"
ETTE.
LI
PUBLISHED (weekly) 3Y ' ALLMAND HALL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1805.
A"o. 465.
GAZ
' - UII.L I llll I ll I II ' '""
Ft om the Richmond JZnjuirer.
British encroachments upon our
CoJiri'EacE. '
w An order, we understand, was sent to all
the out ports some days ago, instructing our
cruizersto detain all American vessels, which
' have on board property not the produce of
the United States. This order has" been al
ready acted upon, and several ships have
been slopped." -
London paper of the 7th August.
Such is the paragraph, which has already
excited so great an alarm among the Ameri
can merchants, and such Vehement indigna
tion among all classes of citizens, it is to
be regretted, that the skUr itself has Wot
reached us, from which this paragraph is,
said to have been subtiitially 'tt&t-i. For
ye cannot help suspecting that it embraces
a much wider circle ot operation than the or
der itself ; and we suspect it for the follow
. ing reasons : . '
Because the paragraph which follows it in
the same paper, explain the intention of the
order to be, the restraining of our indirect
trade between the colonics and the mother
country, through the medium of the United
States.:
" Because the letters from the London mer
chants' to their correspondents in this coun
try, confine the provisions of the order to
this precise object :
Because the case of the Essex and other
vessels which have lately been condemned
by the English courts of admiralty is founded
entirely upon this assumed principle of an
' unlawful. commerce between the colonies
and the mother country :
AnJ because, if their order was extensive
in its operation as the paragraph entitles it to
be, it woujd have-the effect of subjecting our
vessels to detention and adjudication, tho'
they were laden even with British manufac
tures. In fact, accordingto the phraseology
of this paragraph, not an American vessel
could sail on the high seas, 44 having on
board property the produce of the United
tUtfs,'lwhether it consisted of Btitish faa.
nufactures or of colonial produce, which
would not be liable to detention by British
cruiztrs, and adjudication by their courts of
' cdmiralty.
Instead nf such an unlirnitted interference
with our trade, we suspect that it was the on
ly intention rjflhu br(!cr to instruct their
cruize; iy deta;n alj American vessels
bound to an enemy's colony, and having mi
board any article of the growth or manuhc
lurc of a nation at vj.v with Great-Britain."
By referring to Mr. King's letter of March,
1 col, to lord llawkesbuty, on a similar sub
ject, the reader will find that such at least
wastherotr.-f of the British cruizcrs at
that period; and this forms ano'.her reason
fur our opinion, that the London paragraph
ist has strained the provisions of the order
beyond its actual import.
Hut this order, even with this modification,
contain such encroachments upon the A
mencan commerce, as cannot but excite the
deepest alarm an indignation. A desultory j
itw or this suuject, will ue su'iicicnt to
"point out the injustice of this regulation, and
the disadvantageous situation to which wcj
kl all Le reduced.
It Ins generally been the custom, when a
ry new priiu:i;Ie Is adopted by a belligerent
nation, or when any old one is carried into
operation, to gire a previous notice to the
ministers resident of neutral nations, that
lh"y may have it in their power to put jtlici r
countrymen on mcir t;uaru. v nc-ii a iie
is declared lobe m sutc ol blockade, there
When we come to enquire into the spirit
of the order itselft hew and insurmountable,
objectiqnsjjse up against it. Those objec
tions are -of tvj kinds ; those that apply to
the mere detention of. our vessel ; and those
which will apply to the principle, on which
they will be liable locoiideiniiatbii before the
courts of admiralty.; ,
Each of these deserve a separate examina
tion. 1st. According to this ordcr, there is not
an American vessel, 44 having on board anp
article of the growth or manufacture of any
nation at war with Great-Britain'' which is
-not liable o b4ake-out of its course, and
carried into a British port lor adjudication,
whatever b j the distance between them. An
American vessel, for instance, with a single
barrel ofcofl3e'6nboard& bound intoBordiaiix,
may be dragged out of her course by a Bri
tish privateer, and carried into Portsmouth
for adjudication. Extreme caSas of this
kind would certainly be mach. less frequent
if the admiralty couPts shall decide, thatT
when the captor is ca.t in his claim, he shall
pay freight, detnutrirge, and expeness to the' A
mericuti vessel. To the honor of the British
courts such was their decision in the year
1 Ty3, when our vessels were detained with
provisions bound to France; and such may
probably be the decision in the British ports
under the new regulation. f But in the Bri
tish West-India ports, if we ma form any
anticipation from a recent judgment iirthe
vice-admiralty court ot Nassau;a dilterent
result m ty be reasonably expected. Jn this
case the judge, though hp determined in fa
vour of the claimants, was generous enough
to throw the costs upon them ; and yet this
justice Oyer has been highly praised for his
inflexible regard to justice.
