It is further urged that neutral powers ought not to complain of this retraint, because they ftand under it, on the fame ground, with respect to that commerce, which they held in time of peace. But this fact, if true, gives no fupport to the pretenfion. The claim involves a question of right, not of intereft. If the neutral powers have a right in war to such commerce with the colonies of the enemies of Great Britain, as the parent states respectively allowed, they ought not to be deprived of it by her, nor can its juft claims be fatisfied by any compromife of the kind aliuded to. For this argument to have the weight which it is intended to give it, the commerce of the neutral powers with thofe colonies fhould be placed and preferved through the war, in the fame ftate, as if it had not occurred. Great Britain fhould in respect to them take the place of the parent country,and do every thing which the latter would have done had there been no war. To discharge that duty,it would be neceffary for her to establish such a police over the colony, as to be able to ex amine the circumftanees attending it annually, to afcertain whether the crops were abundant, fupplies from other quarters had failed, and eventually to decide whether under fuch circumftances the parent country would have opened the ports to neutral powers. But thefe offices cannot be performed by any power which is not in poffeffion of the colony; that can only be obtamed by conqueft, in which cafe, the victor would of courfe have a right to regulate its trade as it thought fit.

It is alfo faid, that neutral powers have no right to profit of the advantages which are gained in war by the arms of Great Britain.. This argument has even lefs weight than the others. It does not, in truth, apply at all to the queftion. Neutral powers do not claim a right, as already obferved, to any commerce with the colonies which Great Britain may have conquered of her enemies, otherwise than on the conditions which the impofes. The point in queftion turns on the commerce which they are entitled to with the colonies which he has not conquered, but ftill remain fubject to the dominion of the parent country. With fuch it is contended,for reafons that have been already given, that neutral powers have a right to enjoy all the advantages in trade which the parent country allows them: a right of which the mere circumstance of war cannot deprive them. If Great Britain had a right to prohibit that commerce, it exifted before the war began, and of courfe before the had gained any advantage over her enemies. If it did not then exift, it certainly does not at the prefent time. Rights of the kind in question, cannot depend on the fortune of war, or other contingencies. The law which regulates them is invariable,until it be changed by the competent authority. It forms a rule equally between belligerent powers, and between neutral and belligerent, which is dictated by reafon and fanctioned by the utage and consent of nations. The foregoing confiderations have, it is prefumed, proved that the claim of Great Britain to prohibit the commerce of neutral powers, in the manuer propofed, is repugnant to the law of nations. If, however, any doubt remained on that point, other confiderations which may be urged cannot fail to remove it. The number of orders of different imports which have been iffued by government, to regulate the feizure of neutral vefiels, is a proof that there is no established law for the purpofe. And the ftrictnefs with which the courts have followed thofe orders, through their various modifications, is equally a proof that there is no other authority for the government of their de cifions. If the order of the 6th of November, 1793, contained the true doctrine of the law of nations, there would have been no occafion for thofe which followed, nor is it probable that they would have been iffued; indeed if that order had been in conformity with that law, there would have been no occafion for it. As in the cafes of blockade and contraband, the law would have been well known without an order, efpecially one fo very defcriptive, the intereft of the cruifers, which is always fufficiently active,would have prompted them to make the feizures, and the opinion of eminent writers, which in that cafe would not have been wanting, would have furnished the courts the beft authority for their decifions.

