Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1811-11-09
consideration and respect, sir, your most ODE
dent humble servant
The Hon. James Monroe, sc. &c. &c.
MR.. MONROE TO Mr.. FOSTER.
Dehartment Of State, July 23d, 1911.


have submitted to the President your seye-
raj letters of the Sd and 18th of this month re-
lative to the British orders in council and the
blockade of May, 1906, and have now the
honor to communicate to you his sentiments
on the view which you have presented OF those,
measures of your government.
1t was hoped that your communication
would have led to an immediate accommoda-
ton Of the differences subsisting between our
countries, on the ground, OH which alone 1t is
possible to meet you. 1t regretted that you
have confined yourselfto vindication OF the
measures which produced some of them.
The United States are as little disposed
now as heretofore to enter into the question
concerning the priority of aggression by the
two belligerents, which could not be justified
by either, by the priority ofthose of the other.
But as you bring forward that plea In support
of the orders in council, must be permitted
to remark that you have yourself furnished a
conclusive answer to it, by admitting that the
blockade Of May 1906, which was prior to the
FIRST of the French DEGREES, would not be legal,
unless supported through the whole extent OF
the coast, from the Elbe to Brest, by an ade-
quate naval force. That such naval force
Was actually applied and continued in the re-
uusite strictness until that blockade was COM
prised in and superseded by the orders of
November of the following year, or even until
the French decree of the same year, will not
| presume be alledged.
But waving this question of priority, can it
be seen without both surprise and regret, that
it is still contended, that the orders in council
are justified by the principle OF retaliation, and
that this principle Is strengthened by the ina
biiitv of France to enforce her DEGREES. A re-
taliation is in its name, and its essential cha
racter, returning like for like. Is the dead
ly blow of the orders in council against one
half of our commerce, return of like for like
to an empty threat in the French DEGREES, "a
gainst the other halt 1t may be vindictive
hostility, as far as its effects falls on the enc
my. But when falling on neutral who on no
pretext can be liable for more than the mea-
sure of injury received through such neutral
it would not be retaliation, but positive
wrong. by the plea ON which it is founded.
1t is to be further remarked that the orders
in council went even beyond the plea, such as
this has appeared to be, in extending its ope-
ration against the trade OF the United States,
with nations which, like Russia had not adopt
ed the French DEGREES, and with all nations
which had merely excluded the British flag
an exclusion resulting as master OF course
with respect to whatever nation Great Britain
might happen to be at war.
/ am far from viewing the modification ori-
einailv contained in these orders, which per-
mits neutrals to prosecute their trade with the
continents through Great Britain, In the Ia
vorable light in which you represent it. 1t is
impossible to proceed to notice the effect OF
this modification without expressing our as
constituent at the extravaganza OF the polltl-
cal prctension set up by 1t; pretension which
is utterly incompatible with the sovereignty
and independence of other states, In COM
mercial view it is not less Objectionable as it
cannot fail to prove destructive to neutral
commerce. AS an enemy Great Britain CAN
not trade with France. Nor does France per-
nit neutal to come into her ports from G.
Britain The attempt of Great Britain to force
our trade thro' her ports, would have there
fore the commercial effect of'depriving the
United States altogether OF the market OF her
enemy for their productions, and of destroy
ing their value in her market by surcharge
of it. Heretofore it has been the usage of
belhpcrent nations to carry on their trade thro'
the intervention of neutrals and this had the
beneficial effect of extending to the former
the advantages of peace, while suffering UNI
der the calamities of war. To reverse the
rule, and to extend to nations at peace the Ca
lamities of war, is change as novel and ex-
traordinary as it is at variance with justice and
public law.
Against this unjust system, the U. States
entered, at an early period, their solemn pro-
test. They considered it their duty to cvince
to the world their high disapprobation of it,
and they have done SO by such acts as were
deemed most consistent with the rights and
the policy of the nation. Remote from the
contentious scene which desolates Europe, it
has been their uniform object to avoid becom-
ine party to the war; With this view they
have endeavored to cultivate friendship with
both parties by a system of conduct which
ought to have produced that effect. They
have done Justice to each party in every trans
action in which they have been separately en-
gagged with it. They have observed the inn
partially which was due to both as bellige-
rents standing on equal ground, having In no