But should it even become a rule in all the
admiralty courts of England, without excep
tion, that the claimant when defeated in hjs
claim, should pay freight, demurrage and ex
pences, to the American vessels, though this
would diminish the number of detentions,
and the los of tli: American merchant still
the interruption of ,r,r',r voyage would sub"
jeet them to considerable inconvenience and
expence. The allowing of demurrage- and
freight might be some compensation to the
American merchant or ship-owner, fr the
txpences to which lie would he liable ; but
they would not he any substitute for the pro
which he would have made by the conti
nuance of the voyage. The costs allowed in
a common curt of justice, are a sufficient com
pensation to the injured party, if they are
sufficient to reimburse him for all the legal
txpences which he has incurred ' because the
: loss of lime and the consequent loss of pro
fit are so inconsiderable, as to require no in
demnification. But in the case of a commer
cial adventure, tlio consequ' nces arc vastly .
dilVertnt. By carrying a vessel out of her
destiiK'd route, and dettrcying the chance of
her arriving in port within a t-ruin time, the
captor prevent the merchant from brncfit
t'mg by the demand of the market, and enjoy
ing the expected profit of hi, adventure. .
This is a loss, which no adjudging of iU
murrage, or freight or cxpenccs, i cter
sulficicht to replace.
The consequences of this detention are not,
however, confined to the owner of the vws- -tel
or the cargo, but they are made to ex-,
tend also to the crew. Daring every war,
n which the English nation bus been enga
ged, the most unauthorised measures liivc
been employed for the iinpressmciit of sea
men, but at no period has this practice been
nvre widely extended, than duiiiig the ire-
sent war, wiucli may in Fct be principally
regrrded as t war on tli3 eai. Surely we
is always tv, pfvision in favour of Mich ves- ' have nausi reason l hope, that our own cU
sell as rny' hive left their cotjntry, before j tutcns wul be exempted from the kainc in
the ilcclKiM'i.m of the blockade could hate r- , j wuct which lias been so largely dealt out to
rhed there. But no nuch provision bat ! llntuh subjects. c know that tlicy have
been nude in the present instance 1. An -rdr
lm been cicn br the Bril.sh gr.vu-nmei.t fur
dctsiningourvcurU, ladm with particular
cargoes and bound for particular port, -and,
without haiMg tjitcn the leat previous no
lifieationoTilirtr dcsi;u, it i imm.'diattly
tkctcdnn. Vessels which are laden in llit
jNrtif ul,ir wr and bound to partirular pnn
h9 not t'e Vast nppoitunity of cciin,;
thcopira!loimrthilE.'pot'faCtolaw. 'I beir
'"cumimnders have net the least doubt buUJut
tin y are carrying on not only t regular trade,
but atradc whielibasl.ee nfXpiCklyanttion-d
by the lliitub government Wn, tontmy
tn all rewns!l2 cxptctatin, they are dc
tainrdby IlrUhli truufr end carried imo
port for adjiidU'A'inn. Tbry we'' i-nor.Mit
of ibe very exigence of thf law ; tl.ty were
codm'i'm tt'lr prevented fiom lAln the ne
rcsmv iiifcuMti.ifii, att'l yet thef are expo, i
au to ill rnou n;oriius penamf i. e n wui
be called jusiVe f Ti e dctctiin and con.
