state alike neutral or allied to his majesty: provided they are not laden with merchandize of the growth or manufacture of his enemies; in which case the merchandize shall be good prize, and the vessel shall be released. all or Bogear dów » ad Art. 4th. This article forbids them to stop vessels going from a neutral port to an to an enemies port, with the exception only con tained in the 3d article. 20 berA pamphlet published 1758, entitled The conduct of the Government of Great Britain, with respect to neutral nations during the present war," makes this observation, that some powers had prohibited the commerce of neutral nations with their enemies totallywhich contains an idea of a much more extensive application, than is contended for, even by the orders in council. The preamble to a FRENCH ORDONANCE of this very war of 1756, to which Mr. Madison refers, as presenting the beginning of the principle by the English alone, we have these words, It must also be here observed, that the regulations established by France, during the war are not particular to her only, but that other nations have established pretty near the same.' 事 From this it appears that other nations had contended for this very principle, and that too from early times: which renders Mr. Madison's charges against Great-Britain perfectly ground-less. But suppose we can shew that this very Rule of '56 was even less broad than the laws of nations authorized at this time, what shift can then remain ? 10 A work entitled A defence of the Dutch West-India trade, addressed to the good people of England, by a merchant of Amsterdam, un29dertakes to contest this RULE: but how? Not by contending that it is an infraction of the principles of international law, but by arguing on the meaning of the terms of the treaty then existing between England and Holland, by which this writer af firms the English had renounced their rights, which he observes the French never did...The terms of this treaty with the Dutch were these, granting to the Dutch a liberty of trading with the French when the French were at war, as they did in time of peace a This is the precise, doctrine now maintained by the English, and was then considered by the Dutch writer, as by no means a departure from the law of nations, but as not warto fanting the construction which the English had put upon it. rations puni og of -yanga aid at bills to textVGI PGICH ON And besides, they had given up by other parts of the compact this very right for which they contended, and which, had there not been a treaty never would have been disputed. The French ordonance which we just now referred to, pub lished during this very war of 1756, takes up Valin's principle in its fullest extent and proves the Dutch author's opinion to be true, since the Dutch never made any controversy with France upon the subject. "Ordonance and regulations delivered by the court of France to the states general of the united provinces, with the rules and and directions required to be observed by the subjects of the states, to protect their ships and cargoes from being deemed lawful prizes, if taken by any of the French ships of war or pri vateers; published in the Utrecht Gazette of the 8th of July, 1756, under the title Memoir Instructif, and is understood to refer to all neutral powers whatever.' $70 700 50I 2 In the preamble of this Memoir Instructif, the doctrine of Valin is evidently referred to and revived by this remark. The ordo nance and the marine regulations (Valin) of France having exact ed certain forms & conditions which when observed by a neutral ship, the ship is considered truly neutral; but if on the contrary, there is found a failure in any of these conditions, the ships are presumed to belong to the enemy and are to be deemed lawful prizes.' And the ordonance consists of twelve articles. The 1st. 2d. and 3d, merely relate to the kind of papers requisite, and the forms necessary to be observed respecting them. The 4th provides that the supercargo nor marine clerk must not be an enemy; and that not more than one third of the ship's crew shall be subjects of the enemy: 5th and 6th relate to the muster roll and articles contraband of war. 7th. If the Dutch ships carry any goods or merchandize of the growth or manufacture of the enemies of France, they shall be deemed good priz es, but the ships shall be discharged.' 1 This article is general, and includes both the 3d and 4th articles recited from Valin; which principle goes beyond the rule of '56, as contained in the treaty of England with the Dutch. It 'It' seems too that the French by a treaty with the States general, in 1739, had permitted this trade with the enemy; but the treaty was revoked by the French, at the conclusion of the war, From gablesd htA the 8th to the 12th article of the ordonance, we can discover nothing which has any bearing upon the present question. Thus Mr. Madison's assertions are not only rendered completely nugatory, but we think the following ideas are pretty clearly made out. Ist. That the rule of war of 56,' contains no principle inconsistent with the law or practice of nations at that period; but is in truth a limitation of their principles and practice. 2dThat France is more culpable than Great-Britain, on this subject. 