I fhall now proceed to fhew that the decisions complained of are contrary to the understanding, or what, perhaps, may more properly be called an agreement of the two governments, on the fubject. By the order of the 6th of November, 1793, fome hundreds of American veifels were seized,carried into port, and condemned. Thofe feizures, and condemnations, became the subject of an immediate negociation between the two nations, which terminated in a treaty, by which it was agreed to fubmit the whole fubject to commiffioners, who should be invefted with full power to fettle the controverfy which had thus arifen. That ftipulation was carried into complete effect; commiffioners were appointed, who examined, laboriously and fully, all the cafes of feizure and condemnation which had taken place, and finally decided on the fame, in which decifions they condemned the principle of the order and awarded compenfation to thefe who had fuffered under it. Thofe awards have been fince fairly and honourably discharged by G. B. It merits particular attention that a part of the 12th article of that treaty, referred exprefsly to the point in queftion, and that it was on the folemn deliberation of each government, by their mutual confent, expunged from it. It seems therefore to be impoffible to confider that tranfaction, under all the circumstances attending it,in any other light than as a fair and amicable adjustment of the question between the parties; one which authorized the juft expectation, that it would never have become again a caufe of complaint between them. The sense of both was exprefed on it in a manner too marked and explicit to admit of a different conclufion. The fubject too was of a nature that when once fettled ought to be confidered as fettled forever. It is not like questions of commerce between two powers, which affect their internal concerns, and depend, of courfe, on the internal regulations of each. When thefe latter are arranged by treaty, the rights which accrue to each party under it, in the interiour of the other, ceafe when the treaty expires. Each has a right afterwards to decide for itself in what manner that concern fhall be regulated in future, and in that decifion to confult folely its intereft. But the prefent topick is of a very different character. It involves no queftion of commerce or other internal concern between two nations. It refpects the commerce only, which either may have with the enemics of the other, in time of war. It involves, therefore, only a queftion of right, under the law of nations, which in its nature cannot fluctuate. It is proper to add, that the conclufion, above mentioned, was further fupported by the important fact, that, until the late decree in the cafe of the Effex, not one American veffel, engaged in this commerce, had been condemned on this doctrine; that feveral which were met in the channel, by the British cruifers, were permitted, after an examination of their pa pers, to pursue the voyage. This circumftance juftified the opinion, that that commerce was deemed a lawful one by Great Britain.

There is another ground, on which the late seizures and condemnations are confidered as highly objectionable, and furnish just cause of complaint to the United States. Until the final report of commiffioners under the 7th article of the treaty of 1794, which was not made until laft year, it is admitted that their arbitrament was not obligatory on the parties, in the fense in which it is now contended to be. Every intermediate declaration, however, by G. B. of her fenfe on the subject, must be confidered as binding on her, as it laid the foundation of commercial enterprizes, which were thought to be fecure while within that limit. Your lordship will permit me to refer you to feveral examples of this kind, which were equally formal and official, in which the fenfe of his majefty's government was declared very differently from what it has been in the late condemnations. In Robinfon's reports, vol. 2, page 368, (cafe the Polly, Lafkey, mafter) it seems to have been clearly estabifhed by the learned judge of the court of admiralty, that an American has a right to import the produce of an enemy's colony into the United States, and to fend it on afterwards to the general commerce of Europe; and that the janding the goods, and paying the duties in the United States fhould preclude

all further queftion relative to the voyage. The terms "for his own ufe," which are to be found in the report, are obviously intended to affert the claim, only that the property fhall be American, and not that of an enemy; by admitting the right to fend on the produce afterwards to the general commerce of Europe, it is not poffible that those terms fhould convey any other idea. A bona fide importation is alfo held by the judge to be fatisfied by the landing the goods and paying the duties. This therefore is, I think, the true import of that decifion. The doctrine is again laid down in ftill more explicit terms by the government itfelf, in a correfpondence between lord Hawkefbury and my predeceffor, Mr. King. The cafe was precifely fimilar to thofe which have been lately before the court. Mr. King complained, in a letter of March 18, 1801, that the cargo of an American veffel going from the United States to a Spanish colony, had been condemned by the vice admiralty court of Naffau, on the ground that it was of the growth of Spain, which decifion he contended was contrary to the law of nations, and requested that suitable inftructions might be dispatched to the proper officers in the West Indies, to prevent like abufes in future.

Lord Hawkesbury,in a reply of April 11,communicated the report of the king's advocate general, in which it is exprefsly ftated that the produce of an enemy may be imported by a neutral into his own country and re-exported thence to the mother country and in like manner, in that circuitous mode, that the produce and manufactures of the mother country might find their way to its colonies; that the landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country broke the continuity of the voyage, and legalized the trade, although the goods were re-shipped in the fame veffel, on account of the fame neutral proprietors, and forwarded for fale to the mother country of the colony. It merits attention in this report, (fo clearly and pofitively is the doctrine laid down, that the landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country broke the continuity of the voyage) that it is flated as a doubtful point whether the mere touching in the neutral country to obtain fresh clearances will be confidered in the light of the direct trade; that no postive inhibition is infifted on any but the direct trade between the mother country and the colonies.

