Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-04-01

OF France. The gentleman from New
York, more nice in distinctions than
myself, may perhaps satisfy himself
and the people that these two cases are
marked by lines SO strong as to render
the conduct Of the Executive in the
one case, an object of applause and ap..
probation for himself and his friends,
and in the other Of suspicion and CEN
sure. 1t is NOT, however, my intent;-
on to pursue the gentleman through
his argument. There is one part of it
which consider it duty to pass in
review, in as much as it is calculated
to give to the public an erroneous view
of the grounds taken by the Executive
in the recent negotiation with Great
Britain: The gentleman says, the
President has not only required of G.
Britain to withdraw her orders, but
her blockades also. This, he saws,
she cannot and never will yield. This
| declaration is made too In the presence
OF the agent of Great Britain, who
must have heard with delight the A
merican Executive held up to suspici-
on, and an American Representative
declare on the floor of Congress, that
demands were made on G. Britain not
sanctioned by the law of the last ses.
sion. In order, sir, to support this
declaration the gentleman gives view
of the demands of the Executive on
G. Britain totally incorre ct and contra.
dicted by every part of the correspon-
dence before US. The gentleman tells
you, that we have demanded of Great
Britain not withdrawal of the orders
in council only, as contemplated by the
law OF the last session, but of her &C no.
vel blockades." To establish the de.
mands OF the Executive, he turns (not
to the correspondence, butt to the Ber-
lin or Milan Decree, and takes for our
demand on Great Britain the de6niti-
on of blockade given by the French
Emperor. The gentleman is entirely
mistaken as to the demand made of
u. Britain by the Executive. The re.
vocation Of bur one blockade, viz. that
OF May, 1906, is included in the de.
mand of the Executive. The features
OF this blockade render it different
from all other blockades. 1t is in fact,
from Its character, more like the or
der In council, permanent regulati.
on OF commerce, than a blockade. I
will, however, first shew from the cor.
resPondence that the President did not.
under the act of the last session, re.
quire the revocation by Great Britain
of any blockade except that of Nav,
18o6--and then that from the peculi-
ar features of that blockade it must
have been included in the demand
made under the act of the last session.
In the message of the President at the
commencement of the session, pages
4th and 5th, we find the demand stat
ed In the following terms
Under the modification oft orr.
ginal orders of Nov. 1907, into the
orders of April 1909, there is indeed
scarcely nominal distinction between
the orders and the blockades. One of
those illegitimate blockades, bearing
date in May 1906, having been ex.
Pressly avowed to be still unrescinded,
and to be, in effect comgrehended in
the orders in council, was too distinct
ly brought within the purview of the
act OF Congress, not to be comprehen-
ded in the explanation of the requisites
to compliance with it. The British
government waa accordingly apprized
by our minister near it, that such was
the light in which the subject was to
be regarded"
This is the language Of the Presi-
dent. In pages 38 and SO of the cor.
respondence, we find the declaration
OF MIR Smith, our Secretary of State,
to General Armstrong in the following
words:
If the non intercourse law, in any
Of its notifications, was Objectionable
to- the emperor of fine French, that law
no longer exists.
I" IF he be ready, as has been declar-
ed in the letter Of the duke of Galore
of February ID, to do justice to the
United States, in the case of a pledge
on their part not to submit to the Brit.
ish edicts, the opportunity for making
good the declaration is now afforded.
Instead of submission, the president
is ready, by renewing the non-inter-
cOurse against Great britain IN IN.