The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-11-15

nii airy, olcChatic instituted by prOClafaa
ton does not cease by the removal of the
T. iorcc applied to it, nor without "A formal no
tce BY The government to that effect.
| Ut is not, however, wished to discuss any
question relative To the rscdc by which that
: blockade may be terminated. Its actualtcr-
mination is the material object for cons;de-
| ration. -4
! 1t is easy to shcw. and It has already been
taoundantiy shcwn, that the blockade of MAY,
glSc6, is Inconsistent on any view that may
be taken OF it with the law of nations 1t is
also easy to shew that, as now expounded, it
| IS equally inconsistent with the sense of your
government, when the order was issued; &
! 5his change is Il sufficient reply to the re-
marks which you have applied to me per-
sonally.
ii you will examine the order, you will find
that IT is strictly little more than blockade
OF the coast from the Seine to Ostcnd. There
is an express reservation in it in favor of ncu-
tra,s TO any part of the coast between Brcst
and the Seine, and between Ostend and the
tibe. Neutral powers are permitted by it
to take from their own ports every kind of
produce without distinction as to its origin,
and to carry it to the continent under that IL
imitation, and with the exception only of con-
traband CT war and enemy's property, and to
bring thence to their own ports in return,
whatever articles they think fit. Why were
contraband of war and enemy's property ex-
cepted, if commerce even in those articles
would not otherwise have been permitted un-
der the reservation No order was ncces-
sary to subject them to seizure. They were
liable to it by the law of nations.
why then did the British government in
| stitutc g blockade which with respect toneu-
trails was not rigorous as to the greater part
lot the coast comprised in it ? If you will look
| to the state of things which then existed be-
tween the U. S. and G.. Britain, you W i'll find
the answer. A controversy had taken place
between our governments on a different topic,
which was ST 4 depending. The British 60
lyernment had interfered with the trade be-
tween France and her allies i'll the produce
Iofthcir colonies. The just claim of the u.
,. was then subject of negotiation /; Sl your
government protesting its Willingness tc
make satisfactory arrangement of it, issu-
ed the order which allowed the trade, with
out making any concession rs to the princi
pie, reserving that for adjustment by treaty.
1t was in this light that viewed, and in this
sense that represented that order tony go
vernment; and in no other did make any
comment on it. = 'tt
When you reflect that this order by allow
ling the trade IT neutrais, in colonial produc-
tons, to all that portion of the coast which
was not vigorously blockaded, afforded to the
Us. an accommodation in principal point
then at issue between our governments, and
OF which their citizens extensively awaited
themselves that thai trade and the question
OF blockade, and every other question in
which the u. >. and O.. B. weie interested,
were then IN a train OF amicaoie negotiation,
You viii, think, see the Cause why the min
ister who then represented ghe U. >. with the
British government did make formal
complaint against it You have appealed tc
me, who happened to be that minister, and
~
lProbation OF, on at least acquiescence In the
blockade. An explanation of the cause of
that supposed silence is not less due to NY
SELF, than to the true character OF the ira s.
action with the minister with whom mad The
| honor TO treat. l may aud, that an Official
formal complaint was rot likely to be resor-
ted to, because friendly communications were
invited & preferred. The want of such d
document is no proof that the measure was
! approved by me, or that no complaint was
mdde. In recalling to my mind as this Incl
Gent naturally does, the manly character OF
| that distinguished and illustrious statesman,
and the confidence with which he inspired
ali those with whom he HAD to treat, ! shall
| be permitted to express, as slight tribute
OF respect 10 his memory, the very high con-
| sideration III which have always held his
great talents and virtues,
| The ". >. have not nor can they approve
ftbe DlOCkdQe Oh an extensive coast. N lining
certainly can be Inferred from any thing thar
| has passed relative TO the blockade of May
| 1906, to countenance such an inference.
! 1t is seen with satisfaction that you still adj
nit that the application OF an adequate force
Is necessary to give a blockade legal Cha
raCter, and that it will loose that Character
whenever that adequate force ceases to be
applied. AS it cannot be ailedged that the
application of any such adequate force has
been continued, and actually exists in the
case of the blockade of May 1906, it would
| seem tobe a fair inference that the repeal =
the Orders in Council will leave no insuper-
able difficulty with respect to it. To sup
pose the contrary, would De to suppose that
the Orders i'll Council, said to include that
blockade, resting themselves on o principle
of retaliation only, and not sustained by the
application Of an adequate force, would have
the effect OF sustaining blockade admitted
20 require the application Of an adequate
force, until such adequate force should actri-
ally take the place OF the Orders in Council
Whenever any blockade is instituted, ii viii
DC subject Tor consideration, and if the bloc
kadc be in conformity to the law oil nations
there will be no disposition in this govern
ment TO contcstit.
have the honor TO be, &c.
(5igncd)
| JAS. MONROE.
lug. j. Foster, to'c. &c. Yc.
1 Ho,o,t~,au4 r. C4o4~ 0.A>t<a..