of the "new style" will absolutely sans-culotte us, and insist upon it that our fathers were antedeluvians, and that we ourselves were born in the ages of antiquity, we must, on our part, insist, that the principles adhered to by Great Britain, is a principle of the modern law of nations, and is, moreover, sanctioned by the practice of France.

How America will attempt to maintain this newly assumed right, after having denied its existence in the most solemn and formal manner, we are at a loss to conceive. In her treaty with Great Britain, she stipulates, that neutral bottoms, as far as the contracting parties are concerned, shall not make neutral goods; and, in an official note from the then Secretary of State, Mr. Jefferson, to citizen Genet, she explicitly maintains the general principle for which we contend. The words, which are as strong as words can be, are as follow: " I believe it cannot be doubted, but that, by the general law of nations, the goods of a friend found in the vessel of an enemy are free, and the goods of an enemy found in the vessel of a friend are lawful prize. Upon this principle, I presume, the British armed vessels have taken the property of French citizens found in our vessels, in the cases above mentioned; and I confess I should be at a loss on what principle to reclaim it. It is true, that sundry nations, desirous of avoiding the inconveniences of having their vessels stopped at sea, ransacked and carried into port and detained, under pretence of having enemies goods on board, have, in many instances, introduced by their special treaties another principle between them, that enemy bottoms shall make enemy goods, and friendly bottoms friendly goods; a principle much less embarrassing to commerce, and equal to all parties in point of gain and loss; but this is altogether the effect of particular treaty, controling, in special cases, the general principle of

the

the law of nations, and therefore taking effect between such nations only as have so agreed to control it." Mr. Jefferson has, indeed, said no more here than all the writers on public law had said before him: or quoting the Republican Philosopher in preference to more established authorities is intended as a compliment to the Morning Chronicle *.

*Extract of a Letter from Mr. JEFFERSON, Secretary of State in America, to Mr. GENET, Minister Plenipotentiary of France, dated Philadelphia, July 24, 1793.-See State Papers, published by order of Congress, in 1795, page 71.

I believe it cannot be doubted, but that by the general law of nations, the goods of a friend found in the vessel of an enemy, are free; and the goods of an enemy found in the vessel of a friend, are lawful prize. Upon this principle, I presume, the British armed vessels have taken the property of French citizens found in our vessels, in the cause above mentioned, and I confess I should be at a loss on what principle to reclaim it. It is true, that sundry nations, desirous of avoiding the inconveniences of having their vessels stopped at sea, ransacked, carried into port, and detained under pretence of having enemy goods on board, have, in many instances, introduced, by their special treaties, another principle between them, that enemy bottoms shall make enemy goods, and friendly bottoms friendly goods; a principle much less embarrassing to commerce, and equal to all parties in point of gain and loss; but this is altogether the effect of particular treaty, controling in special cases, the general principle of the law of nations, and therefore taking effect between such nations only, as have so agreed to control it. England has generally determined to adhere to the rigorous principle, having in no instance, as far as I recollect, agreed to the modification of letting the property of the goods follow that of the vessel, except in the single one of her treaty with France. have adopted this modification in our treaties with France, the United Netherlands, and Prussia, and therefore, as to them, our vessels cover the goods of their enemies, and we lose our goods when in the vessels of their enemies. With England, Spain, Portugal, and Austria, we have no treaties, therefore we have nothing to oppose to their acting according to the general law of nations, that enemy goods are lawful prize, though found in the bottoms of a friend.

We

Extract

While, however, we contend for, and prove, the right of Great Britain to seize her enemy's goods on board of neutral vessels, we blame neither France nor America for giving up the same right; and our only reason for entering into the preceding discussion is, to prepare the minds of our countrymen for the resistance of pretensions, which may probably be preferred, and which, if preferred, will certainly be supported by the base and parricidal prints devoted to the enemy.

Another article of the Convention is more novel in its principle, as well as more hostile in its views, as considered with respect to Great Britain.-Ar

Extract of a Letter from Mr. JEFFERSON, Secretary of State in America, to Mr. MORRIS, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, with the Republic of France, dated Philadelphia, 16th August, 1793.-See State Papers, published by order of Congress, in 1795, page 82.

