The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-11-22

u
majesty's good pleasure; and taking for
granted this fact, / saw in the epini On n =
] thing but proofs, of friendly dispositions and
/ pledges that these were not to be either wan
tonly destroyed or diminished How inaus-
picious. however, to it's authority and the
con.olations derived from it, is this recent
act OF the council of prizes! An act which
explicitly acknowledges the opposite charac-
ters and conflicting injunctons of these two
| Instruments, and which of course draws at
ter it considerations the most serious 20 the
government CT the u. States.
The second reason OF the council is " FIAT
the decree declaring (Britishl merchandise
good prize had principally in view captures
made on the high seas but that the question
whether ship-wrecked goods ought 20 be re-
stored or confiscated, having always been
Judged Under the Eth article of the regula-
ton OF the 26thof July, 1873, and according
to their character (Which. might have rem
t'ercd lawful or have even commended thei,
seizure at sea) there is no reason 10 intro
duce III this case any new distinction which.
however philanthropic it may appear, has
not as yet been adopted rs rule by any ma
rhine nation" i
he doctrine resisted in this passage, S
wniCn inCucates the CGty OF extending pro-
lection to the unfortunate, is not new to his
majesty's council of prizes. I hey have them
elves consecrated it by their decision OF the
5th OF March, 1900. BY that decision they
restored an enemy's ship (thc DIANA on the
sInSle reason, that q" she had been comheIed
70 enter french fort 6y 81, ess ofzvcather."
should certainly fail' SAYS the 4 torney
general Gin respect TO myselfand to the coun-
Gil before whom have the honour to repre-
sent the government, 7ue,-e Inot to maintain
frzncihLe conSecfated 6v our lars and 6y
tthoSe Of all nations In all circumstances
let the loyalty OF the Frenchgovernnient serve
| as the basis fyour decisions Prove YOUR
selves at once geperous and just Your enc
mes VIII know * respect your magnanini-
ty. Such was the principle adopted by the
council IN the year 1900, and in the case Of
an enemy ship; yet we are now told, that
inns very principle, so honorable to the court,
to the nation and to human nature. is utter
ly unknown to all maritime people And on
what occasion dove hear this ? When an e.
nemys snip is again thrown on the French
coast: No; 1t las been reserved for the
wreck OF neutral and friendly vessel for
a ship OF the U. States 1t is not denied
that had this ship escaped the nc. ks g made
tha port OF MoriaiX, the only inhospitality
TO winch she would have been exposed, (nn-
DER the most rigorous Interpretation Of the
law IN question: would have been that OF be-
ing ordered again TO sea. Has then the mis-
oition, as toexpose her to the injury of con-
hscatlon also! And is this among the prin-
c,pies which the defender of maritime
| rights means to consecrate by his power and
| MS wisdom? 1t is impossible.
he third reason of the council is that
the application of the 5th article aforesaid in
as Tar as 1T concerns the American and other
ilations, is the result both of the general ex-
pIeSsions CT that very article, and Of the COM
mnhlcation recently made by his excellencv
the grand judge concerning the primitive in.
'ehtion OF the sovereign"
This reason will be found TO be s;ltstar-
TALLY answered in my reply to reason
: NO OF the council. 1t will be seen
that the opinion given here that " the
- application of article S, Of the imperial
2 Sdecree to American commerce, is tile
: result or thegeneral expressions of that
z :. very article was not the opinion OF the
e council on the 5.h of March last, when
9 they Judged the case of the Hibernia :;
they then declared in fotiGcnl Uerbis
q that the decree e" said nothing of its
L own influence on the Convention of 1900"
4 between the United States and France
The fourth reason of the council is, "that
the expedition in.que5tion having certainly
been made with full knowledge of the said
decree, no objection can be drawn with anv
proPrlety, from the general rules forbiddinp
a retrospective action, nor even in this parti-
cuiar case, from the postefior date of theact
IN which the sovereign decides the question,
since that act sprung from his supreme wis
dom, not as an Interpretation OF doubtful
point, but as a declaration of an anterior and
positive disposition"
A distinction is here attempted to be ta-
Ken between the Interpretation OF n doubtful
point and the declaration of an anterior and
positive rule, This distinction carrot be
maintained, for if the rule had been posjti We.
there you'd have been 10 occasion for the
declaration. Neither the minister of marine
nor the council of prizes could have had anv
dotbts on the subject; the execution OF the
decree would have been prompt & prercmp-
tory; nor would q sscond act on the part of
his majesty, after the lapse Of ID months.
pave been necessary to give operation to the
ibrSt. Need | appeal to your excelsncy s
memory for the facts on which these re-
marks turn? You know that doubts did
exist; YOU know that there was Under them.
mHch hesitation in pronouncing. You know
that as late as the 9th Of August, ! SOUGHT
an explanation of the decree in question. and
men even then, your eZcellency {who was
sH'ely 4 competent and legitimate organ of
his majesty did not think Yourself prepared
to give 1t: the conclusion is inevitable his
maIesV's answer, transmitted to tie con
oi prizes on.thc 18th Of September last thro'