Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-11-18
account, the more dcrogatory from the no.. |

account, the moro derogatory from the no.
nnr and Indepe induce of neural nations.
The orders are the o;ore calculated TO
excite surprise in the u. s. as they have dis
regarded the remorstrances conveyed in my
letters ns the Goth and 29.h March, 1907,
against another order of council issued On
4 similar plea, IN the monih >f January,
1907. To those Just remonstrances, no an
swer was indeed ever given; whilst the or
der has been continued in It's pernicious
peration againstthe lawful commerce of the
U. s. and we now End added To il others,
lnsttuting still more ruinous depredations,
without even the addition os any new pre-.
text: and when moreover it is notorious,
that the order of January WIS of nature
greatly to overbaiance in its effects any in
juries to Great Britain that could be ap-
pretended from The illegal operation of the
French decree on which the order was to
'retaliate, had that decree in It's ilegsl OPP.
GRAFTON been actually applied to the u. S.
and been acquiesced in by them.
The last orders, like that ofJsnuary. pro
cecil on the most uusubstantial foundation.
They assume for fact an acquescence of
the y. s. in an unlaw .ul application to them
of the French decree and they assume for
a principle that the right of retaliation &C
cruing to one belligerent against "a neutral,
through whom an injury is done by another
bellieerent, is not to have for its measure
that of the injury received, but may be ex
ercised in any extent. and under any modi-
fications. which may suit the pleasure of the
policy of the complaining party.
The fact, sir, Us unequivoclliy disowned.
1t is not true that the u. 5. have acquies-
ced in an illegal operation Of the French de-
cree: nor is 1t even true that at the date of
the British orders of Nov IL, single ap..
plication of that decree To- tine commerce of
the U. 5. on the hi n seas can be presum-
ed to have been known to the British gov
eminent
The French decree in question has two
distinct aspects, one clearly importing an
intended operation within the territoria al Ii
mits as local law; the other apparently
Importing an Intended operation on the Ugh
seas.
Under the first aspect, the decree, no we-
yer otherw Sc objectionable. cannot be said
to have violated the neutrality OF the u. ).
| II the governing powers on the continent of
Europe choose TO exclude from their ports
British property or British productions, or
neutral vesse s proceeding from British
ports u is an ac OF sovereignty which the
U >. have nor chs to conttovert. The same
sovereignty is exercised by &. Britain at
all times, IN peace we'll as in war, to-
wards her friends as well as her enemies.
Her statute book presents thousand illus
tratens.
1t is only, therefore, under the other as
pect OF the decree, that it can have violat.
ed neural rights; and this would have re-
suited from its execution on the high seas.
whether on the pretext of nominal block
ade, or with a view to enforce domestic
regulation against foreign vessels, not with
IN the domestic precincts, but under the au
thority and protection ofthe law of nations
| Had then the French decree been execu-
ted on the high seas against the commerce
| OF the U. ). with CT. Britain, aud have the
U. 5 acquiesced in the unlawful and iniu.
rious proceeding
state, sir, on undeniable authority that
the first instance in which that decree was
put IN force against the neutral rights of
the u. ). was that of the HORIZON. an Ame
rcan ship bound from G.. Britain to Lima.
wrecked within the territorial Jurisdiction
OF france, but condemned under an expo
sltion OF the decree xendIDg to the high
seas its operation against neutrals. This
judicial decision took place as late as the
16th day of Oct. 1907, and was not Official
iy known 10 the minister plenipotentiary OF
the U. > at Paris, till some time in Novem-
Der. At the date therefore of the first or.
der OF u. Britain, no Injury Whatever had
been done to her, through an aggression on
the commerce of the u 5. Nopresumpti
on even had been sufficiently authorised that
the express stipulation in the treaty of
France with the u States would not EXEMPT
their commerce at least from the operati-
on ofany edict incompatible with them. Az
me date even of the latter orders of Nov.
II, 1t appears that the only aggression which
had then occurred, was pretty certainly un-
known to the British government, and could
therefore have had no share in producing
this alleged retaliation.
To this fact that the ship Horison was
the first that occurred of an execution of
the French decree on the high seas, am
able TO add that as late as the 3Oth of No
vember no other case had been brought in.
to the French court of prizes. From ac--
counts which have lately appeared, it is
more than probable that unlawful Captures
by French cruizers have since taken place,
but 1t remains TO be known whether they
are to be referred 70 the concurrence Of the
French government in the Judgment pro-
bounced 70 the case of the Horizon, or not
rather to a French decree Of the liza ID {.
last processing to be retaliation on the
British orders of Nov. IL.
state with equal confidence, that at no
time have the u. S acquiesced in VOL att
ons of their neutral rights injurious to G.
Britain, or any other belligerent nation. So