Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

necusly assumed could have been fully sustained. , » Kctaliaiio-. is a specific or equiv alent return of injury for injury re ceived ; & where it is to operate through the interest of a third par t.v, having no voluntary participa tion in the injury received, the re turn ought, ns already observed, to be infected with the most for. bearing hand. This is the language of com. nion fenfc and the cleared cqni iy. As the light to retaliate rc fultsmerely from the wrong fuf. *frreci, it cannot in the narure of things extend beyond the ex tent of the differing. There may often he a dilhculty in applying this rule with exattnefs, and a rcafonable latitude may he al lowable on that consideration. Bui a manifell and extravagant departure from the tulc and find no apology. What then is the extent of the injury experienced by G. Britain from the mealures of her enemies (o far as the opera tion of thole measures through the Li. States can render them in any sense tcfponlible ? A mere declaration by a bel* ligerent, without the intention or the means to carry it into es. left, agautil the righs and obli gations of a neutral nation, and thence againfl the intered of an other belligerent, could afford no pretext to the latter to retal iate at the expence of the neu tral. Ihe declaration might give just offence to the neutral, but it would belong to him alone to decide on the coutfe preferibed by the refpett he owed to him. lelf. No real damage having ac. crued to the belligerent, no in. demnity could accrue. for the latnc rcafon, a de claration of a belligerent while he is known to be either not in a situation, or not to attend, to carry but partially into cxccu tion againd a neutral, to ihe injury of another belligerent, could never give more ihan a right to a com men lu rate red refs againit the neutral. All remain ing unexecuted and evidently not to he executed, is merely oftenOble, working no injury to any, unlels it he in the difrefpett to the neutral, to whom alone it belongs to relent or dilic gard it. Bring the case before us to this plain equitable ted. The Ftench decree of Nov. 1806, undertook to declare the Britilh ides in a Hate of blockade, to be inforced if you plcaie againd the neutral c< inmcrce of the U. S. on jhe high leas, according to the faculty poflefled for the purpose. As lar as it was actu ally enforced, or an edrfcl refill ting from an apprehenlion that it could anil would be enforced, it was an injury to G. Britain, for which let it be supposed the U. States wcie anlwtrable. On the other hand, as lai as it was not enforced, and evidently ei ther would not 01 could not be enforced, no injury was expe rienced hy G. Britain, and no remedy could lie againd the U. States. Now, !i;, it never was pretended that, at the date of the fi llt B 1 it.Hi »order, iflued in January 1807, any injury had acc.ned to, or was appiehendcd by G. Britain, fiom an exccu. tion ol the French decree againll the couimeue of the L'. States, on the tbeaiie of their ncutra lights : so tar from it, that the ord>*r ll.md\ sets condemned a: a meaiure ot retaliation, by ex prtlsly liating that the fleets o France and her aiiie>, mficad ol being abtc to enforce the block adc ol the Bn ilh dies, were themiclves conbr.ed to their owr pcits, by the entire iupeiioiu N of the Britdh navy: convenin’ * thus, by the lliangcit of ieaio n \ i ings, the feciiritv of G. Britain againd injury from the French decree, into a title to commit injury on a oeutral party. In the Nov. orders also, whild it is admitted ibat the French de cree could not he but unperfed ly executed, for want of mea is, it is averted that the intention of the French decree, and not she injury accruing from its operation thro’ the commerce ot the United States, is the (calc by which the retaliating injury againd them is to be mealured. Such are the pretexts, and such the principles, on whtch one great htanch of the lawful commerce of this country be came a victim to the fird Britilh order, and on which the lad or ders are no v Iweeping from the ocean all its molt valuable re mains. Againd such an unprecedent ed fyltem of warfare on neutral rights & national independence, ihe common judgment & com mon feelings of mankind mud forever proted. I touch, fir, with rclu&ancc, the qucltion, on which of the belligerent lidcs the invasion of neutral rights had its origin. A» the U. States do not aiquiefce in these invaiions by either, there could be no plea for in volving them in the controver. fy. But as the Biitifh orders ha,ve made the decree of France declaring, contrary to the law' of nations, the Btitifh iHands in a date of blockade, the imnrc | dtate foundation of their deltruc. I live warfare on our commerce, it belongs to the fubjed to re mind your government of the illegal interruptions and Ipoiia lions differed, previous to that decree, hy the neutral commerce of the U. S. under the proceed' ings of Britifli ciuizers 6c courts and for the mod part, in conle qutnee of express orders of the government itfelf. Omitting piool3 ot interior note, 1 icicf to the exteniive aggrtHions on the Hade of the U. States, foun ded on the plea of blockades never legally tllablilhed accor ding to recognized definitions; to the dill more extcnlivc vio lations of our commerce, with ports of her enemies not pre tended to be in a date of block ade j and to the Britilh order of council iflued near the com mencement of the existing war. This order, besides its general interpolation against the estab* billed law of nations, is distin gudhed by a Ipecial ingrediant, violat.ng that law as lecognized by the course of decilion* in the Britilh courts. It lubjectsto capture and con dcmnation all neutral veflels, returning \vith lawful cargoes, on the lole conlidcration, that thiy had in their outward voy age, depoiited contraband of war at a hodtie port. If