fecure from the interruption of the power that now molests them, as in coasting voyages between different parts of the United States.

They hope, therefore, not to be thought intrufive in asking of the government its interference, through their minifter at the court of London, or otherwife, as the president, in his wifdom, may judge proper, to protect their commercial rights, and to obtain redrefs of the particular injury of which they complain. They have even felt it a duty, due from them to the government of their country, to apprize thofe entrusted with the administration of its concerns, of events, fo injurious in themselves, and pregnant with confequences fo momentous to their individual property and the general prosperity of the country. Such reflections have influenced these several companies to requeft me to prefent you a ftatement of the cafe of the Indus, for the infpection of the government, and the purposes above alluded to; and also to fubjoin fome of the reasons which have occafioned the security with which they have hazarded their property on voyages now pretended to be unlawful.

In the fummer of 1804, Meffrs. David Sears and Jonathan Chapman, native citizens of the United States, and refidents in Bofton, owned a fhip called the Indus, which they fitted out for a voyage to India. They put on board her 63,640 dollars and three fets of exchange, drawn by themselves on Meffrs. John Hodfhon and fon, of Amsterdam, at ninety days fight, for twenty-five thousand three hundred guilders, which amount of fpecie and bills they confided to Abishai Barnard, a native citizen of the United States, and fupercargo. This fhip and property, altogether owned by themselves, they dispatched with orders to go to the isles of France and Bourbon, and, if able, to purchase a cargo there, so to invest the specie and bills; if not, to proceed to Batavia, for the fame purpose; if not practicable there, to go on to Calcutta, and obtain a cargo; with which cargo, whenever procured, the faid fhip was directed to return to Boston, unless, before the vessel should quit the isle of France, or Batavia, a peace fhould take place in Europe, in which event, she was ordered to proceed to Falmouth in England, and conform herself to the orders of her owners' correfpondents in London. All the papers on board fhewed these facts; and fuch, and fuch only, was the property and deftination of the veffel and her lading. In a memorandum relating to the purchase of the cargo, given to the fupercargo, he was reminded not to forget to infert in the manifeft, after the arrival of the veffel in the tide waters of Bofton, the words "and Embden," viz. from the isle of France, or Batavia, to Boston " and Embden," as this would not deprive the owners of the privilege of unloading wholly in Bofton. The object of this requeft was, in cafe of peace, to avoid an expenfe and inconvenience which Mr. Sears, the principal owner of this fhip and cargo, fuffered at the laft peace, viz. the unloading of the entire cargo of a veffel called the Arab, from India, in the port of Boston, which, under the then existing circumstances, viz. a ftate of peace, he inclined to fend immediately to Europe, but which he would not have contemplated, had not peace have taken place, and which he did not anticipate when the vessel failed from Boston, as he did not forefee a termination of the war; fuch being the construction put, by the collector of the port of Bofton and Charlestown, on the laws in force, when the veffel referred to arrived, and when the Indus failed in 1804. The expense of unloading and reloading this veffel would have amounted to feveral thou fand dollars and in cafe of the law being at her arrival as when she sailed, and of a peace in Europe, and the owners fending her there, (in which event alone did they ever entertain the leaft intention of not clofing the voyage in America) this expense might have been faved,

With this property, and under thefe inftructions, the Indus proceeded on her voyage to the ifle of France; not being able to procure a cargo there, the went to Batavia, where the loaded with the proceeds of her specie, and one fet of her bills. In the profecution of her voyage from Batavia to Bof

ton, the ship was fo damaged by ftorms, that she was obliged to put into the ifle of France, where the veffel was condemned as no longer fea-worthy; the cargo was taken out; a new veffel purchased by the supercargo, which he named the Indus, and such of the articles as were on board the former Indus, and not damaged, were refhipped in the new Indus; these articles, together with fome tea, taken on freight for certain citizens of Boston, there to be landed, compofed her entire cargo. With this property she was within a few days fail of her defined port of Boston, in the latitude and longitude aforesaid, when the was captured by the Cambrian, sent to Halifax and condemned, as before mentioned.

The affumed ground of condemnation was, as the underwriters are informed, that the direction to infert the words " and Embden" after the arrival of the veffet in the port of Boston, disclosed an intention in the owners to continue the voyage to Europe, whereas the only object was to reserve to themselves the right to obviate any objection, from the custom house here, to her proceeding thither, in the event of a peace between the present belligerents.