9 3d. That Great Britain never assumed the rule and interpolated it into the law of nations; but it was contained in a treaty with the Dutch, by which it was contended the English had renounced the right, which by the law of nations would have been unquestionable. For our own parts we wish it to be understood, that though Mr. Madison is found to have been unfair in his argument with Great-Britain, in point of fact, yet we cannot consider the claims of that nation, on the subject of the colonial trade, to be indu bitable, upon any principles of equity or justice, which serve for the foundation of international law. Mr. Madison has shewn his ignorance of the practice of nations notwithstanding.ora To the INDEPENDENT VOTERS OF BOSTON, and its vicinity) bas THE approaching election is highly interesting to the welfare of this community; it may be in your power to reinstate the commonwealth in its former prosperity and renown. The situation of publick affairs attaches extraordinary importance to the decision, promptitude and energy of this quarter of the state. The balance of alance of the ele election w turned either favourably or otherwise by the town of Boston. You u are will be now engaged in a great national controversy, you have chosen the side which conforms most nearly to your opinions of the policy to be pursued at this crisis; and it is your duty to support that side without suffering a single personal scruple to impede your determination. The very existence of the United States, and the constitution of govern- * ment are now at stake; the crisis may be favourable, and the country saved: but it will depend upon your intelligence, your energy, and your decision. This is no ordinary election; it is not a question mere ly between CHRISTOPHER GORE and LEVI LINCOLN; it is not a per sonal contest, but it is the constitutional struggle of the oppressed as gainst the oppressor, of virtuous opposition against systematick tyranny, Is the national happiness in a state of jeopardy? Is our govern. ment respected in the eyes of foreign powers? And shall we be wil ling to remain quiet, and hug the chains by which we have so long been fettered? In choosing LEVI LINCOLN you are sure that you perpetuate the system which has hitherto been pursued, and which has nearly involved us in a ruin coextensive as the empire. By voting for Mr. GORE, you have at least a chance of safety, from the violence of the tempest. LEVI LINCOLN can never act the part of sincerity: he cannot alter his conduct without violating his pledge to the party who espoused him. He seems bound to it by all his tyrannical, hypocritical acts since he has been in office, as well as by the most solemn engage. ments to support the present system of policy pursued by the administration. If he were to act with the Federalists, he would disgrace them by his accession; for it would be declaring that he never had a virtuous principle of action. I like to see a man faithful even to his own villany, Knowing therefore that we have no change to hope or to expect from LEVI LINCOLN, we can judge from past experience what kind of happiness we should enjoy under the poisonous shade of his government. He has done every thing in his power to oppress the people of this state; he has peremptorily refused to sign a bill to exempt our houses from UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH; he has violated the rights of the citizens, in giving secret military orders, at the instigation of an unauthorized officer; and he has avowed principles in his speech to the legislature, which, if admitted to be true, might involve the country in a system of government the most despotick and oppressive. As for his talents, we are yet to discover the first evidence that they exist; he has not shown them as a writer, as a lawyer, or as Lieut. Governour; and we really have no disposition to pursue the experiment further in order to de determine whether as Governour and commander in chief they will probably be more evidently developed. The experiment would be too dangerous; it might terminate in a death-blow to our liberties, and prepared as the Lieut. Governour undoubtedly is to inflict it, for the gratification of his revenge. " Mr. GORE, on the other hand, will preserve your honour if he cannot reinstate your happiness. He will have a single eye to the publick good, and will co-operate with every other state in the union of corresponding dispositions, in restoring us to our former enviable situation, and render us once MORE THE SECOND COMMERCIAL nation ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. He will constantly keep that glorious end in view, which you are determined never to relinquish. Under such sentiments can you hesitate a moment in your choice? Between a man who has already avowed his determination to maintain a policy by means of which we are now groaning under the last stage of indurance; who openly declares that the constitution offers no barrier to the designs of his hostility to the federalists, and who is, willing to enforce oppression by the sword and one who considers his honour and integrity dearer to him than his life, and will not even hesitate promptly to sacrifice the latter to preserve the former from suspiAN ELECTOR 1 9 THE letter of the former leader of the federal party is now so much extolled by the very men who used formerly to exhaust the language of insolence and invective in abusing him, that we are doubtful whether it has not been fraudulently obtained. If the letter be genuine in all its parts; if the tales of his mother and nurse are now recurring to the mind of the writer as important opinions; if like Swift's his mind is prostrated in his age, what a lamentable fall has he experienced dog "O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts; Let any person peruse the publick answers of President Adams to the various addresses presented to him in 1798, while his faculties had their full display, and he will recognize an entirely different individual from him who wrote a letter to two democrats in Northampton. There is no affinity of sentiment, of dignity, or language to be discovered in the comparison. But every reader would pronounce, without any other ground of judgment than internal evidence, that the letter in question is a downright forgery, palmed upon the publick for electioneering purposes. If this is not the case, we are ready to exclaim with Churchill: Sure 'tis a curse, which angry Fates impose, |