Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-11-29

orttiSn government, tVet neutral nations are
pound 20 resist, not only the acts of bellige- Is
-ent powers which violate their rights, but
,lso those municipal regulations, which, /:
they may injure the euemy, are
lawful and do not affect the legitimate rights
OF the neutral. The only retaliation to he
used in such cases, must be such as will o.
perate on the enemy without infringing the |
rights of the neutral If solely intended as |
a retaliation on the Berlin decree, as exc |
cuted 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 mer-
chandize, and the admission MO British
ports of neural vessels coming from a
French or other enemy's port. Indeed the
ground OF retaliation on account of any cul-
pable acquiescence of neutrals i'm DEGREES
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 justihable on the pre-
tence of an acquiescence on the part of the
United States, in the French decree as con
strued and executed subsequent to the 18th
Septemher, 1907, when it became an evil
dent infracton of their rights, and such as
they were bound to oppose. For their mi
mister at Paris Immediately made the me-.
cessary remonstrances and the orders
were issued not only without having ascer-
tanned whether the United States would &C {.
lqniesce in the injurious alteration of the
French decree, but more than one month
lbetore that alteration was known i'm Ame-
iV1r ma kr,a 4. a. -. 4
/ iteration was not known in England when
the orders of council were issued the in
ls,ruction ofthe 18th September, 1907 which
.Igave the new and Injurious construction, not
Ihaving been promulgated in France, and
Its tsst publication having been made IN
December 1907, and by the American go
Ivernment itself
The British orders of council are, there
fore, unjustihable on the principle of retail.
alton, even giving to that principle all the
latitude which has ever been avowedly con-
tended for. They are in open violation of
the s. Tenn declaration made by the British
ministers IN December, 1906 that retalia.
ton on the part of Great Britain would de-
pend on the execution OF an unlawful de-
cree, and on the acquiescence of neutral
nations In such infraction of their rights.
And they were also issued, notwithstanding
the official communication made by the mi
nisters ofthe United States, that the French
decree was construed and executed so as not
10 infringe their neutral rights, and without
any previous notice or intimation DENYING
the correctness of that statement.
The Berlin decree rs expounded and ex-
scuted subsequent to the 18th September,
1907, and the British orders of council of
the 11lh November ensuing, are therefore
as they AFFECT the United States co-tempo.
raueeus agSressions of the 5elligerent pow.
ers, equally unprovoked and equally indie.
tensible on the presumed ground of acqui..
escence. These, together with the Milan
decree ct December, 1907, which filled the
measure, would on the principle of self de-
fence have justified Immediate hostilities
against both nations on the part of the Uni
ted States. They thought il more eligible
IN the first instance by Withdrawing their
vessels from the ocean, to avoid war, at
least, for season, and at the same time,
to snatch their immense and defenceless
commerce from impending destruction.
Another appeal has in the mean time
been made, under the authority vested in
ihe President for that purpose, to the ins.
tice and true interest of France and Eng
land. The propositions made by the Uni.
ted States, and the arguments urged bv
their ministers are before Congress. Nv
ShCSC1 inc very pTSteXtf OF the illegal edicts
was removed, and it is evident that a re !.
vocation by either nation on the ground on
which 1t was asked, either must have pro.
lddced, whatboth pretended to h ave in view.
a restoration of the freedom of commerce
and OF the acknowledged principles of the
aw OF nations: or in case of refusal by the
other belligerent, would have carried into
effect, in the most efficient manner, the os-
tens Die object of the edcts, and made the
! United states party in the war against
him. The effort has been Intellectual. The
propositions have been actually rejected by
one OF the belligerent powers, and remain
unanswered by the other. In that state of
things, what course ought the u. States to-
| pursue Yonr Committee can perceive no
other alternative, but AFFECT and DEGRADING
submission war with both nations or a
continuance and enforcement of the present
suspension of commerce
Ihe nest cannot require any discussion.
But the pressure of the embargo, so sensi
oiy teit, and the calamities inseparable from
state OF war, naturally create a wish that
some middle course might be discovered.
which should avoid the evils of both. and
not be inconsistent with national honor and
Independence. That Illusion must be dissi-
pated; and it is necessary that the neonIe
OF the United States should fully under stand
the situation in which they are placed
There is no other alternative but war
with both nations, or a Continuance of the