The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-12-13
THE ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, DECEMBER 10, 1908.
FRENCH DECREE.

Ayreeably to orr intimatlon, we now re-
publish some Remarks, which first appear
ed in this paper on the 4th of December.
16O|.--lhey are not now re-echoed from any
prepossession III favor of the taste or eIc-
SGnce with which they were composed-foi
like most of the structures, which appear
from our pen, they were written with haste
and curTeHte cetamo--but because they will
serve to display the ground on which we o.
rlginasly placed this great question ground,
from which we have not since veered i'm a
sIngie instance, and which We defy all the So
ptlstry OF the federal phalanx to shake
The following Remarks will refute most of
the mistakes and misrepresentation, which
are now circulated with SO much ayitlitv on
this very subject. They are, in complete
concurrence with the statements of the able
Report OF the Committee of Foreign Relati-
nns, which have just been submitted to the
nation
One remark mere 1t is obvious that these
observations on the French Decree were nnb-
Eshed before the new exposition of that
Eaict i'll the case of the Horizon had
been known in this country They were
written too' before any systematic discussions
on the same points, before the public docu-
ments, MIR. Madison's letters or Mr., Pink
ney's dispatches, had been ushered into
light.
every nation has right to pass such
aiuntethal laws as she plcascs to adopt, whe-
ther tor justice or for trade, for her own
subjects or for Foreigners, whether in the
heart or on the borders of her empire pro-
vided she respects the obligation of treaties.
Has not France right to make reguIa-
tions for her own ports! May she not ex-
clude or admit any species of cargo or bot
fon's, as her policy or her caprice NAV die
FAT ny Tf.I CHI Il.
gard to the rights of other nations as secur-
ed by treatX2
Her biockading decree (as it has been
called) is in reality nothing but nnunicfhaI
regulation. The first article certainly de-
eiares u. Britain to be in state of block
ade but as yet there is nothing In the acts
or declarations OF the government which
manifes.s her resolution to interpret that
article, according to the usual acceptation
OF the term blockade" There is nothing
IN the context OF the other articles manifest
ing sucn spirit. Mons. Decrcs' letter
(tor hmself) expressly disavows such n pre-
tension.-The decree itself as it has bee,
e.recHted, abjures it, and there is nothing
IN the supplemental decree, lately PUBLISH
ed, that shows it to be the intention of
France to give it u more formidable construc-
ton.
1t is an acknowledged maxim that every
nation is the best INTERPRETER and iudpe Of
ITS o70n laws. Every nation is to be supposed
10 be the best acquainted with its own
meaning. Every nation is to determine
whether any particular decree is to pass as
q mere municipal regulation, or general
statute affecting the law of nations whe
ther 1t is to operate within her own ports
oHly, or to extend into the high seas. No
neutral nation has the right 10 h,,efcst A.
& ,inst the words or spirit Of such a decree. So
long as its coHatrhcfioH and execution are
strictly compatible with the laws Of nations
or the stipulations Of treaty.
How thea, VIC ask, does France hcrseIfI
interpret this decree Does she construe il
into a blockade of the British isles and de-
Tendencies Does she stop, seize and con
hscate every neutral vessel, that is bound to
or from her enemy's ports Neither the late
supplemental decree Of the 4th Of Sept. nor
the last intrrfrcfafion Of her marine courts,
are in conformity with this idea.
Tue George Washington, an American
vessel, had touched at British port and af |
tcrwafds went 30 Bordeaux. A formal an. |
peal was made 10 the minister qffhe Interi- |
or at Paris. Does he declare that the |
George Washins:ou was to be con6sca.cd, |