Instructions to commissioners.
The English courts, therefore, acting in perfect consistency with the principle of their former decisions, when these facts were made known to them, refused any longer to admit the payment of duties in America as a proof of a bonâ fide operation. On the other hand, the merchants of America, without looking at the legal grounds of former decisions, had trusted to Lord Hawkesbury’s communication made during the previous war, which led the American government to believe that “landing the goods and paying the duties legalised the trade,” and had consequently embarked their capital and ships in a commerce they felt assured was a legal and permitted trade. When, therefore, they saw their vessels captured by the British cruisers, without any previous warning, and brought into the Vice-Admiralty Courts for adjudication, they naturally complained of the violent and inconsistent conduct of England, and loudly accused her of robbery and injustice. Indignation meetings, as they have since been termed, were convened in all the principal commercial cities of America; declarations and resolutions were voted; and petitions and remonstrances were addressed to the President and Legislature. Congress, as was natural, caught the flame with which it was surrounded, and after a multitude of injudicious and inflammatory resolutions, passed a non-importation Act[325] against the manufactures of Great Britain, to take effect in the ensuing month of November. In the meantime the commissioners sent to negotiate with Great Britain were instructed to obtain from the government a clear and precise rule for regulating their trade with the colonies of the enemy, which should not be liable to be changed by Orders in Council or instructions to cruisers.
Proceedings of the shipowners of New York.
Duties of Neutrals.
Before examining the third point of the complaints urged by the Americans, it will conduce to the general comprehension of the whole scope of the quarrel if reference is made to the proceedings of the merchants and shipowners at New York shortly before this period. It requires very little penetration to perceive that the arming of vessels in the ports of the United States, under pretence of being bound to the East Indies, was a mere cloak for privateering. There were then plenty of freebooters under the American flag, who cared but little which side they espoused, so as they could succeed in a very profitable maritime adventure. In fact their depredations on the seas rose to such a height that Congress was at last compelled to take cognisance of their proceedings, and a Bill was brought forward to restrain merchant vessels of the United States from sailing in an armed condition. The shipowners of New York upon that occasion put upon record their sentiments, and some of the principles they expounded are well deserving reflection and attention. They[326] acknowledged with satisfaction that since the commencement of the existing war the commerce of the United States had not, to their knowledge, suffered any injuries which could justly be attributed to the governments of Europe. They disclaimed explicitly any intention to derive unfair advantages from the misfortunes of the belligerent nations; and they solemnly engaged to support with all their influence any regulations enjoined by treaties or by the established usages of civilised States. They only desired to foster their native genius for enterprise. The duties of neutral merchants, as understood by them, consisted in the observance of the following rules:—
1st. Not to protect under false appearances the ships or property of the subjects of belligerent nations.
2nd. Not to resist reasonable visitation and search by the ships of war of belligerent nations.
3rd. Not to supply either party with articles contraband of war; and,
4th. Not to enter ports in a state of blockade.
Views of the New York shipowners.