Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1810-10-30
WAsH1NcroS CRY, Oct. "a.
From the National intelligencer.

/ Aware of the situation in which G;
Britain would be placed in relation to
the United States by revocation OF
the French DEGREES, and apprehensive
that she may be put too manifestiy in
the wrong, attempts have been made
by the federal prints to produce an
Impression that bare repeal by Great
Britain of her Orders in Council would
comprehend such a modification of her
unlawful edicrs as would come within
the meaning of the act Of Congress
OF May last. A Sigh. consideration
will shew that this impression is found
ed in error.
The act of Congress requires such
a revocation or modification of their
edicts by the heliigerents as that they
shall cease 10 violate the neutral COM
MERGE of the United States. 1--we
give credit to the letter OF the duke Of
Cadore, as extracted from the British
ipaPers, such revocation by France
will have taken place on the 1st of the
ensuing month, as is contemplated BY
our arr. If in the same manner the
British government does not, within
three months thereafter, revoke its e.
oicts violating the neutral commerce
ofthe u. States, the non-intercourse
act will probably be revived as 10 that
nation. Will the revocation of the
Orders in Council be such mcdifica
ton OF the British edicts as that the,
will cease to violate the neutral com.
merce Of the United States? By no
means, we reply. The British violati.
ons of our neutral commerce have
not been confined to her orders in
Council. To place her on such a
footing in relation to our neutral COM.
merce, as would authorize the Execu-
tive to issue his proclamation declar.
ing the fact of her having so modified
her edicts as that they have ceased TO
violate the neutral commerce of the
U. States, she must revoke her block.
ading proclamatiors, which she has
herselt declared TO be Illegal; and as
the impressment Of our seamen is a
violation of the marilime rights Of the
Cnited States, and of course of our
neutral commerce, it appears to us
that she might even be required total.
iy to abandon that practice before the
provisions ofshe act of May last could
be considered as complied with.
But the federal prints argue that
Great Britain never wiz ield the prin-
ciple of blockade by proclamation,
which they pronounce to be a part of
the old maritime law. They seem a
fraid lestthe least measure of Justice
should be dealt to the United States
by q. Britain and really in their
zeal Tor her adherence to injustice, o.
|yerIeap the barriers of truth and tram
Iple facts under foot with the greatest
indifference. They have undertaken,
trusting to the ignorance or short me.
mories of their readers, to state tina,
the y. States have never protested a.
gainst the principle of paper block.
. AIDES. We affirm to the contrary thai
the u. States have never ceased to con,
Tend for the true definition of blockade
The legitimacy of which was in 8o4 Of
icially acknowledged by the British
government, and the violation OF it de.
clared to be a grievance. And is this
acknowledged grievance that which
the federal editors declare G.. Britain
never will abandon? Are her own or
6cial acts, disclaiming the principle
held OF no account? Or is the new
school of public law, one of whose
prominent features is total disregard
, of neutral rights, more to their taste
. Let them give general publicity TO tn,
> official document which we published
week ago-let them apprise thei
readers that the British government
in 1904, through their minister Mr.
Merry, has denied the Legality Of an,
blockade, unless l. respect to 9ar!icu
lsr ports actually invested, even i
which case vessels bound 60 such port
' ought not, they acknowledge TO be cap
tured until previously warned not s
enter them : let the people know III;
a violation of this plain principle was az
= knowledged to be eiieyaucx1f&hic
he United Ssatesha right 70 con
plain. This simple 6oCuraont, and IL
= but one OF host Of Stubborn facts, 81
licrfed on. acroort of ffa ,,cr,,I,ar ,.,.,>I