Gazette Of The United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser

Vattel says positively that "effects belonging to an enemy found on board a neutral ship, are seizable by the rights of war." Agreeably to this long established rule of the law of nations, France herself, in her marine laws, has directed that the merchandizes and effects belonging to her enemies which shall be found on board neutral vessels shall be good prize. By a former law, indeed, the neutral vessels themselves, as well as the effects of her enemies on board, were declared to be good prize. Valin remarks, however, that this regulation was peculiar to France and Spain; and that elsewhere the goods of the enemy were alone subjected to confiscation. And in the treaty of France with the city of Hamburgh in 1769, it was stipulated that "all effects, provisions and merchandize whatsoever belonging to her enemies, and found on board the vessels of Hamburgh should be confiscated."

Mr. Adet remarks, that one of his predecessors, in July 1793, applied on this subject to the government of the United States, but was unsuccessful. He must refer to Mr. Genet's letter to Mr. Jefferson, dated July 9, 1793, [the subject was resumed in terms still more extraordinary in his letter of July 15th, 1793.] to which Mr. Jefferson answered on the 24th, declaring "his belief that 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 lawful prize. It is true that sundry nations, desirous of avoiding the inconveniences of having their vessels stopped at sea, ranacked, 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;-but this is altogether the effect of particular treaty, controlling, 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." And it is plain, that it was to avoid the inconveniences resulting from this general rule of the law of nations, that France and the United States stipulated, in the 23d article of their commercial treaty, "That free ships shall give freedom to goods; and that every thing shall be deemed free which shall be found on board the ships belonging to the subjects of either of the contracting parties, although the whole lading, or any part thereof, should appertain to the enemies of either, contraband goods being always excepted." It is also plain that this stipulation was intended to operate (indeed it was its sole object, and otherwise could have no operation at all) when one of the parties should be at war with a nation, or nations, with whom the other should be at peace. France, therefore, has now no right to complain if the goods of her enemies find protection on board American ships, or to pretend, that in order "To restore the balance of neutrality to its equilibrium," she may seize on such goods: the just equilibrium between her and the United States will be restored when we are at war and they at peace; at which time the goods of our enemies will find protection on board the vessels of her citizens.

2d. It is alleged that we have abandoned the modern public law on contraband, and by our treaty with Great Britain granted to that power exclusively the free carriage of articles for the equipment and armament of vessels.

Here, as in the former case, the question recurs, what is the law of nations on the point in dispute? Vattel defines contraband goods to be "commodities particularly used in war--such are arms, military and naval stores, timber, horses, and even provisions in certain junctures, when there are hopes of reducing the enemy by famine." In the treaty between France and Denmark, concluded on the 2d of August, 1742--"Tar was declared contraband, together with iron, nails, hemp, cordage, masts, and timber for ship building." Thus, on this account (says Valin) there would have been no cause for complaining of the conduct of the English, if they had not infringed particular treaties; for of right these things are now contraband, and have been so since the beginning of this century, which, however, was not the case formerly." "The modern public law on contraband," mentioned by Mr. Adet and his predecessors, probably refers to the principles declared by the armed neutrality, during the American War. This transaction is too remarkable to be passed unnoticed.

During that war, Great Britain and the other belligerent powers, exercising the rights accorded to them by the law of nations, made prize of enemies property on board neutral vessels, and of contraband goods belonging to neutrals. Eager as neutral nations must be to seize the opportunity which war presents, of becoming the carriers for the belligerent nations, where ships and mariners are wanted for military operations, it was perfectly natural that the former should desire to establish as a rule, that free ships should make free goods; or in other words, that neutral bottoms should protect the goods on board, to whomsoever these belonged; and it was equally natural for them to desire to diminish the list of contraband. In respect to the latter, it must have been particularly interesting to the three northern maritime powers, from whose dominions chiefly the other maritime nations of Europe received supplies of timber and naval stores, to strike these from the list of contraband, or by some means to exempt them from capture.

[To be Continued.]