Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1808-11-19

n<Ny.s
and positive dispositions = A'ser'os
a distinction is here attemptee, III,
en- between the Interpretation OF Z 49, - 'as
point and the declaration Of an aa.s saao''al
positive rule. This distinction san ~ 1la
maintained; for if the rule had I,sen r'ss ps
tive, there would have been no occss;a p's'
the declaration. Neither the Minis. ''
marine, nor the council OF prizes eon,d !,
had any doabts on the subject; the ers @''
ton of the decree would have been -
.remptory.; nor would second act on r
part Of his majesty, after the lapse Of "a
months, have been necessary % o;n
operation to the first. Need [ apnes 1' .
your Exeellency's memory for the facts Nv
which these remarks turn? You know ,ba ~
doubts did exist-you know that there WOE
under them, much hesitation in pronounc;na
You know that as late as the 9th of Anaa,as.
/ sought an explanation o the decree i
question, and that even then, your Excel
lency (who was surely competent and /. /
climate organ of his majesty did not tbnt
yourself prepared to give it: the cohclus;as
is inevitable: his majesty's answer, trans.
mitted to the. court of prizes on the 18th &C
September last, through The medium Of thu
grand Judge, was in the nature of an inter.
prstation, and being SO, could not, without
possessing retroactive quality, apply to E.
vents many months anterior in date to It.
self.
The fifth reason Of the council and IL,
last which enters into my present view og
the subject is .that though one Of the
principal agents of his majesty had given
a contrary opinion, of zehicA tie council had
al no period partaken, this opinion, being
that of an individitt,,!l, could not (whateycp,
consideration its author may merit) balance
the formal declaration given in the name Of
his majesty himself; and that if the com.
Inunica;ion ofthis opinion had, as is aledr-
ed, given room to and served as basis for
many American shipments, and particular
~ Of the one in question, this circumstance
which may call for the indulgence of his
majesty, in case in which the conascation
is entirely TO the advantage of the state, does
not prevent council rigid in its duty, to
pronounce in conformity to the decree Of
the 21st of November, and Of the declsra.
ton which follows it"
Itwould appear from this paragraph that
not finding it easy to unite the knot, the
council had determined to cutt Pressed
by the fact that an Interpretation Of the de-
cree had been given by a minister of his
majesty, specially charged with its execu-
ton they would now escape from this fact
and from the conclusions to which it evi.
deEtly leads, by allsdging-
I. That at no time had the council par
taken efthe opinion given by the minister:
and
Cd. That this opinion beirg that Of an in.
diyidual could not possess either the force
or the authority OF one truly minister
al.
It appears to me, as think it will appear
to your cxeellency, that the council have,
in these statements, been less correct than
is usual to them on similar occasions. Ii,
as they now assert, they never partaken Of
the minister's opinion if they have never
even hesitatcd on the question, whether the
decree of November did or did not derogate
from the treaty of 1900, why, ask, sus-
pend the American cases generally Or
why decide rs they did in the case OF the
Hibernia +? If | mistake not, we find IN
his case the recognition of the very prlncl-
pie laid down by the minister of marine
That officer says " in my opinion the NO
rember decree does not work any change
n the rules at present observed with re-
,pect to neutral commerce, and consequent
Y none in the convention of the 9Th Ven
lcmare, year O." And what says the
council! admitting that ibis part OF the
largo (the rum and ginger was OF briflsA
'ris,;n, the dispositions OF nc November
lecree Cwhich contain notiins Nth ressa'S