The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-11-29
of the Horizon. having at the same time

new state OF things, communicated immedi-
ately to congress the alteration of the French
decree, and recommended the embargo,
which was accordingly laid on the 22d of
December. 1907; at which time it was well
understood, in this country, that the British
orders of council, of November preceding,
had issued, although they were not official
ly communicated to our government
On the 18th of that month those orders
did actually. issue, declaring that all the
ports of France, her allies, and of any o.
Their country at war with England, and all
otherports of Europe, from which, although
not at war with England, the British flag
was excluded, should thenceferth be consi
dered as II the same were actually blockad-
ed 1; that all trade i'm articles of the produce
-: manufactures otthe said countries should
be deemed unlawful; and that every YES
sci trading from or to the sad countries, to-
yether with all goods and merchandise on
board, and alse all articles of the produce
or manufacture OF the said countries, should
be liable to capture and condo mnation.
These orders cannot be defended on the
ground of their being intended as retaliating
on account OF the Berlin decree, as construed,
and uniformly executed from its date to the
18th September, 1907, its construction and
execution having till then infrineed no neu-
trail rights. For certainly the monstrous doc
trine will not be asserted even by the British
government, that neutral nations are bound
to resist, not only the acts of belligerent pow
ers which violate theirrigh but also those
municipal regulations, which, however, they
Isay injure the enemy, are lawful and do not
affect the legitimate rights of the neutral.
The only retaliation to be used in such case,
must be such as will operate on the enemy
without infringing the rights of the neutral.
1t solely intended as retaliation on the Ber-
lin decree, as executed prior to the month
of September, the British orders of council
should have been confined to forbidding the
introduction into Great Britain of French or
enemy's merchandise, and the admission
into British ports of neutral vessels coming
from French or other enemy's port. In
deed the ground Of retaliation on account of
any cnpable acquiescence of neutrals in de-
crces violating their rights, is abandoned by
the very tenor OF the orders; their operation
being extended to those countries from
which the British flag was excluded, such
as Austria, although such countries were
neither at war with Great-Britain, nor had
passed any decree in any way affecting or
connected with neutral rights.
Nor are the orders .justifable on the pre-
tence of an acquiescence on the part of the
U. States, in the French decree as constru-
cd and executed subsequent to the 18th
Sept. 1907, when it became an evident in
fraction of their rights, and such as they
were bound to oppose. Fer their minister
at Paris immediately made the necessary
rcmonstrances and the orders We're issued
not only without having ascertained whe-
Their the u States would acquiesce in the
injurious alteration of the French decree,
but more than one month before that alter
alton was known in America. 1t may even
be asserted that the alteration was not
x,1nx rOlor 1xxyl.a ~.
Gil were issued; the instruction of the 18th
September, 1907, which gave the new and
INJURIOUS construction, not having been pro-
mu'gated in France, and its first publication
having been made in December, 1907, and
by the American government itself.
The British orders of council are, there
fore, unjustfable on the principle of retalia-
ton, even giving to that principle all the
latitude which has ever been avowedly con-
tended for. They are in open violation of
the solemn declaration made by the British
ministers in December, 1906; that retala-
tion on the part of Great-Britain would de-
pend on the execution Of an unlawful decree
and on the acquescence Of the neutral ma,
lions in such attraction of their rights And
they were also issued, Notwithstanding the
Official communication made by the minis
tiers of the United States that the French
decree was construed and executed SO as
not to infringe their neutral rights ,andI with
out any previous notice or intmation deny
ing the correctness ofthat statement
The Berlin decree as expounded and ex-
ecuted subsequent to the 18th September,
1907, and the British orders of council of
the 18th November ensuing, are therefore,
ms they affect the u. States, co-temporane-
Gus aggressions of the belligercnt powers,
equally unprovOkcd and equally indefensible
on the presumed ground of acquiesCence-
I hese, together with the Milan decree of
December, 1907, which filled the measure,
would on the principle Of self defence have
jGstiSed Immediate hostilities against both
nations ON the part of the United States
They thought it more, eligible in the first
instance by Withdrawing their vessels from
the ocean, 70 avoid war, at least, for sea-
son, and at the same time, to snatch their
immense ana defenceless commerce from
impending destruction,
Another appeal has in the mean time been
made, under the authority vested in the
president Tor that purpose, to the Justice and
true interest of France and England The
propositions made BY the United States. and
The GfSulHTrtS urged by their minister, are
before congress. BY these, the very pre-
text OF the Illegal edicts was removed and
1T - evident that revocation by either ma
ton on the ground on which it was asked,
either must have produced, what both pre-
tended to have in view, a restoration of the
Freedom ct commerce and of the acl,no.v