the commcice of the United States could therefore in any cale be rcaionably made the viftim and the Ipoit of mutual chaiges and reproaches between belligerent parties, with refpcct to the prior ity of their aggrefhons on neu trtd commerce, Great Britain mult look beyond the epoch she I has cholen tor illegal ads of her I adversary, in support of the al- I legation on which she founds , htr retaliating edicts agamiiour I commerce. : 1 j But the United States are given i to understand that the Bt itoh gov ernment has, as a proof of its in dulgent and amicable disposition tow aid* them, mitigated die au thored rigor it mignt have given ; toil* measures, by certain exc*p ! lions peculiarly lavorvblc to ihe commercial interests of ihe LT. S. 1 forbear,sir, to express all the ► t motions w ith which such a lan - j guugc, on sued an occasion, is cal- I cnlatrd to inspire a ration wh’ch cannot for a rn*>*nent be nncnn kt inus of if* right*, *«r (tiixttke •or an alleviation • f wrong* regu lations to admit the validity of which would be to assume badges of humiliation rrver worn by an independent power. The first of these indulgenries is a commercia! intercourse with the dependencies of the enemies of Great-Britain, and it is consi di red as enhanced by its being a deviation in favor of the U- S. from the ancient ard established principles of maritime law, pro hilnting altogether such an inter course in time of war. Surely, sir, your government in assuming this principle in such terms in relation to the United States must have foigotten their repeated and formal protests a gainst it as these are to be found in the ditcust-icns and communi cations of their minister at Lon don, as well as in explanations occasionally made on that subject to the British representative here. But permit me to a-k more par ticularly, how it cou'd have hap. prned that the principle is char acter iaed as an ancient and estab lished one. I put the question the more frerly because it has never been denied that the principle, as asserted by our government, was for the first time introduced dur ing the war of 1750. It is in fact invariably cited and described in all judicial and other official transactions “ as the rule of 1 750.” It can have no pretension there fore to the title of an ancient rule. And instead of being an estab lished rule or principle, it is Well known that Great Britain is the only nation that has acted upon, or othrr wise given a sanction to it. Nay, it is not even an estab lished pi inciple in the practice of Great Britain herself. When fir>t applied in the war of 175 ft, the legality of a neutral trade with enemy’s colonies was not contes ted by it. In certain cases only of the colonial trade, the allega tion, was that the presumptive evidence arriving from circum stances against the bona fide neu trality of the ownership justified the condemnation as of enemy’s , ~»• %. } .1 me r,.i r i .. ‘ UIC Ol ■"r tjon was afterward*, during that war, converted into the principle now asserted, it could not possi bly have been in operation in its new shape, more than a very few years. During the succeeding war of 1778, it is admitted by every British authority that the princi ple was uever brought into opera tion. It may be regarded, in tact, as having been silently abandon ed ; and within the peiiod of war since its commencement in 1793, the manner in which the principle has been alternately contraitid and extended explained sometimes in one v ay, sometimes in another, rested now on this foundation, now oil tnat, is no secret to those who have attended to its history and progress in tlx British orders of council and the British courts ol admiralty. W ith t|»e exception, therefore, o! a peiiod, ihe last in modern times from winch autetitic prece dents of maritime law will be drawn and throughout which the United States more n terested in the ques tion than any other nation, have uniformly combated the inovation, rile principle has not in the British ti ibunals been in operation for a longei ttrm than three, four or live years, whilst in no others has it ever mad* its appearance but to receive a decision protesting a gainst it. Such is tie antiquity and such the authority of a principle, the deviations Iroin which are held out as so many favors consoling tire | United States lor the wide spread destruction ol their legitimate coni’ mercc. What must he said as to the other exceptions, which seem to have been viewed claims on the gratitude of the United States ? Is it an indulgence to them in carry ing on their trad.* with the whole continent of Liu ope, to be laid un der the necessity of going first to a British port, to accept a bniish licence and to pay a tribute to the British exchequer, as if we had been reduced to the colonial situa tion wnich once imposed these monopolizing restraints ! "’ha* again mud be said as to • other features which we see bltn «'ed on the face of these regula • liens ? If tbc policy of them be to subject an enemy to privations, ' why arc channels opened for a British ttadr with them which are shut to a neutral trade ? If in oth er cases, the real object he to ad init«* neutral trade wul. the enemy, why is it requirej that nrutral ves sels shall perform the ceremony of passirg through a British port, when it can have no imrigirrable effect but the known Ik inevitable one of prohibiting the admission of the trade m.o the port of dcsti nation ? I will not ask why a primary arti cle of our productions & exports, cotton wool, is to be distinguished in its transit, by a heavy’ impost not imposed on other articles, be cause it is frankly avowed, in your explanation of the orders, to be in tended as an encouragement to Bri tish manufactures, and a check to the rival ones of France i I sup press also, thouch without the same reason for it, the trqu •T> why less rigorous restriction are applied to the trade of the