Alexandria Daily Advertiser

From the New York Evening Post.
(Continued.)

President's Message.—The next thing
that occurs in the Message is a charge a-
gainst our merchants, that in carrying on
a trade with the inhabitants of St. Domin-
go, they have waged "a private war, in-
dependent of the authority of their coun-
try." Before we make any remarks on
this very extraordinary clause, we shall
present our readers with the following ex-
tract from a well written performance on
the question of the St. Domingo trade,
which appeared some little time since in
the Gazette of the United States, in an-
swer to a correspondent in this paper, who
had taken the opposite side. It should
however be understood that we mean to be
considered for the present as not having
adopted one opinion in preference to the
other; it not being very material as to the
view we propose to take, which of these
two writers is correct.

From the UNITED STATES GAZETTE.

When our merchants are engaged in
commerce, defensible on the grounds of na-
tural and conventional law, on principles
of humanity and justice, and on calcula-
tion, of publics & private interest, it will not
be reproachful to attempt their vindication.
Such I conceive to be the commerce now
carrying on between this country and the
island of St. Domingo. On this topic
my sentiments are in diametrical opposi-
tion to those expressed in an eloquent and
fervid production in your paper of the 30th
ult. taken from the New York Evening
post, and are submitted to public conside-
.ration.

The first and most essential point of in-
quiry, on this subject, is, what is the situa-
tion of St. Domingo; and how is that isl-
and to be considered under the laws of na-
tions? In latter days the task is arduous
for the most sophistical or ingenious to
draw the distinction at the threshold, be-
tween revolution and rebellion. The issue
often decides and gives both character and
name. Success stamps as revolution, what
without it would be rebellion; and subjuga-
tion marks as rebellion what better fortune
would have made a revolution. For the
interests of humanity, and to prevent the
exercise of savage and ferocious passions,
the civilized world however agree, that in
civil controversies, the parties shall be
considered as two independent litigants,
and each entitled to the rights of war. A
neutral nation shall not undertake to de-
cide, that the opposers of the governors
is in the pursuit of right, and that his mas-
ter is tyrant whose shackle should be broken
--nor that the master claims but a legal
authority and that his subject's restless-
ness should be curbed and restrained.

This is the general consideration of the
subject, and for authority I refer to that
approved writer on the Laws of Nations,
Vattel, book 3. -ch. 18 §292, &c. My au-
thor observes, "When a party is formed
in a state, who no longer obey the sove-
reign, and are possessed of sufficient
strength to oppose him--or when in a re-
public, the nation is divided into two op-
posite factions, and both sides take up arms
---this is called a civil-war. Some writers
confine this term to a just insurrection of
the subjects against their sovereign, to dis-
tinguish this lawful resistance from rebel-
llion, which is an open and unjust resistance.
But what application will they give to a
war which arises in a republic torn by
two factions---or in a monarchy between
two competitors for the crown? Custom
appropriates the term of "civil war," to
every war between the members of one and
the same political society. If it be between
part of the citizens on the one side, and the
sovereign with those who continue in obe-
dienceto him on the other, provided the
malcontents have any reason for taking up
arms, nothing farther is required to entitle
such a disturbance to the name of civil war
& not that of rebellion. This latter term is
applied only to such an insurrection against
lawful authority, as is void of all appearance
of justice. The sovereign indeed never
fails to bestow the appellation of rebels on
all such of his subjects as openly resist him
but when the latter have acquired sufficient
strength to give him effectual opposition,
and to oblige him to carry on the war
against them according to the established
rules, he must necessarily submit to the
use of the term "civil war."

He further says, "A civil war breaks
the bands of society and government, or at
least suspends their force and effect: it
produces in the nation two independent
parties, who consider each other as ene-
mies, and acknowledge no common judge.
These two parties, therefore must neces-
sarily be considered as thenceforward con-
stituting, at least for a time, two separate
bodies, two distinct societies. Though
one of the parties may have been to blame
in breaking the unity of the state & resisting
the lawful authority, they are not the less di-
vided in fact. Besides who shall judge them?
who shall pronounce on which side the right
or the wrong lies? On earth they have no
common superior. They stand precisely in
the same predicament as two nations, who
engage in a contest, & being unable to come
to an agreement, have recourse to arms."

