The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-08

on of the law in question: would have been that
OF being ordered again to sea. Has Their the mis-.
fortune of ship wreck so far altered her condti-
on, as to expose her to the injury of confscation
| also And is this among the principles which
| the defender of maritime rights means to con.
| secrate by his power and his wisdom. It's i'm
possible.
The Sd reason of the council is, that the ap-
phcation of the fifth article azores aid in as far as
II concerns the Ans ricans and other nations, is
the result both OF the general expressions of that
very article, and of the communication recently
made by his exceilency the grand Judge, concern.
| ing the primitive intention of the sovereign that
the expedition in question, having certainly been
| undertaken with full knowledge OF the said de-
cree, no objection can be drawn with any pro-
prety from the general rules for bidding a retros-
Pective action, nor in this particular case, from
| the posterior date of the act in which the sove-
reign decides the question, since that act sprung
from ms supreme wisdom, not an interpreta-
ton OF doubtful point, but as declaration of an
anterior and positive disposition
distinction is here attempted to be taken
between the Interpretation Of a doubtful point
and the declaration of an anterior and positive
rule. This distinction cannot be maintained;
TOR IT the rule had been positive, there would
n I'VE been no occasion for the declaration nei-
Their the minister of marine the council Of pri-
yes could have had any doubts on The subject
the execution of the decree would have been
prompt and peremptory nor would SECOND
act on the part OF his majesty, after the lapse of
II months, have been necessary to give operati-
on to the FIRST. Need appeal to your excellen-
cy's memory for the facts on which these remarks
turn You know that doubts did exst-you
know that there was under them, even much he
station in pronouncing-you know that as late as
the 9th OF August, l sought an explanation of
the decree IN question, and that even then your
eXcellency (who was surely 4 competent and le-
Snmate organ ofhs majesty did not think your
sell prepared to give 1.-THE conclusion is inevita.
ble-his majesty's answer transmitted to the
court OF Paris, on the 18th of September follow
ing, through the medium of the grand Judge,
was IN the nature OF an INTERPRETATIONS, and
peing SO, could not without possessing retro
active quality apply to events many months ante
FLOR in date to itself
The 4th reason of the council, and the last
"mch enters into my present view of the subject,
u.s. that though one of the principal agents of
MS majesty had given contrary opinion, OF
WHICH THE COUNCIL HAD AT NO PERIOD
PAErAKEN, this opinion being that of an 1Np1-
VIDUALcsuld not (whatever consideration its au-
thor may merit, balance the formal declaration g-
venln the name ofhs majesty himself-and that if
inc communication of this opinion, had as il al
ieoged, given room to, and served as a basis for
many American shipments, and particularly of
'he one IN question this circumstance, which
may call Tor the indulgence of his majesty in a
case IN which the confscation is entirely to the
IN
Gil, rigid IN its duty. to pronounce in confor-
NIFTY to the decree ofthe 21st Nov. and of the de-
claration which followed it."
IL would appear from the paragraph that no.
nhdng 1t easy to unite the knot, the council had
determined to cut it. Pressed by the fact, that
an Interpretation OF the decree had been given by
MINISTER OF HIS MAJESTY, SPECIALLY
CHARGED with its execution, they would now es-
cape from this fact, and from the conclusion to
which 1T evidently leads, by alledging-
ISL THAT At NO TINE has the council par
taken OF the opinion given by the ministers and
md That the opinion being that ofan INDY
v1DuAL, could not possess either the force or
the authority of one truly ministerial
Nappears 70 me, as think it will to vour ex
ceiency, that the council have i'm these state
ments, been less correct than is usual to them on
similar occasions, if, as they now assert. they
nave never partaken of the minister's opinion If
lhey nave never even hesitated on the question:
whether the decree of November did, or did not,
derogate from the treaty of 1900; Why, ask,
suspend the American cases generly! or why
decide as they didin the case of the Hibernia
II 1 mistake not, we find in this case, the rego
cation OF the very principle laid down by the Mi
MISTER OF marine. That officer says 6" in nv OBI
mon the November decree does not work anv
change IN the rules at present observed with res
pect to neutral commerce, and consequently
none IN the convention of the 9th Vendem year
- and what says the council +" ADMITTING
H'"' uhs part Oh Tie cargo (the rum and glnger)
was OF British origin, the dispositions ofthe No
yember decree, which contain nothing with re-
gard to their own influence over the convention
OF the 9th Vendem year9, evidently cannot be
applied to ship leaving America on the 9th of
the same month of November, and Of course can
not have authorised her capture IN che moment
she was entering the neutral port of her destina
ton We have here three distinct grounds of
exemption from the effects of the November de-
cree.
1st The entire silence of that decree with re
gard to its own influence over the convention
of 1900
I'd. The early period at which the ship left the
United States, and
Sd. The neutral character of the port to which
she was destined, If such, sir, were the
principles admitted by the council of the 25tb
OF March last, with what correctness can it
be now SAID, that at no period have they par
taken Of the opinion of the minister,'
The I'd fact asserted by the council is, that the
Interpretation ofthe decree in question given OH
the 24th OF December, 1906, was briVate, not
public, or nother words, that it was the inter
probation the man, not that the n1iuister-and
as such cannot outweigh the more recent deca-
ration coming Immediately from his majesty him
self
On the comparative weight of these declarati-
ons shall say nothing, nor shall do more to re-
pelth firstpart ofthe insnuaton that the minis
ter'S declaration avaS that oily Of the individual }
than to submit to your cxccllency my letter of the
goth of December, 1906, claiming from the mi
MISTER an otcial Interpretation of the decree in
question, and his answer of the oath of the same
month, giving to me the Interpretation demand