Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1808-04-07

The doctrine resisted in this passage, and
which inculcates the duty OF extending pro-
lection to the unfortunate, is not new TO his
majesty S council OF prizes. They have them
selves consecrated it by their decision OF the
5th Of March, 1900. BY that decision they
restored an enemy ship on the single reason,
that she had been com,1elled 10 enter a french
port 6y stress q 7veather. G should equally
FAIL says the attorney general, in respect
to myself and the council before whom
have the homer tc represent the government,
svere not 10 n1aintain frlncllise, coa1seerated
by oar ia7cs and by thuse Of az nations. In all
circumstances let the loyalty of the French
government serve as the basis Of yDur declsi-
ons. Prove yourselves at once generous and
Just your enemies will know and respect
yotIr M ynanimity.'' Slch was the 'pmacip!e
adopted by the council IN the year 1900, and
In the case of an enemy's ship, yet we are
now told, that this very principle, SO hpnora-
bic to the court, to the nation and to human
nature, is utterly unknown 70 all maritime
people. And on what occasion do we hear
this When an enemy's ship IS again thrown
on the Preach coast No--It has been re-
vessel! for ship Of the United States It
is not denied, that had this ship escaped the
rocks and made the port of Moriaix, the only
inhospitality to which she would have been
exposed, (under the most rigorous interPre-
tation Of the law in question: would have been
that Of being ordered again to sea. Has then
the misfortune of shipwreck SO far altered her
condition, as to expose her to the INJURY or
confscation also And is this among the
principles which the defender Of maritime
rights means to consecrate by his power and
his wisdom Il is impossible.
The third reason Of the council IS, that
the application Of the fifth article aforesaid, in
as far as it concerns the Americans and other
nations, is the result both O. TIC general ex-
pressions Of that very article, and OF the COM.
municatiop recently made by has exceiiency
the grand Judge, concerning the primitive in
tention Of the sovereign, that the expedition
il question, having certainly been undertaken
with full knowledge of the said decree, no OBJ
lection can be drawn with any proprety from
the general rules for0lddIng retrospective
action, nor in this particular case, from the
posterior date of the act in which the sove-
sprung from his supreme wisdom, not as an
Interpretation Of doubtful point, but as a
declaration Of an anterior and positive dispo--
sition.''
A distinction is here attempted to be taken
between tie Interpretation OF d doubtful point,
and tae declaration Of an anterior and positive
rule. This distinction cannot be maintained |;
for if the rule had been positive, there would
have been no occasion Tor the declaration nel-
Their the minister of marine nor the council Of
prizes could have had any doubts on the sub
ect the execution OF the decree would have
been prompt and peremptory nor would a
second act on the part of his majesty, after the
lapse Of twelve months, have been necessary
to give operation to the FIRST. Need appeal
to your exceIlencys memory for the facts On
which these remarks turn You know that
doubts did exist--you know that there was un-
der them, even much hesitation in pronounc-
ing--you know that as late as the ninth of
August, sought an explanation Of the decree
in question, and that even then your eXcelien-
cy, who was surely a competent and legiti-
mate organ of his majesty did not think your
self prepared to give 1.-THE conclusion is III
eFltable--ilis majesty answer transmlltedt 10
the court of Paris, on the eighteenth of Sept.
following, through the medium of the grand
Judge, was in the nature of an interpretation,
and being SO, could not without possessing a
retroactive quality apply to events many
months anterior in date to itself.
The fourth reason of the council, and the
last which enters into my present view Of the
subject, is, that though one of the prin,i-
pal agents Of his majesty had given contrary
opinion, Of 7vhich the cJuncU had at no fevod
partaken, this opinion being that of an isdivi-
dual could not whatever consideration its au-
thor may merit balance the formal declara-
ton given in the name of his majesty himself
and that if the communication of this OPT
Mon. had, as is alledged, given room to and
served as a basis for many American ship