Vattel then lays it down, with a precisi-
on that cannot be misunderstood, that the
common laws of war ought to be observed
by both parties in every civil war. And
proceeds to a position, bearing immediately
on the present case, "that it belongs not
to foreign nations to judge between the ci-
tizens whom discord has roused to arms.
nor between the prince and his subjects;
both parties are equally foreigners to
them, and independent of their authority."

On these principles of the law of nations
the American and French revolutions are
great and illustrious commentaries. The
application of the principles to those two
cases has been often made and was never
disputed.

If these positions are well laid down,
then they are to be applied to the following
state of things in St. Domingo. The is-
land was a colony of France, composed
of a white and black population. The
blacks were the slaves of the whites. An
insurrection took place, and after some
contest, attended with atrocious circum-
st.ances, the blacks were declared by the
government of France to be free. They
are then a part of the community. Ano-
ther insurrection takes place. and this co-
lonv attempt a separation from the govern-
ment, and aims at independence. The
government attempt to subdue them, and
the colony acquires such strength, that the
sovereign is obliged to carry on war against
it. He then, according to Vattel, is bound
to observe the laws of war; they are two
independent parties, and there is no power
on earth to judge between them. St. Do-
mingo is no longer a province of France.
The French laws have there no longer a
prevalence or a binding force. The trade
of the island is governed by the laws of its
own government, and the code of France
has no more influence or efficacy there than
the laws of Corsica. Thus, I conceive it
to be plain that St. Domingo is to be con-
sidered under the law of nations.

If then. in the view of the whole
world, St. Domingo is to be regarded, not
as a province or colony of France, but as
an independent state, what is to restrain
the freedom of trade with her people? Is
it not an acknowledged principle, that every
nation, every independent state, has a
right to carry on commerce with whatsoe-
ver nation she sees the connexion? Is it not
clear, that every such state is the sole judge
of the propriety, and the sole mistress of
the regulation of commerce, on her part?
A state of war may produce other rights
in another nation. But those rights do not
take away or destroy the rights of a neutral
trading with one of the belligerents. They
may subject the property involved in the
exercise of those rights to danger, but the
rights may be exercised without violation
of the law of nations. To elucidate this
point and apply it. France and St. Domin-
go are two independent parties engaged
in a war. The United States are neutral
to both. The citizens of the United States
have an indisputable right to carry on com-
merce with either of the belligerents.--
The property engaged in the commerce
is exposed to condemnation, if the pro-
perty be contraband of war, if there be
a breach of an existing blockade, or if
there be a denial of the right of search.
But this is the mere risk of the individual
engaged in the trade, & the trade itself is free
and open, subject to those risks. The go-
vernment is not to be considered as inter-
fering between the belligerents by this
commerce of its individuals: the com-
merce itself should not be restrained by the
neutral government unless for political rea-
sons of its own ; and the failure of that go-
vernment to restrain such commerce, was
never considered as a departure from strict
neutrality.

From these observations, I think it evi-
dent, on general grounds, that our citizens
are not engaged in an unlawful trade with
the Island of St. Domingo, and that our
government has no call upon it,on the prin-
ciples of good faith and neutral law, to in-
terfere with this trade.

I propose now to make some animadver-
sion on the publications from the New-
York Evening Post. to which I have be-
fore referred. The conclusions, which the
author draws against the trade with St. Do-
mingo, are from premises by no means ad-
mitted, but which I trust are disproved.--
He considers that island as a province or
colony of France, in a state of rebellion.
For the reasons already adduced, it, ap-
pears to me,that no power on earth but
France can so consider it; and that, even
by France itself, it must be regarded, a-
greeably to the laws of nations, as entitled
in the existing war, to all the rights of an
independent warring state. It might be.
fore have been observed, that the case of
a colony marks most strikingly the differ-
ence between a rebellion and a separati-
on of a part of the community from the rest.
There is a difference always and easy
discernable between a rebellion attacking
the sovereignty and aiming at the subver-
sion of government itself, and a revolt or
withdrawing of a section of the nation or a
colony, from union with the other mem-
bers composing the body politic. It was
thought unnecessary to mark the distinc-
tion in the case before us. This case, howe-
ver is likened to that of La Vendee, which if
the government opposed by the Vendeeans
was a rightful one, was an insurrection & re-
bellion in the very heart of the nation, aim-
ing at the life of the government, where
there was no possibility of regarding two
independent parties as existing, and in con-
troversy. The object was express and clear,
not to withdraw from, but to annihilate the
government. Besides, this writer him-
self says, what I have laid down as all im-
portant in this discussion, that "one na-
tion has no right to judge another.;" he ap-
plies it to the conduct of France towards
her slaves ; I apply it, and ever that it
must be applied by all the world, to France
and to St. Domingo as two distinct and
independent nations. So they present
themselves to the world, and so they must
be received. So they are in fact; and no
nation on earth has the right to assume the
office of a superior and to judge them.