ilemnition of American properly in this ay
alobc, di involve a loss if property almcst
beyond ral:ul-idn. Hundred of targots
arc now afioat, wbithhac Urn sbif ped ar4
rtit forw.ir4 in thfi mc VcrU in b'o.h
they wrreimpoilrd. The very trr(t lat'
J ft ifcarr)iglhi order ito tCci I, letmyi
an astonishing disreatd f u'tr tlj.H and tf
tl prifiice of nsiifu. and tei vi liable
taanalma.llriiUuLtlcl .
lately impressed our seamen on the high
Has, at ilie mouth of our harbours, and in
oar own vessels ; why should they be more
secure within the Hi itish harbours f. When
the AmericTm vessels were detained and tent
iolo pott, according to the intni tiuiis fur
n'uhed tothc BrltUh cruiseri in 1 793, our
seamen were impressed, and Mr. IWkncy
remonstrated to lord Grenvillc. Why
ahould tl.ey exprct to enj y a better fic
under thj pictent regulation I In the words
of Mr. I'inckttcy, therefore, their being
enptured and brought into Britith ports,
renders our teamen liable to those disadvan
tage, they would otherwise have avoided."
d. But the principle on which these vc
tel, when once JfUm.d and carticd into
jort, are to be c;r.JttnntJ by the count of
admiralty, is no lets injurious to our interests
than the act ofde'aini tl.tm. One re
striction on their natural rifhti, ) Mr.
J iTeisui, p.ll7, of the offuiil corretpon.
dk'nr, b,i been tubmiticd to by nations at
pcarr j that'll t'My, that of not furnishing
to cither party iinpLrmnts merely of vr,
fir th annoyance of ihe other, nor any ihlng
vhattvertoa phte tUhdidby it enemy."
li it not thin a ti'datiotiofour natural rihlt,
l!t any prohibition should 'be placed upon
Ihe J.i tt tra-.'e wl.ieh we carry on bctwetn
be i;Ktl rr cout try and l.trcolony bciwttn
l"rfua fer t a:n;lt abd Maitii)iic I 'I t
declaration of war between France and her
enemy may no doubt have opened some of
her colonial porta to our vessels, and given
them a greater latitude of operation than
they w ould hp.ve possessed in a time of ,r;
ofucourse an interruption of '"this trade cah
notbe considered as a restriction upon our
natural rights : -but there are other branches
of trade, which' neutral nations are permit
ted to carry on between France and Thef co
lonies in a time'of peace, which no belliger
ent nation cair attempt to interrupt without
violating some of our natural rights.
Let us admit, however, that " a direct
conveyance either out or home, is positively
inhibited," on the ground, that 44 this Would
be to obviave all the inconveniences of war,
and render ineffectual the exertions of the
opposite' party case of the Immanuel, .2
Kob. Ad. Rep. 172, it will not follow, that
41 a circuitous transportation of the produce
of the belligerent colony to the mother
country," should be made a subject of pro
hibition. Some of the writers on the law of
nations, have attempted to make this com
promise between the rights of neutrals to
carry on their commerce, and the light of a
belligerent to cripple the exertions of their
enemy: that 4i landing' the goods and pajv
ing the duties in the-neulral country, breaks
the continuity ot. the voyage,' and is such an
importation as legalises the trade, although
the goods-be re-shipped in' the same vessel,
and on account of ihe stme neutral proprie
tor and -lorwarded for sale to the mother
country." And this too has been the doc
trine, generally pursued by the British
courts, aid even expressly-laid 'down in the
advocate general's report of March IC, 1801,
enclosedby lord- Hawkcbbury in his letter to
Mr". King. The spirit of the hue order of
the court of London, however, is in complete
Opposition to this doctrine : for aecordinirio
the late judgment in the case of the Essex,
no part ot the colonial produce of France,
ever though it be the bona-fde property of an
American citizen, can be safe from confisca
tion, Unless it has been re-shipped on board
of a different vessel. This is deemed by
then the only satisfactory proof that the co
lonial produce thus exported and destined to
an enemy's port," is not bona-fde the proper
ty of that enemy. Inconsistent as these de
cisions of the British, admiralty have been
with their previous decisions, it is not a mat
ter of astonishment that they should be in
consistent with neutral nations !