Another source of complaint with Mr. Genet has been, that the English take French goods out of American vessels, which, he says, is against the law of nations, and ought to be prevented by us. On the contrary, we suppose it to have been long an established principle of the law of nations, that the goods of a friend are free in an enemy's vessel, and an enemy's goods lawful prize in the vessel of a friend. The inconvenience of this principle, which subjects merchant vessels to be stopped at sea, searched, ransacked, led out of their course, has induced several nations latterly to stipulate against it by treaty, and to substitute another in its stead, that free bottoms shall make free goods, and enemy bottoms enemy goods; a rule equal to the other in point of loss and gain, but less oppressive to commerce. As far as it has been introduced, it depends on the treaties stipulating it, and forms exceptions, in special cases, to the general operation of the law of nations. We have introduced it into our treaties with France, Holland, and Prussia, the French goods found by the latter nations in American bottoms are not made prize of. It is our wish to establish it with other nations. But this requires their consent also, as a work of time, and in the meanwhile they have a right to act on the general principle, without giving to us or to France (ause of complaint.

ticle 19. "It is expressly agreed by the parties, "that the above stipulations, with regard to the "conduct to be held on the sea by the cruisers of "the belligerent party to the traders of the neutral

party, shall not apply but to vessels sailing without convoy; and in case the said ships shall be "convoyed, the intention of the parties being to 66 pay al! respect due to the protection of the flag "carried by ships belonging to the nation, it shall "not be lawful to visit them.-But the verbal de"claration of the commandant of the escort, that "the vessels under his convoy belong to the nation "whose flag he carries, and that they have nothing "contraband on board, shall be considered by the

respective cruisers as fully sufficient; the two "parties reciprocally engaging not to admit, under "the protection of their convoys, any vessels carrying prohibited goods to an enemy's port.'

There is, as far as we can recollect, no such stipulation as this in any other treaty or convention that ever was formed in the world; it is, in fact, a formal protest against the conduct of Great Britain in her late dispute with Denmark, and an insidious invitation to the Northern Powers to coalesce for enforcing the unreasonable pretensions of that Court. That no Minister of Great Britain will ever yield to such pretensions we are certain; but we will not promise, that no British subject will be found ignorant, abject, and wicked enough to support them; and, therefore, we think it our duty to expose their absurdity and injustice.

"Effects belong to the enemy," says Vattel (b. iii. c. 7.) "found on board a neutral ship, are seix"able by the rights of war."-The same high authority (b. iii. c. 7.) says; "The nation at war is

66

highly concerned to deprive the enemy of all foreign assistance, and this gives it a right to con"sider those who carry to its enemy things neces

66 sary

"sary to war, if not absolutely as enemies, yet as "people who make little difficulty of hurting it, "and therefore punishes them by the confiscation "of the goods. Should their sovereign offer to pro"tect them, it would be equal to furnishing the enemy "with these succours himself; a measure doubtless "incompatible with neutrality. A nation that without any other motive than the prospect of gain, is

employed in strengthening my enemy, without re"garding how far I may suffer, is certainly far from "being my friend, and gives me a right to consider " and treat it as an associate of my enemy." Having established the right of preventing succours being carried to the enemy, he proceeds to point out the manner of enforcing that right." Without search"ing neutral ships at sea, the commerce of contra"band goods cannot be prevented. There is, then,

a right of searching a neutral ship; refusing to be "searched, would, from that proceeding alone, be con"demned as lawful prize."

Such is the law of nations, and such are the principles which Great Britain maintains. But Denmark, France, and America, have invented a new code. They do not, indeed, deny the right of searching neutral merchantmen, when they sail without convoy; but they set up the singular right of sending a convoy to prevent such search taking place; as if the national flag could change the nature of the property on board the private ships; or as if it could possibly deprive the neutral power of its right.

But, says the chamber-maid's gazette (we mean the Morning Post), "would it not be as well to refrain from the exercise of this right, rather than rouse an host of enemies against you ?"—No, madam! if you give up the important right of searching vessels under convoy, where is the nation so poor in means, or so pure in mind, as not to be

a ble