To make his case still stronger, the wri-
ter departs from the consideration of
France controverting with St. Domingo as
a rebel province, and regards the conflict
as being between a master and his revolted
slaves. France herself could not have the
hardihood to give this aspect to the matter.
She came into solemn compact crowning
with success the insurrection of the slaves ;
and from that compact she cannot depart.
Her faith was plighted and their freedom
secured. The public writers on the law
of nations declare that a promise or en-
gagement to revolted slaves must be kept.
If the blacks of St. Domingo are slaves,
who are their masters, and in whom is the
lawful property ? Do they not present to
us less the appearance of slaves, than any
portion of men within the limits of the
wide spread dominion and amazing terri-
tory gained by the rapacity of the Corsican?
On this point and in this discussion, ap-
peals, in all the labour of language and
energy of eloquence, to our humanity and
interest might be spared. The question is
a question of right, and should be discuss-
ed on plain and argumentative ground.

On another point, there is fallacy in the
observations of the writer referred to. He
confounds the enterprize of individuals in
trade with a national act ; and regards the
commerce carried on by the merchant, as
an interference on the part of the govern-
ment. The government of France interfered
in the controversy between Great Britain
and her colonies, in a most unequivocal
manner. This was a good ground of
war ; for it was taking part directly with
the open enemies of Britain. But it was
never considered, in that controversy, that
an individual of France before she became
involved in the war had not the perfect
freedom of a neutral, to trade with either
of the belligerents, with either England or
the United States. This is the right,
which I contend for on the part of our mer-
chants; and I am free to grant at once that
the government of the United States might
by an interference between the conflicting
parties, depart from the neutrality it is
bound to observe, and give good cause for
a declaration of war. But let the true dif-
ference between the cases be recognized;
give to trade the freedom secured to it by
the law of nations, and let the government
be influenced by that faith, which both po-
licy and justice present........On this point,
and in the same confused consideration of
the subject, the profound system of neu-
trality declared and observed between Bri-
tain and France. in the administration of
our venerated Washington, is placed as a
beacon to guide us on our way. God grant
the wisdom to our rulers, to take their
light from this glorious luminary; may
they have like sagacity to discern, and like
manhood to maintain, both national and
private right. But in the case referred to
the public faith was honorably preserved,
and the private right now contended for
was not questioned, at all.

to our feelings, the writer in the Evening
Post transfers us to the other side of the
A question, and places us in the situation of high and chivalrous notions of honor and to France. With brilliant enthusiasm and dignity, he enquires what would be our conduct in that situation. The choice of three modes of action is presented to the high spirited and dignified soul. "The first to declare war; the second to inflict capital punishments on those taken in the act; the third to remonstrate." If we have been correct in our view of the subject, law and justice do not give the choice. There has been no cause of war; no national injury that can be a ground of remonstrance. The remaining alternative also appears to be clearly without the bounds of justice. The neutral carrying goods contraband of war to a belligerent, or entering a blockaded port, or denying search, may subject his property to condemnation, but he commits no crime, which can be rightfully followed by punishment of his person. It has often been loosely said in conversation, that our crews taken and carried into Guadaloupe, and who are mentioned by the writer referred to, as in danger of being hanged, may be lawfully convicted of piracy: There is not a shadow of principle for the supposition. In their conduct cannot be found a feature of the crime of piracy. And if General Ferrand, or any other general, should hang one individual of our citizens, under such a pretext, I trust in God, that the tamest of all earthly governments would not sit down quietly under such a dispensation. In the further discussion of the subject the writer on whom we comment, has offered considerations of public policy and private feeling against the trade to St. Domingo. He has rent asunder the veil which covers a dark and dismal subject, and I would fain avoid the temerity of following in his inconsiderate steps.

(To be continued.)