But this principle, injurious at it would
prove to our commerce, will be rendered
still more fatal by the iniquities which vill
be practised under colour of its provisions.
It would be difficult to place any bounds to
( the numberless depredations, which British
cruizcrs, and British courts in the West-In
cues, will be encouraged to commit. A bar
rel of nails found on bard of an American
vessi-i nas been known to contaminate a
whole cargo, in the decision of a court, and
expse it to conhsciiiin, as if it was entirely
composed of contraband articles. The
sin: e decision Iip.s frequently been known to
involve the vesstl at well &s the cargo in the
Sam.- illegal confiirali'in. What right have
we to expect that Bniish rrmzers or courts
will be inspired by a greater repard for our
rights now, than these dcciMoni have pro.
vtd lo posscis What rih' have we to hope
that a pipe of tvine fiom Bourdci tix may iiot
be uved as a cover for confiscating a whole
cargo, and the vessel itself? Such at least
is said to have been the fate of the Essex
and her cargo.
But it is not from the British njentt lne
that'these "depredations are to be dreaded
for we may soon expect ta hi-ac af a limilar
orderbcing issued by the French, govern
ment. 44 It it an essential character fr
neutrality to furnish no bids (not stipulated
by treaty) to one party, which we are not
equally ready to furnish to the otl.er. If
we permit torn to be sent to (lrcat
Britain and ler friends, we ore equally bound
lo permit it to I'i aoce. To restrain it would
be a panialiiy which might lead to war with
Franre; and between restraining it ourtelvat,
and prmiui.ig her e ncmie to rcMrain it un
rlhi Inlty, is no di.Tn r nc." Mr. JelTrrton'a
Jtt'rr to Mr. I'mcknty, Sept. 7th, 17S3.The
turn doetiinc will I'qially apply to restric
tions upon cor u ,!f in the colonial produce.
We hvc ilm attempted in a very brief
l dt sol'oi y r.ai m r to lay open tome of ihe
oil, which mint remit from the late
encroachments r.f the British cabinet and
British court iq ilie American trade.
Thttcctilt we must leave to time itself to
inndl 44 in 4l the amplitude of thir dc
tail." I -et it not, however, be auppoted that
they will rr.ict our ,irying trade alone;
1-craiHc that trade which e carry on In
r oton'ul produr e It in fad essential to tht prot
prrity of our direct tiade, and our agricul
ture t at that &art of the rroduce, which is
over and abuve eA.rown cchsumptior t wcu'd
be nothmt the than a burden un our
bands, if it were not aomrtimtt cxortrdto
the mother country. It St ptobable that these
evili m&y be arrested thro the remonstrance
f f onr mimttr in London. Hut irtonUthat
rcmotniranre be without effcct.lt will then
U the du'j ofihe ftefle to pvcnle rc
. From the Btlon Cbroniclt, , L,
THE EXAMINER. ;
Text. "We never fought for a Re-
. Public into which we were forced by
the injudicious obftinacy of our oppo-
rients--Thui our ftrm of government
was the refult of necefjiiy, and not the
offspring of cheUe."
- Anthology Criticifm.
A monthly puplicajion dlate has ap-
peared under the title of 14 The antholo- .