Barbary powers than are enforced against that of a nation, such as the U. States and j n relations such as have existed between them and Great Britain ? I cannot however pass without ; notice the very unwan notable in novation contained in the two last ; l^ c orders. In one of them, a certifi CiUc G s the local origin of a c * r go, although permitted in the P°ii of departure and required in tiie port of destination, by regula i UOn “ Purely domestic in both, I a °d stricily anaiagous in principle ; «o regulations irvthe commercial code ot G. Britain is made a cause of capture on the high seas, and cf condemnation in her maritime courts. In the othev, order the sale of a merchant ship by a belli gerent owner to a neutral, altho’ a transaction as legal when fair, a3 a dealing in any other article, as condemned by a general rule, without an atom of proof or of presumption, that the transfer in the paiiicular case is fraudulent and the property therefore Iclt in an enemy. In p ,t * | uent sees m the edicts communicated by you facts assumed which did not exist; principles asserted which never can be admitted ; and, un der the namo of retaliation, mea sures transcending the limits re concileable w ith the facts and the principles, as if both were as cor rect as they are unfounded. He sees moreover in the modifications of this system, regulations viola ting equally our neutral rights and our uaiioual sovereignty. He per suades himself therefore that your government will see in the justice ot the observations now made, in auduiun to those I had the honor vcroally to state to you in the first instance, that the United States are well warranted in looking for a speedy revocation of a, system which is every day augmenting the mass of injury for which the U. States have ihe best of claims to redress. I have the honor to be, &c. &c. James Madison The hon. David M. £rsiine > esq. i&c. U?c. c?V. EXTRACT From “ the Critical Review, ” published in London, in the present year, vol. 2, page 54 2 34* “ That reciprocity of deadly rancor which exilts between the court of Great Britain and that of Fra icc, has mitigated them to itnpoleone rellriction on the trade of neutrals after another, to harrals them by fucceHive vexations, and to load them with repeated indignities; every neutral power, that might miti gate the evils of war, seems like ly to be precipitated into that ahyfs of deltruttion, which is prepared by the unrelenting furv ol the belligerents. If any neutral veHei which has touched at a Brittfh port, though only from fltels of weather, lhould ! , enter the harbours of France,! her cargo is to be confifcatej and her crew imprisoned. And on the com?ary, Great Britain declares thatevery neutral vessel which is found entering a f rench port without having come im. medially from G. Britain, (hall be liable to capture as lawful prize. In such a (late of things, neutrals are reduSed to what may. bt called a dilemma of dc druftion, Whatever course they adopt, spoliation and captivity (fare them in the face. Under the confining prohibitions of England and France the com merce of thole powers, who are in a (late of amity with the belligerents, is placed under an interdict of examination. No neutral can any longer experi ence either relpefl or security on the ocean, which, if the prelent (late of barbarian war* (are continues, will soon be covered with piratical instead of neutral flijps. Emerprifing robbery will be (übllituted for mercantile (peculation. I’he lea will Iwarm with marauders, as it did belore the relation of juflice ware ackowlcdged among na« tions. Os that fyflem of unlimi ted outrage which had begun to be practiced on the ocean, the guih, though not inclusively confined to England, mult at leall be thought to belong-a» much to England as to France.! 1 he reitricltions which we have! (rom the beginning imposed onl the intercourse of neutrals with! the enemy, have caused diverlel modes of retaliation on the parti of f ranee, which have again en-1 gendered a (pirit of more infu-i riated animosity in the councils! of Great Britain. We hav*l always been of opinion, that then commerce of neutrals ougt to bol I nfettered with reflriClions. Thdfj c alamities of war arc great en* i ough of themselves, and whjwj f b°.Vl4.jjnerea(c them by be laid, will you allow a n cut rail Hate to supply your enemy wit|H military (tores ? We will answer . this question by asking in return* when, in all the wars which havf | occurred between France St En*j gland, did France ever makofl peace (or want of steel for Iwords, iron for muskets, or off gun-powder or ammunition If notwithllanding all the accu* mulated wrongs which we have committed in our endeavor toJ prevent neutrals from fupplyingff our enemy with what we cals/ contraband of war, that enem)B can always obtain a luihcient supply not withllanding oufj| utmoil prohibitions, why fhould| we did refs the trade of ouf friends in order to a fancied iikS jury to our foes ? It appears to us, that the tercourfe which fubftds betweejfl neutrals and other dates in liraiM ot peace, ought to experienciW no interference in time of war* For the relation between a netuE tral and any two belligerently, j is not altered by their reciprocal | hodiiities. A neutral cor.tintu® friendly to both ; and if htf I trade in particular t (hould be more to one of the parties than tljH other, yet neither is excluded 1 from the the benefits; the vertfj idea of neutrality is oppodte ta 1 that of preference ; and if M l neutral (hows no undue prdojlM ence to our enemy we have no I realon to complain. W hpi (hould not America, or are! other neutral, be allowed to few J her produce where it will fetiH ihehighelt price? Iftwo iAd>v£.| tiuaU disagree, are they judiftflf in rendering th. quarrel to a third, who is no part in uilpute, but who is willing 1© J carry on a friendly correfpu#P| uence with both ?* The occaal