This doctrine, in the light herein stated, is alfo to be found in the treaty between Great Britain and Russia, June 17, 1801. By the 2d fection of the 30 article, the commerce of neutrals in the productions or manufactures of the enemies of Great Britain, which have become the property of the neutral, is declared to be free; that fection was afterwards explained by a declaratory article of October 20 of the fame year, by which it is agreed, that it shall not be understood to authorise neutrals to carry the produce or merchandife of an enemy either directly from the colonies to the parent country, or from the parent country to the colonies. In other refpects the commerce was left on the footing on which it was placed by that fection, perfectly free, except in the direct trade between the colony and the parent country. It is worthy of remark that, as by the reference made in the explantaory article of the treaty with Ruffia to the U. S. of America, it was fuppofed that thofe ftates and Ruffia, Denmark,and Sweden, had a common intereft in neutral queftions, fo it was obviously intended, from the fimilarity of fentiment which is obfervable between that treaty as mentioned, and the report of the advocate general above mentioned,to place all the parties on the fame footing. After thefe acts of the British government, which being official were made publick, it was not to be expected that any greater reftraint would have been contemplated by it, on that commerce, than they impofe; that an inquiry would ever have been made, not whether the property with which an American veffel was charged belonged to a citizen of the United Sates or an enemy, but whether it belonged to this or that American; an inquiry which imposes a condition which it is believed that no independent nation, having a juft fenfe of what it owes to its rights or its honour, can ever comply with. Much less was it to be expected

that fuch a restraint would have been thought of after the report of the com miffioners above adverted to, which feemed to have placed the rights of the United States inconteftibly on a much more liberal, and as is contended, juft footing.

It is proper to add, that the decree of the lords commiffioners of appeals in the cafe of the Effex produce the fame effect as an order from the government would have done. Prior to that decree, from the commencement of the war, the commerce in queftion was purfued by the citizens of the United States, as has been already obferved, without moleftation. It is prefumable that till then his majesty's cruisers were induced to forbear a feizure, by the fame confideration which induced the American citizens to engage in the commerce, a telief that it was a lawful one. The facts above mentioned were equally before the parties, and it is not furprifing that they should have drawn the fame conclufion from them. That decree, however,opened a new fcene. It certainly gave a fignal to the cruifers to commence the feizures which they have not failed to do, as has been fufficiently felt by the citizens of the United States, who have fuffered under it. According to the information which has been given me, about fifty veffels have been brought into the ports of Great Britain in confequence of it, and there is reafon to believe that the fame fyftem is purfued in the Weft-Indies and elsewhere. The measure is the more to be complained of, becaufe G. Britain had, in permitting the commerce for two years, giv en a fanction to it by her conduct, and nothing had occurred to create a fufpicion that her fentiments varied from her conduct. Had that been the cafe or had the been difpofed to change her conduct in that refpect towards theU. States, it might reafonably have been expected that fome intimation would have been given of it before the measure was carried into effect. Between powers who are equally defirous of preferving the relations of friendship with each other, notice might in all fuch cafes be expected. But in the prefent cafe the obligations to give it feemed to be peculiarly ftrong. The existence of a negociation which had been fought on the part of the United States fome confiderable time before my departure for Spain, for the exprefs purpose of adjusting amicably and fairly all fuch queftions between the two nations, and poftponed on that occafion to accommodate the views of his majefty's government, furnished a fuitable opportunity for fuch an intimation, while it could not otherwife than increafe the claim to it.

