Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-04-08

tie prihCipies winch the oeiehucr OF ma |
rhine rights means 10 consecrs.e by his
power and his wisdom? Ii is impossible.
The Sd reasonof the council is, thu,
the application Of the fifth article afore-
SAID, in as far as it concerns the Ameri.
cans ard other nations, is the result both
ofthe general expressions of that very ar
ticss, and of the Communication recently
made by his exc=llency The grand Judge,
concerning the primitive in;ebtion of the
sovereign, that The expedition in question,
having certainly been undertaken with full
knowledge OF the said decree, no object.
or Can be drawn with any propriety from
the general rules forDidding u retrospect
i've action, nor in this particular case, from
the postc:ior date of the act IN NJ CHI th=
sovereign decides the question, since that
act sprung from his supreme wisdom, not
as an interpretation of a doubtful point,
but as declaration OF an anterior and po
siiire disposition"
A distinction is here attempted to be ta-
Ken between the Interpretation of a DOUBT
tu' point, aud the declaration of an anterior
and positive rule. This distinction cannot
he maintained; for if the rule had been
positive, there would have been no occasion
for the declaration neither the minister
nt marine nor the council uf prizes could
have had any doubts on the subject the ex-
ecutien ri the decree would have been
prompt and peremtcry nor would Sc
eond act on the part of his majesty, after
the lapse Of IL months, have been nccess.. nv
to give operation to the first Need aD-
peal to your eXcellency's memory tor the
facts on which these remarks urnl You
Know that doubts did exist--you know that
there was under them, even much hesita-
uoD ~ 3ronouncing-you know ihat as late
as the 9th OF August, sought an explanati-
on OF the decree in question. and that even
then your eXcellency who was surely
competent and legitimate organ of his ma.
jesty,) did not think yourself prepared to
give 1.-THE conclusion is inevitable-his
malesty's answer transmitted 10 the court
OF PAIRS, on the 18th OF September follow
ing, through the medium of the grand judge,
was IN the nature OF an inferfrefdticR, and
he'ng so, could net without possessing re-
troacrve quality apply to events many
mouths anterior in d.tc to itself.
he 'tth reason Of the council, and the
last which enters into my present view of
the subject. is, "that though one of the
principal agents of his majesty had given
Contrary opinion, o. guhieh the connciikad
az no fierio9 f0rfo&en, this opinion being
that OF an fRdfTiGuai could not whatever
consideration its an nor NAV merit, balance
the formal declaration given in the name
OF his majesty himself-and that if the COM
munication of THIS opinion, had as is aiIedg-
Cd, gwen room to and served as a basis for
many A"erican shipments, & particularly
OF the one in question this circumstance,
Which may call tor the indulgence OF his
majesty, IN case in whiGh the confscati,
on IS entirely to the advantage OF the state
ooes not prevent council, rigid in its du-
~, to pronounce Ill conformity TO The decree
ofthc 21st of November, and OF the decla-
ration which followed it.''
II would appear from the paragraph,
tnat NOT hnding it.easy to unite the knot. The
ccuncil had determined to cut il. Pressed
oy the tact, that an Interpretation of the
decvee had been given by minister othts
majesty, sfociaiIy charged with lis exeou-
uon, they would now escape from this fact,
and from the conclusion to which it evil
IDENTIFY leads, by aliedging-
lst. That az no time has the council par
and
Znd' That the opinion being that of an
ina'UIanal, could not possess either the force
OF authority OF one truly ministerial.
IL appears to me, as think il will 10
your eXcel!ercy, that the council have in
these statements, been less correct than is
usual to them on similar occasions, if, as
they now assert, they have never partaken
oil the ministers opinion. If they have ne
yer even hesitated on the question, whe-
ther the decree of November did, or did
not, deroga:e from the treaty of 1900 /?
why, ask, suspend the American cases
generally! or why decide as they did in the
{ Sc OF the tIibernia? If mistake NOT, we
mad 10 this case, the negotiation of the We
ny principle laid down ny the minister of
marine. That officer says, sin nv opini. |
on the November decree does not work any
change in the rules at present observed |
with respect TO neutral Commerce, and
consequently ncne in the conventiln of the |
9Th Vspdem, year :" and what says the
eouncilt" Admitting that this part Of the |
cargo (the rum and ginger) was of British
origin, the dispositions e the November
decree, which contain nothing with regard
to their own influence over the convention !
OF the 9th Vendem, year 9, evidently can !
not be applied TO ship leaving america on |
the 9Th OF the same month OF Noyember. !
and o. course cannot have authorised her
capture in :he moment she was entering (
the neutral port of her destination" we /
have here three distinct grounds of exemp- |
tion from the effects Of the November de |
cree.
Isl. The entire silence ofthat decree with (
regard to its own Influence over the con.
vention of 1900.
ID. The early period at which the shin
left the III Sfafea oDd 'F