Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1808-11-15
from the Secretary Of State to III. ErsAine.
Department Of State,
lHdrch IS, 1903.

y
letter of the esd of February, explaining
sthe character of certain British orders OF
!. council issued in November last, proceed
: 20 communicate the observations and repre-
.xensations which will manifest to your 60
~vernment the sentiments Of the president on
$50 deep violation of the u. States.
These orders interdict to neutral nations
! or rather to the United States now the only
commercial nation in state of neutrality,
all commerce with the enemies OF e. Britain,
now nearly the whole commercial world,
with certain exceptions only, andnnder cer-
tain regulations, but too evidently fashioned
20 the commercial, the manufacturing and
the fiscal policy of Great Britain and on
that account, the more derogatory from the
honor and independence of neutral ma
lions.
The orders are the more calculated toex-
cite surprise in the u. States as they have
d;sregarded the reInonstrances conveyed in
my letters of the goth and 2orh March,
1907, against another order of council IS
sued on similar plea, in the month of Ja-
nuary,. 1907. To those just remonstranccs
no answer was indeed ever given; whilst
the order has been continued in lis pernici-
Gus operation against the lawful commerce
Of the u. States, and we now find added to
it Others, instituting still more ruinous de-
predations, without even the addition of any
new pretext: and when moreover it is no.
torious, that the order of January was OF
nature greatly to overbalance III its effects
any injuries to Great Britain that could be
apprehended from the illegal operation OF
the French decree on. which the order was
to retahats, had that decree IN It's illegal
operation been actually applied 10 the U. S.
and been acquiesced In by them.
The last orders, like that of January, pro-
eeed on the most unsubstantial foundation.
They assume for fact an acquiescence of the
United States in an unlawful application to.
them of the French decree: and thew as
sumo for principle that the right of retail
alton accruing to one belligerent against a
neutral, through whom an injury is done by
another belligerent, is rot to have for its
measure that of the injury received, but
iaay be exercised IN any extent, and under
any notifications which may suit the plea
sure or policy of the complaining rarty.
The fact, sir, is unequivccally disowned.
1t Is not trne that the United States have
laccuiesced in an illegal operation Of the
French decree nor is it even true that at
the dare Of the British orders Of November
! II, single application of that decree to the
commerce of the u. S. on the high seas can
bs presumed to have been known to the
British government.
The French decree in question: has two
distinct aspects, one clearly importing an
intended operation within s.the territorial
limits as local law, the other apparently
importing an intended operation On the high
seas.
Under the first aspect, the decree, how
ever otherwise Objectionable, cannot be said
B to have violated the neutrality of the y. S.
{ If the governing powers on the continent
of Europe choose to exclude from their
ports British property or British produc-
tions, or neutral vessels proceeding from
British ports, it is an act Of sovereignty
which the US. have no right to controvert.
The same sovereignty is exercised by Great
Britain at all times, in peace as well as in
war, towards her friends as well as her enc
mics. Her statute book presents thousand
illustrations.
1t is only, therefore, under the other as
pect of the decree, that it can have violated
neutral rights and this would have result
ed from Its execution on the high seas, whe-
ther on the pretext of nominal blockade,
or with aview to enforce domestic regula-
zion against foreign vessels, not within the
domestic precincts, but under the authority
and protection Of the law of nati0ns.