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

S"ouiu iiuin anu AFTER the expiration OF three
months from the date of the proclamation
be revived and have full force against the
former, its colonies and dependencies, and a.
gainst all articles the growth, produce, or
manufacture of the same.
The violations of neutral commerce allu-
dcd to III this act were such as were commit
ted on the high seas. 1t was in the trade
between the United States and the British
domnions, that France had violated the neu-
trail rights ofthe United States b. her BLOCK
aiding edicts 1t was with the trade of France
and her allies that Great Britain had COM
mitted similar violations by similar edicts.
1t was the revocation OF those edicts, so far
as they committed such violations, which
the United States had in view, when they
passed the law ef Nav 1st 1910 On the 5th
OF August 1910, the French minister Of Fer
eigh Affairs addressed note to the Minis
ter Penipotcntary of the United States at
Paris, Informing him that the DEGREES of Ber-
lin and Milan were revoked, the revocation
to take eftect on the lst Of November follow
ing: that the measures had been taken nv
his government in confidence that the British
| government would revoke its orders ard re-
ncunce its new principles ofbockade, or that
the United States would cause their rights to
be respected, conformably TO the act of May
| LIST, 1910.
This measure of the French government
was founded on the law of May Ist, 1910, as
! IS expressly declared in the letter OF the
Duke OF Cadore announcing it. The cdicts
| Of Great Britain, the revocation of which
were expected by France. were those allud-
| ed to in that act; and the means by which
the United Staes should cause their rights TO
! be respected, in case Great Britain should
not revoke her ed;cts, we're likewise to be
found in the same act. They consisted mere
| iy in the enforcement of the non-importation
act against G.. Britain, in that unexpected and
! improbable contingency.
The letter Of the 5th of August, which an
| nounced the revocation Of the French DEGREES
! was communicated to this government, in
| consequence o. which the President issued a
proclamation on the I'd of Nov. the day after
that on which the repeal of the French de-
| crees was 30 take effect, in which he deClar-
ed, that all the restrictions imposed by the
act Of May lst, 1910, should cease and be
discontinued in relation to France and her de-
| pendenccs. IT was q necessary consequence
or this proclamation, also that if Great Bril-
tain did not revoke her edicts, the non-im-
portatlon would operate on her, at the end of
three months. This actually took place.
She declined the revocation, and on the ed of
February last, that law took effect. In con-
irmation OF the proclamation an act of Con-
gress was passed OH the ID of March follow
ing.
Great Britain still declines to revoke her
edicts on the pretension that France has not
revoked hers. Under that impression she
inters that the United States have done her
injustice by Carving into effect tie non-ini-
portation against her.
The United States maintain that France
has revoked her edicts so far as they violat-
ed their neutral rights, & were contemplated
by the law OF May list, 1910, and have on that
ground particularly claimed and do expect
OF G. Britain similar revocation.
The revocation announced officially BY the
French minister of foreign affairs to the mi
mister plenipotcntiary of the United States at
Paris, on the 5th of August, 1910, was in it
self sufficient to justify the claim of the u. S.
to correspondent measure from G.. Britain.
A.! She had declared that she would proceed
! teri fassu in the repeal with France, and the
| day being fixed when the repeal of the French
| DEGREES should take effect, it was reasonable
to Conclude that Great Britain would FIX the
| same day for the repeal of her orders. Had
this been done the proclamation of the Presi-
! dent would have announced the revocation of
the edicts of both powers at the same time
and in consequence thereof the non-importa-
| ton would have gone into operation against
| neither. Such too is the natural course of
| proceeding in transactions between indepen-
| dent states, and such the conduct which they
| generally observe towards each other. In all
| compacts between nations it is the duty of
each to perform what it stipulates, and to
| presume on the good faith of the other, for a
| like performance. The United States hav-
| ing made proposal to both belligeren,s were
bound to accept compliance from either,
and It was no objection to the French compli-
| ance, that it was in form to take effect at
! future day, that being form not unusual
in laws and other public acts. Even when
nations are at war and make peace, this OBJ
| legation Of mutual confidence, exists, and is
| respected. In trearties of commerce, by
which their future intercourse IS to be govern
| ed, the obligation is the same Ifdistrust and
| Jealousy arc allowed to prevail, the moral tie
which binds nations together in all their rela-
| tlons IN war as we'll as in peace, is broken.
| What would Great Britain have hazzard-
ed by prompt compliance in the manner
| suggested5 She had declared that she had
adopted the restraints imposed by her Orders
in Council with reluctance, because of their
| distressing effect ON neutral powers. Here
| then was favorable opportunity presented
TO her, to withdraw from that measure with
| honor, be the conduct Of France afterwards
what it might. Had Great Britain revoked
her orders, and France failed to fulfil her en-
gagement, she would have gained credit at
the expence Of France, and could have sus-
tanned ~ injury by il, because the failure of
France to maintain her faith would have re-
placed Great Britain at the point from which
she had departed. To say that disappoint-
cd reliance on the good faith Of her enemy,
woul6 have rcproachcd her foresight, would
be To set n HIGHER value ON that eual;ty fI.,,,