remark that this modest pretension was put forward (by the author of the armed neutrality) in the very name of humanity and civilization, and on the pretext of mitigating the horrors of war!
The very utmost damage which a neutral sustains by the exercise of this right is the loss (or liability to loss) of that infinitesimal portion of the carrying trade of its belligerent neighbour of which it had the enjoyment in time of peace, a damage which would very frequently amount to zero. But even if it amounted to an appreciable loss, when rights come into conflict, the lesser right must yield to the greater, and against the neutral right to carry must be set the belligerent rights of nations at war perhaps for their very existence, and in defence, may be, of the highest interests of mankind.
And in such a war is it to be asserted that the neutral right to pelf is sacred and the neutral's obligations are imaginary?
