ot be forgotten--that the rivalry came from States so lately in
revolt against England, and that their President at that moment was one
of the most obnoxious of the rebels. Then what did it avail that England
was mistress of the seas, if her formidable enemy could laugh at any
effort of hers to destroy the commerce of France, so long as that
commerce could be carried on in safety under a neutral flag? If that
flag must be respected, English naval vessels and privateers would
cruise in vain for prizes, for the merchant ships of any belligerent,
not strong enough to protect them, stayed in port. It had not yet come
to be the acknowledged law of nations that free ships make free goods.
But nearly the same purpose was answered if the property of belligerents
could be safely carried in neutral ships under the pretense of being
owned by neutrals. The products of the French colonies, for example,
could be loaded on board of American vessels, taken to the United States
and reshipped there for France as American property. England looked upon
this as an evasion of the recognized public law that property of
belligerents was good prize. Accordingly, when she saw that French
commerce was thus put out of her reach, and that the rival she most
dreaded was growing rich and powerful in the possession of it, she
sought a remedy and was not long in finding one.

It was denied that neutrals could take advantage of a state of war to
enter upon a trade which had not existed in time of peace; and American
ships were seized on the high seas, taken into port, and condemned in
the admiralty courts for carrying enemy's goods in such a trade. The
exercise of that right, if it were one by the recognized law of nations,
would be of great injury to American commerce, unless it could be
successfully resisted. To show that it was not good law, Mr. Madison
wrote his "Examination of the British Doctrine which Subjects to Capture
a Neutral Trade not Open in the Time of Peace." The essay was a careful
and thorough discussion of the whole question, and showed by citations
from the most eminent writers on international law, by the terms of
treaties, and by the conduct of nations in the past, that the British
doctrine was erroneous and would lead to other infringements of the
rights of neutrals. But argument, however unanswerable, has never yet
brought the British government to reason, unless there was something
behind it not so easy to disregard. The appropri