."the patrons'of whicli, feem difpofed :
toeuiogize Monarchy, and deoounce Re
publicanifm. A fpecimen of their poli
tical tenets is exhibited in the above quo
tation; A little knot of critics have enlif
ted themfelycs to 44 RevievS' publications,
both civil and eccIefiaftical.-jrFrom their
rjerformances, they appear a group of
icnoiaitic pedants, poiielled ot luper hcial
knowledge in arts and fciences, and as-
lociate for the purpbfe of difplaying their , '
wit and faUre on all thefe fundamential,
principles which ha?e been eftimated ia
this country, as the bafu both of church
and (late. Not that we would have church
and flare connected in any one particular,
to influence the political conduct of the ,
citizens, but when a focietyis formed to
give a tone to ei-her, it is proper to bring
rneir tenets before the public tor examination.
The prefent number is aDDrooria-
tedtoihe purpofc of enquiring, whether
the United Stales did not contend for a
Republic, and whether our prefent -form
ol government. was not the 4 offspring of
choire,'' Thefe pofitions are denied br
the Antl)o!otfts. I would afkifwe eild not
choofc a Repuhlic, why did we adopt one )
vvnen we ueciared ourlelves independent
of Great-Britain, we were left m our
choice what kind of government to orga-
niic. i ne t lab i hment waa a oueition
fubmititd to the people, and if they were
noi inciineo to this torm, it was ealy for ,
them to fet up another. They could with
as much facility have appointed a king,
joras, ara commons, as a congrels. .
When detached from Britain, every poli
tical proceeding might have as eafily led
to a monarchical mltitution is to a repub-
lican. Even in alliance with France, tho
former would have been as pleafmg to
them at the latter. We had no induce
ment to controul us, otherwife than
that prcpollcflionin favor of an eieclire o
ver an hereditary cnablifliment. The
Declaration of Independence was fraught
with an abhorrence of monarchy, andtho
wr'uings ol Cemmon Senjei which gave an
impulTe to c.ur revolution, were predica
ted on a deteflationof the divine right of
kir.gs. How ahfurd then for the Antho
h gills to fay j that our government was
the refultot Hfccfi.ly, and not the off
fpring of choict. 1 would again aflc, if
we did not ehvfe ir, why did we adopt
it r no torccd us to ihe necrjjily of a
Republic? Did England ? Sutely not.
-It would have been pleafmg to them to
hud we had formed a cor.flitutimi analo
gous to tlich'a. It would have. abated their
tancor againfl our independence, when
they obferved ui inclining to their fpecies
of government. For all monarchies are
.iUitcred.whco. a-people feek -refuge un.-
oerkins ami nobiei. 1 he rc was no
M"rr.7,M therefore, for our adopting
f epu'dic, unlefs we had been led to it from
"thrice." m Every publication at that peri
od had a tendency to fubflantiate.this form
ir. preference to any other. ' Tlironeh our
whole controverfy, r.ot one inflai ce ap-
mi wc were jtrctd againir our in.
clinat ton to take the ground we occupied.
If t) ere ever was a government of choice,
it is that of the United States. It is art
affront to the um'erflandipg of the citliei.r,
to allelge the, contrary. Whoever may
be the man, that prcfumes to fuggefl the
degrading idea, muft e ignorant of every
minutes roition cf our Revolution.
Where relied ihe power to dictate to the
citbens the form of government ihcy
flionld adopt 1 Who urged them, reiutm
lantly to abandon monarchy, and illume
the attitude of a Rtpultit f If it was not
ifceir thtieet who comrrvled them In theic
decifion? Who, arr.ongtif, either in the
f.eldor cabinet, drove us contrary to iaip
wills i Where wis the oratM who fer
fuaded ui to rc'.inquifh our dcfitei for mo.
rirchr, and obliged ti torn r.nrjjltj in
fubmit lo a republic ?
Such arrogance may ie tffiirr.ed by a
few fe!f opinionated novicep, whi hava
wiihina few years tempted topaSmti cir
abfurditiei on the public A few concci.
.tedupflarti may feel thcmfcUci aboe ti e
lafhef public cenfure, by ancftimous pub
licitioni. They mit wifb to dcprfC'Ha
tti gnat picdplci cf our Keto'iutur, by
I
i;
4.
1
M