The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-11-18

lows Mr.. Canning's better published in our
last.
From the Secretary of STATE 70 Afr. Erskine.
DEPARTMENT. OF STATE,
:, March 2s, 1908. 5
SIR,
Having laid before the President vour let
ter of the Esd of February, explaining the
cha racter of ccrtain British orders of coun-
Gil issued in November last, Iprococd to Conn
municate the observations and representati-
ons which will manifest TO yorr government
the sentiments of the President on 50 deep n
violation of the commerce and rights OF the
u, States.
These orders interCict to neutral nations,
or rather to the United States, now the only
commercial nation in state of neutrality,
all commerce with the enemies of G. Britain,
now nearly the whole commercial world,
with certain exceptions only, and under Ger
tain regulations, bu. too evidently faS.iioned
to the commercial, the manufacturing and
the fiscal policy of Great Britain; and on
that account, the more derogatory from the
homer and Independence of neutral nations.
The orderS are the more calculated to
excite surprise in the United States as they
have disregarted the remonstrances convey
ed i'm my letters of the Goth and 29th March,
1907, against another order of council issued
on similar plea, in the month of January,
1907. To these just "Reminiscences, no an
Swer was indeed ever given; whilst the or
der has been continued in It's perncous cpe-
ration against rlre lawful commerce of the
u. States, and VIC now find added toit others
instItuting Juru' I.vI, .::;:::-
without even the addition of any new pre-
text, and whenmoreover it isnotorious, that
the order Of January was of a nature greatly
20 ,t,1o in, IF ;,,t,
Great Britain that could be apprehended
from the il!cgal.oper'ation of the French dc
cree on which the order was tn retalate, had
that decree in its illegal operation been act,,-
ally applied to the y. States, and been acuui-
esced in by them.
The last orders, like that of January, pro-
coed on the most unsubstantial foundation -
They assume for fact an aceuiescence of the
United States In an unlawful application to
them of the French decree and they assume
for a principle that the right of retaliation
accruing to one be'ligerent against neutral
through whom an injury is done by another
beligerent, is not to have for It's measure
that of the injury received, but may be exer-
cised in any extent, and under any modifi-
cations which may suit the pleasure or the
policy of the complaining party.
The fact, sir, is unequivocally disowned
1t is not true that the United States have &C
quiesced in an Illegal operation OF the French
decree; nor is it even true that at the date
of the British orders f November IL, sim
gle application of that decree to the COM
merce of the United States on the high seas
can be presumed to have been known to the
British government.
The French decree in question has two
distinct aspects, one clearly importing an i'll
tended operation within the territorial limits
as local law, the other apparently impor-
ting an intended operation on the high seas.
Under the first aspect, the decree, howe
yer otherwise Objectionable, cannot be SAID
tohave violated the neutrality OF the r. S.
1T the governing powers on the continent of
Europe choose to exclude from their ports
British property or British productions, or
neutral vessels proceeding from British ports,
1t is an act OF sovereignty which the United
States have no right to controvert. The Sd me
sovereignty is exercised by Great Britain at
all times, in peace as well as in war, to-
wards her friends as well as her enemies.
Her statute book presents thousand illus
trations.
IL 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 view 60 enforce domestic regi,-
latIon against foreign vessels, not within the
domestic precincts, but under the authority
and protection of the Law of nations Had
then the French decree been executed on the
high seas against the commerce OF the u
States with Great Britain, and have the u.
States acquiesced in the unlawful and iniu-
ricus proceedings
| state, sir, on undeniable authority that
the first instance in which that decree was
put i'll force against the neutral rights of the
United States, was that of the Horizon, an
American skip bound from Great Britan to
Lima, wrecked within the territorial iuris-
diction of France, but condenned under an
exposition Of the decree extending to the
high seas Its operation against neiftrals-
ahis Judicial decision took place as late as
the 10th day Of October, 1907. I'd was not
officially known to. the minister plenipoten-
tiary OF the United States ut Paris. till some
time in November. AT the date therefore of
the first order Of Great Britain, no injury
whatever had been done TO her, through an
aggression ON the commerce of the u States.
No presumption even had been sufficiently
authorized that TIE xpresssiipulaticn in tire
treaty Of France with the u. States would
not exempt their commerce at least from the
operati6r of any edict Incompatible wi;h
them At inc date even of the latter orders
of November IL, it appears that the only ag-
gression which bad ti;ep cccurred, was pref
ty certainly unknown 10 the British govern
mcnt, & could therefore have had no share In
DroigciuC this aiIedppa refafi4sicu