The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-12-05

'"o. 'HSu W SssTr ~ tueni INTO inihsuiitS exc
jcution.
Onthe subject of the orders in council. the
President perceives with sentiments of deep
regret. that your instructions contemplate,
neither any explanation of the refusal of your
government to fulfil the arrangement of hat
branch OF the existing differences. nor the
substitution OF any other plan of adjustment,
nor any authority to conclude any agreement
ON that subject; but merely to receive and
discass proposals, that might he made to
you on the part of the United States, and
these, it appears, must include "a stipulation
on the part of the United States to reiinuuish
the trade with the enemies colonies, even
in branches not hitherto interrupted by Bri-
fish orders for capture, and also sanction
to the enforcing Of an act of Congress by the
British navy.
Were the way properly opened for formal
propositions from this government, q known
determination on the part of his Britannia
Majesty to adhere to such extraordinary
pretensions, would preclude the hope of sue
cess in such advances, whether regard be
had to- the conditions themselves, or to the
disposition they indicate, in return Tor the
lconciliatory temper which has been cvinced
by the United States.
| AS to the demand in relation to the coloni-
al trade, it has been the less apprehended,
rs it is not in itself connected, nor has it
ever before been brought into connections
either with the case of the orders in council,
or with that of the Chesapeake. And 1t VIZ,
reasonably to be presumed, if the idea of
such a condition had in the first instance
! proceeded from the erroneous belief that it
was NOT objectionable to the United States,
that 1t would not have been persisted in at.
ter that error had been ascertaiaed and ac-
knowedged.
l The, Nrhar .,:I y.
been apprshended. Besides the inevitable
and inca'culable abuses incident to such
license to foreign cruisers, the stipulation
would touch orc of those vital principles of So
vereIgnty, which no nation ought to have
been expected to impair. For where would
be the difference in principle between au
thorising foreign government to execute,
and auhorising it to make laws for usi-
| Nor ought 1t to be supposed that the sancti-
ons and precautions of a law of the United
States, in the cases of The prohibited trade
in question, would prove notifications for its
Purposes.
Had none Of those Obstacles presented
themselves to the course corresponding with
the sentiments and dispositions of the Presi
dent, should have felt great p,-asure IN
lgiving you formal assurances of his readiness
to execute the conditional authority with
which he is invested for restoring in its
tull extent, as far as it may depend on the
United States, the commercial intercourse
fot the two countries, and that he would,
moreover, be disposed to extend the expert
ment OF q friendly negotiation TO every point
or difference and sf mutual interest between
them. IT, indeed, in the event of a success
tut termination OF what relates to the case
of the Chesapeake, it be thought that a re-
moval OF the difficulties arising from the or
ders In council might be facilitated by Com,
Iprehending them in general negotiation
and the operation of the orders can in the
mean time be suspended, the door might be
considered as Immediately open to that course
OF proceeding.
To such suspension no reasonable obiec
tion can be made, if, as you have stated,
the orders in council as now modified, leave
the trade Of the United States nearly as
great 1t would be without the existence
OF such orders, SO long az France and the
other powers shall continue their DEGREES.
and inasmuch as discontinuance of their
DEGREES by those powers Confessedly requires
an Immediate and entire revocation of the
orders i'll council.
That a suspension of the orders, with
view to their being brought into general
negociatioa, is more reasonable than a tenn
poiary submission to their authority, by the
/ Onited States with that view, is obvious
from the reflection, that such a submission
wouid necessarily involve relinquishment
OF the principle which they have stedfastly
asserted, whereas discontinuancc OF the
orders IN council in the present actual state
OF things would not be incompatible with the
principle on which they were originally
founded
! L MS principle was, as YOU we'll know, the
necessity OF ret7iiating, through neutrals,
injuries received through violation of their
rights by another bellgerent. In the actual
state OF things, and under the actual modi-
hcation OF the orders in council produced by
| IT, 1t is admitted by you, that the orders
have no practical effect in abrideing the
commerce of neutrals, and can oE course
nave no retaiiating effect on the other belli-
| gerents.
| Although it cannot be allowed to be true
that the orders in council arc no longer in
furious TO the commerce of the United States.
IT is certainly true, that they produce no de.
| gree OF injury to the enemies of Great Rri
tain that can countcnance tile retaliat;ue
plea alledged in support of them.
What, permit me to ask, is the decree of
! injury actually accruing to the enemies Of
u. Britain from her retaiatipg orders Ac
cording to those orders, as now modified
and more especially taking into view along
with them The prohibitory law of this coun
| try In relation to France, the essential DIFF.
terence between their repeal and their ex-
istence, consists In thiS--that ia the case of
tneIf repeal, as pledged by the arrangement
! ct April, the trade of the United States
might be carried OH directly with the ports
OF Holland, whilst during their existence.
as at present, it is 20 be carried on through
| the contiguous and ueighborinp nor,s ~