This is manifeft from the teftimony of the owners, and is confirmed by their inftructions to the conductors of this voyage, as to its deftination, in cafe of a peace before they quitted India. On this contingency only were they to proceed otherwife than to Boston. The reafon which Mr. Sears directed the words "and Embden" to be inferted, is obvious from what he fuffered in the case of the Arab, as related by himself and the collector of the customs; and that it was only in the event of peace, that he contemplated fending to Europe the veffel and cargo to which his memorandum referred, is confirmed by his former practice and courfe of trade, viz. during the last ten years he has been engaged in voyages to India, and likewife in fhipping the produce of the Eaft and Weft Indies to Europe, and in no cafe, during the existence of war, has he fent to Europe, articles imported by himself, in the fame veffel in which they were brought from India. Further, in the cafe of the ship Lydia, which arrived from India at Boston, in the summer of 1804, and on board which veffel there was the like instruction as in the Indus, which inftruction was complied with by the mafter, yet, as the war continued, on her arrival at Boston, he fold the whole cargo to a merchant of this town; and alfo that of the Indus, in the voyage preceding the one in which she was loft, wherein the like precaution was also taken, and for the like purpose, but as it was war when the arrived, the voyage terminated here. Thus, fir, in this cafe there exifts the most plenary evidence, that the voyage which the Indus was performing, when captured, was direct from Batavia to Bofton, there to terminate. A trade perfectly legal, not only in the understanding of the owners, but fo acknowledged, admitted,and declared by Great Britain, in her practice, for ten years past, in her inftructions to her cruifers, in the decrees of her courts, and in the rules and principles advanced by her judges in promulgating their decrees.

The principle understood to be affumed by Great Britain is, that in time of war a trade, carried on between two independent nations,one neutral and the other belligerent, is unlawful in the neutral, if the fame trade was not allowed and practifed in time of peace. This principle, though assumed by Great Britain, is now, and always has been, refifted as unfound, by every other nation. She always affumes as a fact, that the trade with a colony has always been confined exclufively to fhips of the parent country. In virtue, therefore, of this affumption of principle and fact, the deems unlawful and derogatory to her rights, the trade of a neutral with the colonies of her enemies. However, in the laft war fhe fo far modified her principle, as to afsent to the lawfulnefs of the voyage of a neutrál, if direct between the ports of the neutral and the colony of the enemy; and also a trade in fuch colonial articles, from the country of the neutral to any other country, even to the parent country of fuch colony provided fuch articles were imported, bona fide,for the ufe of the neutral, and there purchased, or afterwards fhipped by himself; and

alfo in articles the produce of the parent kingdom, from the neutral state to the colony of that metropolitan kingdom, provided the exporting and importing were, bona fide, as in the other cafe. But this modification fhe always affected to confider as relaxation of her strict rights, and from this confideration affumed greater authorities to interfere with the permitted trade, as fle would fay, of neutrals.

The underwriters have therefore thought it important to examine how far the doctrine is fanctioned by the law of nations, and the grounds, on which it is fuppofed to reft, are conformed to, or contravened, by the practice of the belligerents themselves.

This principle was firft brought forward in the war of 1756, and was then attempted to be supported on the doctrines advanced by Bynkershoop. You, fir, to whom the writings of this eminent civilian are doubtlefs familiar, muft be aware that the rule laid down by him, is brought forward to a very different purpose, and from the manner in which he treats on the rights of neutrals, and the hiftorical fact quoted from Livy, to illuftrate and fanction the principle afferted, shows that it can by no means warrant the proceedings which it has been attempted to justify; and that there is no analogy between the cafe cited and that of the mere peaceable trade of a neutral with a belligerent, in articles not contraband of war, nor to places under blockade.

His general pofition is,that whatever nations had the power and faculty to do in time peace, they have the right to do in time of war ; except that they have not a right to carry to either of two enemies articles contraband of war,or to trade to blockaded places,because this would be to intermeddle in the war. The author before cited is the principal, if not the only one,whofe opinions are adduced, as capable of affording fupport, or in any way bearing upon this doctrine. An authority, however, to interrupt the trade of a neutral in war, which he was not free to carry on in peace, is affumed as a legitimate confequence of his acknowledged rights. The law of nations not only prescribes rules for the conduct, and fupports the rights of nations at war, but also contains regulations and principles by which the rights of such as remain at peace are protected and defined.