In this communication I have made no comment on the difference which is obfervable in the import of the feveral orders which regulated, at different times, the feizure of neutral veffels, fome of which were more moderate than others. It is proper, however, to remark here, that thofe which were iffued, or even that any had been iffued fince the commencement of the prefent war, were circumstances not known till very lately: On principle it is acknowledged, that they are to be viewed in the fame light, and it has been my object to examine them by that ftandard, without going into detail, or making the fhades of difference between them. I have made the examination with that freedom and candour which belong to a fubject of very high importance to the United States, the refult of which has been, as I prefume, to prove, that all the orders are repugnant to the law of nations,and that the late condemnations which have revived the pretenfions on the part of Great Britain, are not only repugnant to that law, but to the understanding which it was fuppofed had taken place between the two powers, refpe&ting the commerce in question.

I cannot conclude this note without adverting to the other topicks depending between our governments which it is alfo much wished to adjust at this time. Thefe are well known to your lordship, and it is therefore unnecessary to add any thing on them at prefent. With a view to perpetuate the friendfhip of the two nations, no unneceffary caufe of collifion fhould be left open. Thofe reverted to, are believed to be of this kind, fuch as the cafe of boundary, the impressment of feamen, &c. fince it is prefumed there can be no real

conflicting intereft between them on thofe points. The general commercial relation may then be adjusted or poftponed as may be moft confiftent with the views of his majesty's government. On that point alfo it is believed that it will not be difficult to make fuch an arrangement as, by giving fufficient scope to the refources, to the industry and the enterprize of the people of both countries, may prove highly and reciprocally advantageous to them. In the topick of impreffment, however, the motive is more urgent. In that line the rights of the United States have been fo long trampled under foot, the feelings of humanity in refpect to the sufferers, and the honour of their government, even in their own ports, fo often outraged, that the aftonished world may begin to doubt, whether the patience with which these injuries have been borne ought to be attributed to generous or unworthy motives: Whether the United States merit the rank to which in other respects they are juftly entitled among independent powers, or have already, in the very morn of their political career, loft their energy, and become degenerate. The United States are not insensible that their conduct has expofed them to fuch fufpicions, though they well know that they have not merited them. They are aware, from the fimilarity in the perfon, in the manners, and above all, the identity of the language, which is common to the people of both nations, that the subject is a difficult one; they are equally aware, that to Great-Britain also it is a delicate one, and they have been willing in seeking an arrangement of this important interest, to give a proof, by the mode, of their very fincere defire to cherish the relations of friendship with her. I have only to add, that I shall be happy to meet your lordship on these points, as foon as you can make it convenient to you. I have the honour to be, with high confideration, your lordship's moft obedient fervant.

(Signed)

JAMES MONROE.

MR.

EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE ΤΟ MONROE, RELATIVE TO IMPRESSMENTS, DATED 5TH JANUARY, 1804.

WE confider a neutral flag, on the high feas, as a fafeguard to those failing under it. Great Britain, on the contrary, afferts a right to fearch for, and feize her own fubjects; and under that cover, as cannot but happen, are often feized and taken off, citizens of the United Stats, and citizens or fubjects of other neutral countries, navigating the high feas, under the protec tion of the American flag.

Were the right of Great Britain, in this cafe, not denied, the abuses flowing from it would juftify the United States in claiming and expecting a difcontinuance of its exercife. But the right is denied, and on the best grounds. Although Great Britian has not yet adopted, in the fame latitude with most other nations, the immunities of a neutral flag, she will not deny the general freedom of the high feas, and of neutral vessels navigating them, with such exceptions only as are annexed to it by the law of nations. She muft produce then fuch an exception in the law of nations, in favour of the right the contends for. But in what written and received authority will the find it? In what usage except her own will it be found? She will find in both, that a neutral veflèl does not protect certain objects denominated contraband of war, including enemies ferving in the war, nor articles going into a blockaded port, nor as he has maintained, and as we have not contested, enemy's property of any kind. But no where will the find an exception to this freedom of the feas, and of neutral flags, which juftifies the taking away of any perfon not an enemy, in military fervice, found on board a neutral veffel.

If treaties, British as well as others, are to be confu:ted on this fubject, it will equally appear, that no countenance to the practice can be found in Vol. III. Appendix.

E