nent of North America, more or less limited, as real or pretended convenience demanded.

Great Britain, prior to the independence of the United States, had less occasion to admit the entry of vessels and merchandise from, or the export of the produce of her colonies to any other, than her own dominions: yet, instances are not wanting of the relaxation of her navigation act, for both purposes, and in the year 1739, a bill passed the parliament, allowing the sugar colonies, for a limited time, to export their produce to foreign ports. In fact, colonies depending on other countries for their supplies, and at a distance from their parent country, must, at times, admit the intercourse of foreigners, or suffer the greatest impoverishment and distress. It will not be denied, that the British provinces in the West Indies, depend in a great measure, if not altogether, on the United States, for their corn. True it is, that the shipment is generally made in British vessels; but should the United States deem it for their interest, to insist on its being transported thither, in American ships, it is not certain that the convenience, not to say the necessities of the colonies, would not render an acquiescence advisable. The fact is, in regard to the colonies in the West Indies, whether belonging to France or Great Britain, that the monopoly has not been, and in the nature of things, never can be very strict, constant, and exclusive. The United States always have enjoyed, and without hazarding much, one may pronounce with confidence, that they always must enjoy a direct intercourse with their colonies, however adverse to the dispositions or supposed interest of the parent countries in Europe. Thus stands the fact of an accustomed trade, in time of peace, as relates to the West Indies. In regard to the East Indies, it is certain that the vessels of the United States have always gone freely to the British settlements there, and it is believed, that the vessels of our country were the first to export sugars from Bengal, and that their exportations have augmented immensely the culture of that article in that country. To many of the Dutch settlements, our vessels have gone, with but little interruption; and to some of these, and to the French possessions, more especially to the isles of France and Bourbon, the trade of the United States has been constant, uninterrupted, and increasing, ever since the year 1784. It is difficult then, sir, for these

these

gentlemen to conceive how the doctrine or the fact, a3sumed by Great Britain, can be supported by the law of nations, or reconciled to the truth.

Moreover, Great Britain professes, that the decisions of her admiralty courts are always regulated by the law of nations; that they do not bend to particular circumstances, nor are guided by the orders or instructions of the government. The principles of this law are immutable; being founded on truth and justice, they are ever the same. Now it appears from the practice of Great Britain herself, that in the war of 1744, and in that which was concluded in 1783, whether the trade was an accustomed one in time of peace, made no part of the discussion, nor was it pretended, that the trade not having been prosecuted in peace, subjected the vessel or cargo to forfeiture, in war. It seems more like the offspring of her pre-eminent power on the ocean, in the two wars of 1756, and that which lately ended, than the legitimate doctrine of right and justice. In the war of 1756, Dutch vessels, by special license from France, were permitted to export the produce of the French colonies. These were captured and condemned, on the ground, that by adoption they had become French vessels. Afterwards the property was carried to Monte Christi, and exported thence in Dutch vessels. Particular trades, and special privileges were also allowed by France, to vessels belonging to citizens of Amsterdam, as a gratification for their peculiar exertions to induce the stadtholder to take part with France againt Great Britain. Vessels and their cargoes so circumstanced, were captured and condemned by the British, and this principle was then brought forward to justify their conduct, as covering, in their courts, all the cases by a rule as extensive as was the power and cupidity of their cruisers on the sea.

In the war for the independence of America, this principle, set up for the first time in that which preceded it, and contrary to former practice, was abandoned. This is exemplified in the following case, viz: A vessel bound from Marseilles to Martinico, and back again, was taken on the outward voyage; the vice-admiralty court at Antigua gave half freight. On appeal, the lords of appeal gave the whole, It is said in answer to this, that France opened her colonies, and though it was during the existence of war, yet it was the profession of keeping them always so, but was afterwards found delusive. The lords of appeal, however, in

the case of the Danish vessel, could not have acted upon such grounds for their decision was in 1786, three years after the peace, and after it was manifest, if any doubt had before existed, that the general opening of the trade between the colonies and the mother country, to foreigners, was a temporary expedient, and dependent on the duration of the war. The claim before them was merely equitable, being for freight of that part of the voyage, which had not been performed, and to obtain which, the party claiming is bound to show, that he has offended no law and interfered with no rights of the belligerent.

