace. There are other cases, presented in
The Ohio river and in the Delaware and stl more
the Chesapeake bays. These acts offer most impor-
ant subjects for consideration, Tor the staes and ci
ties most interested in these future relations, which
need not be pursued.
or courre. all independent states are liable ct some
times to have causes OF war with neghboring pow
ers or TO be- involved III war, whether with or with
out good cause From this universal liability, the
paraied aud independent northern and southern
Icdaracies would not be exempt. Either, indeed.
NIGH; make war on the other il choosing the hazards
Of war in preference to the benefits Of peace. SO
the United States might have gnns to war, land IA
then deemed, for Just causcsl III dozen cases, with
England, France, other powers. where no war &C.
Cured and where all differences subsequently
-aed by peaceful negotiation. Ii the northern aud
southern states were two separate and independent
powcrs. each would gain more by cultivaling and
preserving peace with the other, and each would lose
and suffer more by being at war, without any posi-
by of gain, than would be in regard to any other
two nations in the world Under such circumstances
may we not safely anticipate that peace would DO
SESEX.