The intercourse between independent nations muft exclufively reft on the laws which fuch nations may choose to establish. This is a natural confequence of the equality and independence of nations. Each may make such commercial and other internal regulations as it thinks proper. It may open its whole trade to all foreign nations, or admit them only to a part; it may indulge one nation in fuch a commerce and not others; it may admit them at one time and refuse them at another; it may reftrict its trade to certain parts of its dominions and refuse the entrance of strangers into others. In this refpect it has a right to confult only its own convenience, and whatever it shall choose to admit to others,may be enjoyed by them without confulting a third power. Great Britain acts upon this principle: at one time the executes her navigation law with strictness; at other times the relaxes most of its regulations, according to the estimate fhe forms of advantage or disadvantage to be derived from its execution or relaxation: neither does the allow the compe tence of any foreign power to call in question her right fo to do. In time of peace the compels a ftrict adherence to the principles and letter of her navi gation act in time of war fhe fufpends most of its provifions, and to this the is doubtless induced by paramount intereft of manning her navy; whereby the is enabled to employ a much greater number of feamen in her own defence,and to destroy the commerce of her foes.

In confequence of a fuperiority derived, in fome degree, from this relaxation, England is rendered an entrepot for receiving and fupplying all the products of the world; and after reaping a confiderable revenue from the merchandise thus introduced, the furnishes not only the continent of Europe generally, but her own enemy with fuch articles as are wanted, many of which the prevents his receiving in the ordinary course.

Polly, Lafky. Robinson'sAdmiralty Reports, p. 361. Emmanuel Robinson, p. 186, particularly 203.

The other nations of Europe, poffeffing foreign colonies, and influenced by motives of convenience, certainly not by confiderations of a higher nature than actuate Great Britain, find their advantage in a fimilar change of their commercial fyftems.

The mere circumftance, that the innocent property of a neutral is engaged in a trade permitted now, though prohibited at a former period, is in itself perfectly innocent, and does not feem capable of interfering with the rights or juftifying the complaints of a third power.

The ordinary policy of a nation may be to encourage the manufacture or growth of a certain article within its own dominions, and for this end may prohibit or restrict the importation of the like articles from other countries. Does the repeal or fufpenfion of such restriction confer any right to impede the transportation, by a third, of the article, the prohibition whereof is fufpended? Because the corn laws of a nation operate three years in five, as a prohibition to the importation of all corn, can it be inferred that a friendly power should abstain from carrying its furplus corn to market? Has any belligerent a right to ftop the corn owned by neutral merchants,on the way to its enemy, whofe crops have failed and prohibitory laws have been repealed? The fimple ftate of the cafe, that the trade, though illegal in peace, is legal in war, decides the question.

Recourse is therefore had to another principle, in order to render that unlawful, which, on every ground of the equality and independence of nations, is lawful.

The belligerent has a right to diftrefs the perfon and property of his enemy and thereby compel a fubmiffion to his demand, and for this purpose, he may ufe all the means in his power.

By interrupting the trade of neutrals, which is opened to them in war, and was prohibited in peace, the belligerent diftreffes his enemy, leffens his revenue, prevents the exercise of his commercial capital and the employment of his merchants, and deprives him of the enjoyment of thofe articles, which adminifter to his comfort and convenience; therefore such interruption is lawful.

