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

=
that lie steadily watched over the proceed
ings w,der it, with readiness to interfose
against any unlawful eXtcn.ion OF them 70
the commerce of the u States that no time
was lost, after the decree came TO the know
ledge OF the government here, in giving him
proper instructions on the subject that he
was equally prompt, en- receiving the decision
of the court i'm the case OF the Horizon, in
presenting to the French government a re-
monstrance in terms winch can never be
censured for a defect of energy; and tiiat ny
the first opportunity after that decisio. reach
ed the President. the particular distractions
required by it were forwarded 70 that mini
ster. Norris 1t to be forgotten that previ"is
to the British orders of November, it had
been explicitly communicated TO the British
government by the .'rerican ministerial Lon
ton, that explano,'ons uncontradictel by any
overt acJ haG been given to our minister at
Paris, wh;ct, just;hcs a reliance that the
French JCecree would not be put in force a
gainst the United States, and that the COM
n'>lnicatim was repeated to the British go
vernment Immediately on the publication OF
these orders.
What more conid have been required on
the part of the U. States, to obviate retal.s-
ting pretensons of any sort on the part of G..
Britain? Rataliatons are measures of rigor
NV OH NdScS. w mere IllSv are 10 operate
through a third and involuntary party, they
will never be hastily resorted to by me-;
unanimous or a just power; which will always
allow to the third party its right to discuss
the merits of the Case and will never permit
itself to enforce its measures. without afford
ing 4 reasonable time for the use of reasona-
BILE means for substituting another remedy.
What would be the situation of neutral pow
ers, if the first blow ievelied through them,
BY one beiligerent against another was to
.t:>:. 70 choic. hnt het,u-sr,n the reta-
hating vengeance of the latter and instant de-
claration OF war against the formers Reason
revolts against that as tse sole alternative
The United States could no more be bound
to evade The British orders by an immediate
war with France than they were bound to
atone for the burning of the French ship of
war on the shore of North Carolina, BIZ an
immediate resort to arms against Great Bri-
tain.
With respect to the principle assumed by
the British orders, il is perfectly clear that
1t Could not justify them in the extent given
70 their operations, If the facts, erroneously
assumed, could have Seen fully sustained.
Retaliation is a specific or equivalent re-
turn of injury for injury received; g where it
is cooperate thro' the interests of Sd party
having no voluntary participation in the in
Jury received, the return ought, as atreody
observed, to be inflicted with the most for
bearinghand This is the language ofcom
mon sense and the cleareSt equity AS the
right to retaliate results merely from the
wrong suffered, it cannot in the nature of
things extend beyond the extent Of the suf-
termg. There may often be d difficulty in
applying the rule with exactness, and rea-
sonable latitude may be allowable on that
consideration. But manifest and extrava-
want departure from the rule can find no a.
pology.
What then is the extent of the injury ex
pericncedb by Great Britain from the mea-
Sures OF her enemies, so far AS the operati-
ON OF those measures through the United
states can render them in any sense respon-
sibles
A mere declaration by belIigercnt, with
out the intention or the means 20 carry il in
to effect, against the rights and obligations
OF neutral naticn, and thence against the
interests OF another beiligerent, could afford
no preteXt to the latter to retaiate at the
'eXpence OF the neutral. The declaration
might give inst offence TO the neutral, but
it would belong to him alone to decide Oh the
course prescribed by the respect he owed to
himself. Nc rea! damage having accrued to
the belligerent, no indemnity could accrue.
For the same reason, a declaration OF
De!iiSerent winch he is known to be either
not IN sitaatioi, or not to intend, to carry
but partially into execution against neutral
to the injury of another belligcrent, could ne
yer give more than right to commensu-
rate redress against the neutral All re-
manning uneXecuted and evidently not to be
executed. is merely osteDsible, working no
injury to any unless it be in the disrespect to
the neutral TO whom alone it belongs TO re-
sent or disregard it.
- Bring the case before us to this plain and
equitable test. The French Decree of Nov.
1906, undertook to declare the British isles
in a state of blockade, to be enforced if YOU
please against the neutral commerce of the
United. States on the high seas, according to
the faculty possessed for the purpose. AS
far as J.: was actually enforced or an effect
resulted from an apprehension that it couId
and world be enforced. it was an injury to
Great-b1itain, for which let 1t be supposed
the United States were answerable. On the
other hand, as far as it was not enforced,
and evidently either would not or could not
be enforced. no injury was experienced by
Great britain, and no remedy could lie a.
gginst the United States. Now, Sir, il ne
yer was pretended that at the date of the
first British Order issued in january, 1907.
any Injury had accrued to. or was apprr-
Blended by Great-Brtain from an execution
of tho French Decree against the commerce
OF the United States, on the theatre of their
neutral rights. So far from it, that the or
der stands self-ccndemned as a measure of
retaliation, BY expressly stating that the