What renders the conduct of Great Britain peculiarly injurious to the merchants of our country at this time, is the extension of this offensive doctrine, contrary to her own express and publick declaration of the law during the last war; for it was then declared, that the importation from an enemy's. colony, to the country to which the ship belonged, and the subsequent exportation was lawful; and so of property, the produce of the parent country, going from the United States to the colony-Vide cases of Immanual and Polly, in Robinson's Admiralty Reports, before cited. Whereas property going from the United States, the produce of an enemy's country, to her colony, although bona fide imported and landed in the United States, and exported on the sole account and risk of the American merchant, is now taken and condemned, on the ground, that the same person and vessel imported and exported the same articles; and thus, by an arbitrary interpretation of the intention of the merchant, the second voyage is adjudged to be a continuance of the first. If this new and extraordinary doctrine of continuity is maintained on the part of Great Britain, and acquiesced in by the United States, a very large property, now afloat, may be subject to condemnation, and it must follow, that an extensive trade, which has been carried on with great advantage by the United States for these twelve years, and admitted to be lawful, will be totally annihilated.

The Indus, and cargo, have been condemned on the mere possibility that the same might go to Europe, from Boston, in case of a peace, in which event Great Britain could pretend to no authority to question the voyage she should make.

Now, to adopt a principle of dubious right in its own nature, and then to extend such principle to a further restriction of the trade of the neutral, without notice, is spreading a snare to entrap the property and defeat the acknowledged rights to which he is entitled.

Such are its effects, both on the individual owners of this property, as well as on the underwriters. For Mr. Sears and Mr. Chapman, in planning this voyage, and indeed in every one they ever prosecuted, have endeavoured to ascertain what the law authorized them to do, as that law was understood and practised by the belligerents, and for this purpose they examined the orders to the British cruisers, the adjudications in the British courts during the last war, and conceived themselves clearly within even the narrowest limits to which Great Britain professed to cir cumscribe the trade of neutrals. The underwriters also have been uniformly guided, in insuring property, by the rules declared and promulgated by the belligerents tam selves. In the present case, they considered, that according to the clearest evidence of those rules, they incurred no risk from British cruisers.

Should then Great Britain undertake to presume, that the law would ́authorize the interruption of such a trade, these gentlemen cannot bring themselves to believe, that under even such impressions of her rights, she would so far forget what is due to her former understanding of the law, and to the encouragement given to such a commerce, as without notice of her altered sentiments, to seize and confiscate the property of those, who had so conformed their voyages to rules pronounced by herself.

I have the honour to be, &c.

C. GORE. The Hon. James Madison, Esq. Secretary of State.

Boston, November 26, 1805.

SIR,-Since making the statement herewith enclosed, the underwriters find themselves called upon to represent a new cause of complaint, founded on a still further extension of the principle, before remarked on, and which is now made the ground of condemning property, going to Europe, merely because it is imported into the United

States, and exported by the same person, although it has been landed and subjected to the payment of duties here, and was transporting in another vessel and belonging to different owners.

It is the case of property, belonging to the same Mr. Sears, who shipped sundry goods (some of them imported by himself in various vessels, and others purchased here) on board the George Washington, captain Porter, a general freighting ship, bound for Amsterdam from Boston.

That vessel has been captured, and the property imported and thus exported, has been condemned in London. This is also abandoned to the underwriters.

This proceeding of the British has been so unforeseen and unexpected by even the most prudent and circumspect, that very serious and general consequences are to be apprehended in this part of the community.

Should the facts related in the statement of the case of the Indus, or of the George Washington, now mentioned, require any further verification than what accompanies these papers, and you will please to notify me thereof, I will endeavour to supply the same.

I have the honour to be, &c.

C. GORE.

James Madison, Esq.

To the Hon. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States.

THE memorial of the merchants of Newburyport and its vicinity, respectfully represents:

That while pursuing a just and legal commerce, we have suffered great and aggravated losses from unwarrantable depredations on our property by several of the belligerent powers of Europe. In conducting our commerce, we have endeavoured strictly to conform ourselves to the laws of nations and existing treaties, to the regulations of our own government, and to those of the belligerent powers; yet nevertheless, our property has, in various. instances, been taken from us on the high seas, in a piratical manner; in some others, it has been seized by the cruisers of one nation, carried into the ports of another,