Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-11-14

u ~ hot aHSCt tne question:. 1t the U. States
nave no right to carry their own product.
Gus into France without the consent of the
French government, how can they undertake
to carry there those OF Great Bri.ainl In all
cases It must depend on the interest ana The
will of the party.
Nor is 1t material to what extent. or by
what powers, the trade to the contiuent IS
prohibited. 1.-THE powers who prohibit il. ars
az war with Great Britain, the prohibition Is
necessary consequence OF dat state. Ifas
peace, II IS their own act and whether it bs
voluntary or compulsivc: they alone are an
sweraoic Tor 1t. lftae act be taken at the
'nstigaSon and under the influence CT France.
the most that can be said. is, that i, i;istiies
reprisal against them, Jy similar measure
Va no principle whatever can il be said To
give any sanction to the conduct CT Great Bril-
tain towards neutral nations.
The United States can have no objection ia
the employment of their commercial CAPITAL
IN the supply of France, and Of the continent
generally, with manufactures, antl 70 corr
prise in the supply those of Great Britain,
provided those powers will Consent to it. But
they cannot undertake to force such supplies
on France or on any other power, in CO np,i-
ance with the claim of the british govern
ment, on principles Incompatible with the
rights CT every independent nation, and they
Sil not demand ia favor of another power,
what they cannot claim for themselves.
an that Great Britain could with reason
complain OF, was the Inhibition by the French
DEGREES, of the lawful trade If neutrals yith
the British domipinns. As soon as that inhi
bition ceased, her inhibition of oiir trade with
France ought in like manner to have ceased.
Having pledged herself to proceed fari hassu
with France, in the revocation of their respec-
tive acts violating neutral rights, it has az
forded just cause OF complaint, and even of
establishment, to the United States, that the
British government should have sanctioned
the seizure and Condemnation of American
vessels under the Orders in Council, after the
revocation of the French DEGREES was an
nounced, and even in the very moment when
your mission, avowcd to be conciliatory, was
to have its effect.
l will only add that had it appeared f.
nally, that France had failed to perform her
engagement, it might at least have been ex-
pected, that Great Britain would not have
molested such Of the vessels of the United
States as might be entering the ports OF
France, on the faith of both governments,
till that failure was clearly proved.
To many insinuationsin your letter mako
no reply, because they sufficiently suggest the Z
only one that would be proper.
If it were necessary to dwell on the irt,,ar.
TALLY which has been observed by the u
mtcd States towards the two beilgercnts. I
might ask, whether if Great Britain had ac-
cepted the condition which was offered G.
qually to her and France, by the act of Nav
lst, 1910, and France had rejected it, there
is cause to doubt that the non-importatio.
oct would have been carried into effect a.
gainst France9 No such doubt can possibly
exist, because in former instance, when this
government, trusting to a fulilment by yours
OF an arrangement which put an end to a nom
intercourse with Great Britain, the non-jn-
tercourse was continued against France who
had not then repealed her decrees as il was
not doubted England had done. Has it not
been repeatedly declared to your government.
that if Great Britain would revoke her Or.
ders in Council, the President would imme-
diately cause the non-impcltation to cease =
You well know that the same declaration has
often been made to yourself, and that nothing
more Is wanting to the removal of the exis-
ting distractions t. The commerce between
the two countries, lhan satisfactory assn
rance. which via BE- received with pleasure
from yourself, that the orders in Council are
at an end.
BY the remark in your letter Of the Srd of
July, that the blockade Of MAY 1906, had in
Guided IN the more comprehensive system Of
and that, If that blockade should be continue
ed ia force after the repeal Of the orders in
council, it would be III Consequence of the
special application Of sufficient naval force.
could not but infer your idea to be, that the
repeal Of the Orders in Council would neces-
sarily involve the repeal of the blockade Of
May 1 was the more readily induced to
make this Inference, from the consideration
that ii the blockade was not revoked by the
repeal of the Orders in Council, there would
be no necessity for giving notice that it would
be continued; as by the further considerable
on, that according 10 the decision of your
court of admiralty, blockade i, stituted bv
proclamation does not cease by the removal
of the force applied to it, nor witlsnut for
NAL notice by the government to that effect.
II IS not, however, wished to discuss any,
question relative to the mode by which that
blockade may be terminated It's actaal ter
minafion is the material object for considera-
ton.
It is easy TO shew, and it has already been
abundantly shewn, that the blockade of MAY
1906, is inconsistent ON any view that may be-
taken of il with the law Of nations. ItisaI-
so easy to shew that, as now expounded. IL
IS equally inconsistent with the sense Of YOUR
government, when the order was issued ;---Sc
this change is a sufficient reply to tIeromarks
which you have applied TO me personally,
~ you viii examine the order, YOU will find
that tits strictly little moro than a blockade
of the coast from the Seine to Ostend There
- an express reservation in it in favor Of neu-
trails to any part Of the coast between Brest,
and the Seize, and between Ostcnd and the
Elbe. Neutral powers are permitted By it to
take from their own ports every kind Of pro-
duce without distinction as 20 its origin, and