An obvious answer to this reasoning is, that it proves too much, is founded on a principle fo comprehenfive as to embrace all trade between neutrals and a nation at war. If it distress a nation to interrupt that commerce, which has become lawful fince the war, it would diftress him much more to cut off all trade; that which was allowed in time of peace, as well as that which was not; and the fame reafon which is used to authorize an interruption of the one, would as well juftify the other. Indeed, we have several times feen the like doctrine extended this length in the heat of conteft; but no inftance has occurred of an attempt to vindicate it in time of peace for the legality of a trade in innocent articles, to a place not blockaded, and the right of the neutral to carry it on, depends entirely on the laws of the two countries, between which, and by whofe inhabitants it is profecuted, and in no degree on the confent of the belligerent. If this argument of diftrefs, combined with that of an unaccustomed trade, fhould be admitted in all its latitude, no trade with belligerents would be legal to neutrals. The enemies of Great Britain would be disposed to attribute much weight to a confideration of the peculiar advantages, which a power conftituted as her's may be supposed to derive, and fuch evils as the may be prefumed to prevent, by the relaxation of her com mercial fyftem. A continental power may derive fome accommodation, and fome convenience from relaxing her commercial restrictions; but nothing ef fential to her fafety, nothing, as was demonftrated in the last war, materially affecting the great objects of the conteft. She might obtain the articles of East and West India produce a little cheaper by these means than if compell ed to procure them by her own ships, or through the medium of her enemy; for it is a circumftance which very much impairs the argument of diftreffing the foe, that in modern wars it is the practice of commercial nations, notwith

ftanding they refpectively capture each other's property, to open their ports for the exchange of their merchandize, by the affiftance of neutrals, and in this way afford the fuccour they mutually need. It will, however, be faid that it is not the trade between neutral countries and the metropolitan dominions of Europe which is deemed illegal, but the trade of neutrals with their colonies. It is not eafy to perceive the grounds on which this diftinction refts, but without complaining of an exceptionable rule, because the practice under it is not as extensive as its principle might be fuppofed to warrant, it may be examined in the cafe to which it is applied.

The argument of diftreffing the enemy is adduced to vindicate the interruption of the trade of neutrals with enemies' colonies. This diftrefs can be inflicted in two ways: by depriving the colony of the neceffary fupplies, or the parent country of the colony productions. To fupply the enemies' colonies is not confidered legal, provided it be done from the neutral country; and also to furnish the parent country with the produce of the colony, provided it be done from the neutral country. The argument,therefore, of distress is narrowed down to a mere trifle; to the addition of a fraction in the price of the article fupplied to the parent country for, fo far as refpects the supply of the colony and the finding a market for its produce, and the arguments flowing from thence, thefe, furely the most plaufible on the fcore of inflicting diftrefs, are utterly abandoned. But further, the fame commercial spirit which has been before noticed, leads the great nations of Europe themselves to contribute to those very supplies, the depriving the enemy whereof is alleged as a juftification for interrupting the trade of neutrals. Not only a trade in Eu rope, but a regular and authorized trade, to the extent of every neceffary and almost every other supply, was carried on during the last war between the British and Spanish colonies: and inftances have again and again occurred, and before the clofe of the late war, ceafed to be confidered as extraordiuary, where the cargoes of neutral veffels bound to the Spanish colonies were feized by the British, and condemned in the vice-admiralty courts, on pretence that the trade was illegal; and the articles thus ftopped and made prize of, under the plea of diftreffing the enemy, were shipped on board a Spanish or British veffel, fupplied with a British licenfe, and fent to the original port of their deftination. Surely, fuch a mode of diftreffing the enemy may be more properly denominated diftrefing the neutral, for the purpose of supplying the enemy at the exclufive profit of the belligerent.

Such, fir, are fome of the obfervations which these gentlemen make on the difference between the practice and avowed principles of belligerents, and the unavoidable confequences of fuch principles, and which fatisfy their minds that, according to the practice of belligerents themselves, there is no foundation for the arguments raised on pretence of diftrefling the enemy, and that interrupting a trade in war, becaufe not exercised in peace, is inconfiftent with the equality and independence of nations, and an infringement of their per fect rights. It is also evident that the wants and interests of all nations at war, even of those who poffefs the most powerful commercial and military navy, require them to contradict in their own practice those principles which are avowed in juftification of the injuries they inflict on neutrals.

To fupport this doctrine it is alfo neceffary to affume as true, that all trade and intercourfe between the colonies of the different European powers, and other countries, have been conftantly and uniformly interdicted in time of peace, and that fuch colonies depended exclufively on the metropolitan kingdom for fupplies of every kind. That nothing could be received by or from them, but through the mother country; except when the overpowering force of the publick enemy had prevented all fuch communication. This fuppofed exclufive trade fo confidently affumed, will, on examination, be found subject to many exceptions. It is well known that fome of the British Weft India colonies, during the commotions, which exifted in England, in confequence of the disagreement between Charles the firft, and his parliament, exported