Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-11-25

seen that the opinion given here that
"the application of article of the
imperial decree to American COM
merce, is the result OF the general ex-
pressions of that very article" was not
the opinion of the council on the 5th
of March last, when they Judged the
case OF the Hibernia they then de
clared in totidum verbs that the de-
cree &c said nothing of its own inhl-
ence on the convention OF 1900" be-
tween the u. S. and France.
The fourth reason of the council is
" that the expedition in question ha-
wing certainly been made with full
knowledge Of the said decree, no OBJ
lection can be drawn with any pro-
prietv, from the genersl rules for
bidding retrospective action, nor
even in this particular case, from the
posterior date of the act in which the
sovereign decides the question, since
that act sprung from his su creme WIS
dom, not, as an Interpretation of a
doubtful point, but as declaration OF
an anterior and positive disposition.
A distinction is here attempted To
be taken between the Interpretation of
a doubtful point and the declaration o.,
an anterior and positive rule. This
distinction cannot be maintained; tor
if the rule had been positive, there
would have been no occasion tor the
declaration. Neither the minister OF
marine, nor the council OF prize, could
have had any doubts on the SUBJECT /;
the execution Of the decree would
have been prompt and peremp DRY /;
nor would second act ON the part OF
his majesty, after the lapse of twelve
months, have been necessary 10 give
operation to the first. Need | appeal
to your ExcelIency's memory for the
facts on which these remarks turn?
You know that doubts did exist-you
know that there was under, them
much hesitation in pronouncing. You
know that as late as the 9th OF August
/ sough- an explanation OF the decree
in question, and that even then, your
ExcellencN (who was surely COM
pet-nt AM legitimate organ of MS ma
jesty) did not think your elf prepared
TO give it: the conclusion is inevita-
BILE; his maiesty's answer, transmit
tel To the court of prizes on the 10 h
of Septen.5er last through the medi-
sun of the grand judge, was in the
STATURE of an Interpretation, and be-
nlg so, could not, without possessing a
r. roactive quality, apply to events
nj, nv months anterior in date to it
SELF.
The fifth reason of the council and
the last which enters into my presen
vie,y of the subject is that though
one of the principal agents of his ma
JEST had given a contrary opinion, Of
whitI h the council had at no period
para ken, this opinion, being that of an
Individual, could not (whatever consi-
derg ion its author may merit balancr
the formal declaration given in the
nat, { OF his majesty himself; and
thayt, if the com nunication of this OPT
nicEn had, as is alleged, given room
to / and served as basis for many A.
7 4 .rican shipments, and particularly
fof the one in question, this circum-
stance which may call for the indul-
gence of mis- majesty, in case in
which the coniscation 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
declaration which follows it,"
1t would appear from this paragraph
that not finding it easy to unite the
knot, the council had determined to
cut it. Pressed by the fact that an,
Interpretation Of the decree had been
given by minister ofhis N jesty, spe-
cially charged with It's execution, theyI
would now escape from this fact and
from the conclusions TO which it evil
IDENTITY leads, by alleging
I. That at no time had the council par
taken OF the opinion gwen by the minister
and
I'd. That this opinion being that If an i'm
dividual could nor pIssess either the force
or the authority OF one truly ministerial.
IL appears tn me, as think It wilt appear
10 your Excelleucy, that the council have,
in these statements, been less correct than
is usual 70 them on sImiiar occasions. If,
as they now assert, they have never parta
ken of the minister's opinion if they I'VE