The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-11-12

in that unexpected and improbable contin-
gency.
The letter Of the 5th of August, witch
announced the revocation of the French de-
crces was communicated to this government,
IN consequence cf which the President issued
d proclamation on the I'd OF Nov. the day
after that on which the repeal Of TIE French
DEGREES was to take effect, in which he de-
c.arcd, that all the restrictions imposed hy
the act OF May list, 1910, should cease and
be discontinued IL relation to France < her
dope dencies. 1t was a necessary cunsc-
quence OF this proclamation, alsc, that ii IL
nritain did not revoke her ccic.s, the non
Importation would operate on her, at the cni
OF three months. This actually toch place.
She declined the revocation, and ON the I'd
OF February last, that law tock eject In
confirmation o. the proclamation an act OF
Congress was passed or The Cd Of March
following.
Great Britain still declines to revoke hc..
edicts, on the prctcnsion that France has
not revoked hers. Under that impression
she inters that the u States have done her
injustice by carrying into effect the non-im-
portation against her.
The y. States maintain that France has
revoked her odicts SO far IS they violated
their neutra, rights, and were contempla-
ted By the law of Nav ist, 1910, and have
on that ground particularly claimed and
do expect CT Great Britain a similar reyo-
cation.
The revocation announced officially bv the
French minister Of foreign aflhirs to the mi
mister pienipotentiary Of the u. States at Pa
ris, on the 5th of August, 1SlO, was in itself
sufficient to justify the claim of the u. States
to correspondent measure from &. Britain
ohc had declared that she would proceed
hGrT f,assu in the repeal with France, and
the day being fixed when the repeal of the
French DEGREES shotld take effect, it was
reasonable to conclude that Great Britain
would fix the same day for the repeal of her
orders. Had this Teen done the proclamati-
on OF the PIesiden: would have announced
the revocation of the edicts OF both powers
at the same time and in consequence there
OF the non-impotation would have gene int
operation agains, neither. Such too is the
natural course of proceeding in transactions
between independent states, and such the
conduct which they generally observe to-
wards each other, In all compacts between
nations 1t is the dut of each to perform what
1t stlpulates, and p presume on the good
faith of the other, fir like performance
The United States having made proposal
to both belligerents we're bound to accept a
compliance from eiher, and it was no objec-
ton to the French cmpliance, that it was in
form to take effectat future day, that be-
Ing form not unusuS in laws and other pub
lie acts. Even vaccinations are at war and
make peace, this obltation of neutral conf
dence, exists, and is bspected. In treaties
OF commerce, by which their future inter
Course is to be covered, the obligation is
the same. If distrst and jealousy are al
lowed to prevail, he moral tie which
binds nations togethr in all their relati-
ons, Ill war as well s in peace, is broken.
What would GreatBritain have hazarded
by prompt compliance in the manner sug-
gestcd? She had declared that she had "a
dopted The restraints imposed by her Or
ders III Council withreluctance, because of
their distressing effet on neutral powers
Here then was favorable opportunity pre-
sented to her, to withdraw from that mea-
sure with honor, be the conduct Of France af-
forwards what it might. Had Great Britain
revoked her orders, and France failed to
Iuihl her engagement, she would have gain
ed credit at tic expence of F'ance, & could
have sustained nc injury by it because the
failure OF France to maintain Ter faith would
have replaced Great Britain at the point
from which she had departed To saw that
a disappointed reliance on thu good faith of
her enemy, would have repro;ched her fore
sight, would be to set highe value OH that
quality than OH consistency and good faith,
and would sacrifice to a mere suspicion to-
wards an enemy the plain oblgations of JUS
tee towards friendly power
Great Britain has deciind proceeding
ha'i ha3Su with France in therevocation Of
their respective edicts. She las held aloof
and claims of the u. States proof not only
that France has revoked her DEGREES, but
that she continues to act in Conformity with |
the revocation.
10 shew that the repeal is respected, it is
deemed sufficient to state tina not one yes
sci has been condemned by the French tri-
bunals, on the principles Of hose DEGREES, |
since the LIST November last The New
Orleans Packet from Gibraita,to Bordeaux
was detained but never condemned |
Grace Ann Green, from the anne British
port, To- Marseilles, was iikewse detained, |
but afterwards delivered up Internationally
to the owner, as was such partof the cargo
Of the New-Orieans Packet a. consisted Of
the produce of the United Safes. Both
these vessels proceeding from a British Port,
carried cargoes, some articles IF which i'm
each, were prohibited b. The Laws ofFrance,
or admissible by the sanction O. the govern
ment alone. 1t does not aprer that their
detention was imputable to any other cause
Ii imputable to the circumstance of passing
from a British to French poI-, OF ON ac-
count OF any part Of their cargos, it affords
no cause of complaint to G.. Britain, as Vi
olation Of our neutral rights. no such cause
would be afforded, even in case Of con-
dernnation. The right of COMPLAINT, would
have belonged to the u. 5.
In denying the revocation Of the DEGREES,
so far as it is proper subject Of discussion
befxyQen rie IL r,,icbr roaccpabt, L.s ex,.r~.oI