Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-12-08

tries, understandings or implied en-
have been allowed TO take
place of written comPac;s, and have
been considered. in some instances, as
haying the same validity. 1t is fur
thermore necessary to place in the
NEST unequivocal light a topic, which
| observe to be constantly and promi-
nently restated in your letters, notwith-
standing the repeated, but, as 1t should
seem, frnitless endeavors used in mine,
to clear it from the slightest shadow Of
obscurity.
You say " that it is understood that
" his Britannia Majesty perseveYes in
/" requiring as indispensable conditi-
&C ons on the part of the United States,
g an entire REIMBURSEMENT Of the right
6 to trade with the enemies colonies,
c. and also permission to the British
Is navy to aid in executing law of
+" Congress"
This same statement is contained in
your letter of the 9th inst. and repre-
scented as the substance of what had
fallen from me IN our previous confer
ences. In my answer to that letter, l
took the liberty of shelving that such
a supposition was erroneous, and
have looked in vain to my letter of the
|23d, to find in it any suggestion of
similar tenor. ! believe, therefore,
that by reference to my two letters
YOU viii find, that the stateme pt now a.
gain brought forward is contained in
neither OF them, that it made no part
Of my previous conversations with you,
and that have in no way given room
to suppose, that | ever made any such
statement at all.
That before the orders in council
can be revoked, their object must be
obtained in some other way, is unques-
.tionably true but you may be assured,
SIR, that there is no wish whatever en-
tertained in England, that the British
nav should be employed in executing
a law Of Congress-If the proposal
thar was made upon that subject, and
made, as you now know, because it
was believed to be acceptable here,
had been adopted. and had become a
matter of compact between the two
countries, and thereby apart, not of the
law of Congress, but of the public law
binding upon both parties, and which
both would have had common inter-
est in seeing duly executed in that
case the agency OF the British navy
would not have had the invidious as
pect, which is now attempted to be CIV
en- TO it.-At present, there is no en-
gsgement between the two countries,
no,laws of Congress which bear refer
ence TO any such engagement, and CON
sequently IL cannot be wished to take
any share whatever IN the execution Of
those laws,
In regard to the colonial trade I need
only observe, that all or nearly all
the enemies colonies are blockaded by
British squadrons, it cannot therefore
be SO much an object of solicitude, as
you imagine, 70 obtain the relinquish.
ment of the trade of any country to
those colonies. On the contrary you
win find 1t stated in my letter of the
18th ultimo, to be a" matter of indif-
I" ference whether the order in coun-
} " ciP' Con this subjec) +" be continued,
g oran arrangement by mutual consent
e" substituted in its room"
When I informed GU that the agree
ment concluded here in April last, had
been framed IN deviation from the in
structiops given for the occasion, my ex-
PLANTATION was intended to apply to both
parts OF that sgreement.-That nothing,
required by the most scrupulous accs-
racy, may be wanting, now add, that
the deviation consisted IN not recording
IA the official document signed here.
the abrogation of the Presidents Proc
lalnar.on OF the I'd July, 1907, as wei
as the two reserves specified in the pa
per OF Memoranda enclosed in my Off
cial letter TO you Of the 9Th ul imo.
There is another motive for the dis
avowal Of this pare of the arrangement,
considered TO be so strong and so self
evident upon the very face of the trans
action, that am not commanded TO do
more than indicate it in the manner ]
have already dOne.-Bv this forbear-