The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-08-02

|
was equally unknown to- the British cabinet
and equally imperative in the nrneincti@n nj
their celebrated orders, as the decision in
the case OF the HORIZON.
Hut even NJ. Regnier's declarations are
poor and contomlitibie nenaces il. con'pari-
son of the sweeping energy and expansion
of these efficient Orders. 1t is like the emp
ty sound of the human voice, compared to
| the resist'css thunderbolt of heaven-Ihe
Chief judge announces it to be the intenti-
on of his sovereign. to "apply the fifth ar.i
Gle OF the Decree of Berlin to the Ameri-
Cans as to other people" This applicatica
is confined to the 5th Article alone by which
the commerce of Epg'ish merchandise is
prohibited. All merchandise belonging to
England. or coming from her manufactures
aud colonies; are declared To be good prize"
| The decision in the case of the Horizon is
strictly conformable TO the spirit OF this
| Article, for it is declared by the Council of
| prizes, that" there would have been gnod
| ground to release the whole. was it n. found
| that there was some merchandise lin the
CARGO of English origin and conacqueafm
within the purview of the imperial decree"
The lair drawn dagger" of M. Regnier is
therefore strictly. confined to the American
| trade in the produce of the manufactures &
colonies of Gleat-Britain. Here its vcnge-
ancc ceases. These declarations do not, like
the British Orders in Council, aspire to the
monstIoas presumption of considering the
countresof an enemy in state of blockade,
OF interticting every species of commerce
with them, and seizing e1ery American YES
sci that is destined to or from these hostile
ports.-This same letter of Regnier's, ex-
pressly waves any adjudication OH this i'm
portant question for it seems that "his ms
! jesty had postponed decision on the ques-
ton, whether armed French vessels ought
to capture neutral vessels 6ouu9 10 or from
| England. even when they have no English
merch .dize on board"
s. it is impossible that the most enthusiast
tic advocate of the French decree could have
selected more conclusive arguments in it's ia
YOUR, than the letter of NJ. Cretet and the
case Of the George Washington lit has been
uniformly cortended. by the comparative
apologists Of this slippery decree, that each
nation has right to adopt such HuRicihai
| regulations tor its own harbours, as its real
or imaginary interests may recommend !;
| that every natHH TOO, is tho best Judge Of the
meaning and spirit OF all lis rcg,Ila tons and
that the way in which this decree has been
uniformly INTERPRETED and e.recute1, except
III the case of the Horizon, tends TO shcw, that
the French government Pcant to Consider
this Berlin decree simply in the light of
municifat regulation. They meant not to
seize neutral vessels, that were bound to or
from England; but to prohibit, as thew had
a right to 10. all vessels, that had been TO
| England, rom entering their own ports and
as every law must have its penalty, to sci-e
them only in case of = contravening this dis
position and "by Il false declaration dssirr'i
! latins their having stopped 8, England. >
| The supplemental decree ofthe 4th Of Sept
1907, as it has been officially called, is pre-
cisely III this spirit IL completely covers
| SfIIic t,ut III, &c
the original tecrte.
| The case so unfortunately selected by the
United States Gazette" runs completely
parallel with thee ideas-1'he ship George
NGShifgtom 'attertouching at a British Port,
had made the port Of Bordeaux. A formal
! appeal is made to the Minister ofthc Interior
at Paris NJ Cretst does nor reply that the
George Washington Was TO be confscated
for having coatrWcacd the provisions OF the
Berlin Decree. Ifhe had done so, he would
most certainly have Confirmed the stigecsti-
ons of the friends Of England, that this de-
cree OF Berlin wasa decree ns Blockade s. ST.
mliar III its aggressions to the B:ia III orders ia
council. Ma. NJ Cretct after most rnrr,ida-
bic q p0npous preface, certainly charged
with the bacict. thunders to the eve of these
vino had seen in the Berlin decree nothing but
the terror indiscrimnatc conliscat:on & u
/ nlversal blockade; after announcing To IN
sin''Sn'elSaptaln O! the Oe0rge w nshington,
that his majesty had "coafralPd the dispo-
" sitions Of his dec~ee and had rrcrntty pre-
:" scrbcd its strict execution" taoers eff
with the very innocent decision, that the
George Washington was not 'to obtain Gd-
n'fSio1a" into the Port cf BoTdsalx
d. Not more justiGcatory ofthc British orders
~ council. nor more descriptive Of the hos
tile conduct Of the French, is the letter Of
M. Ch1nlpagny 70 gen. Armstrong. This
document is dated on the 7il of October,
1907 bat 1T was not even known to the peo-
pie @: the United States, before the Message
! II the Preside, OF the Sd of March 1905 -
1t could not therefore have entered into the
stream ci motives which dictated the British
orders How inefficient and how harmless
! TOO, is Tie theory laid doxn by Mar Champag-
| ny, compared with the real agErcsGioi,s in
Heed by thee orders! no yesse bound to
or froJi Ens:tad CpaIcs undcrh prcscript-
on, unless she Is "gaing from English ports
| with c,rsoes cf English merchandise, or Of
| English eripia'
What IS the real result of these facts, 1t
! is, thai only oHe case can be cited, in witch
.he decree &c Hti'iiii sSrnt4 "a have been I,ue
into execution, bnt even in this case, the Ues-
| SET, and every part of the cargo, except If
! British origin, escaped it's fangs--that this
case cannot possibly be pieadby Great Br-
tain as an tXruse for her orders on any
| l. 4