The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-07-23

whose applications. as allies that indulgence
had been granted. had changed the charac.
ter of allies for that of enemies. II was quite
unnecessary to wait for such special revo
cation when by the general declaration ol
war all hostilities had been authorised q
gainst them
Admitting. however, that there may be ca
ses OF presumed revocation, does it follow =
that this is, Nth any proprieiy. to be con
sidered as one of those cases The novelty
OF those Orders in Council-The IT, agntudc
The eomfierity-fhe extraordinary ma
turc of the facts TO which they owe their O.
rigin the attention hich they called for
and excited both at home and abroad-The
pledges given by this State and accepted by
other States. all disqualify this Court form
ctaking upon itself to apply aPresumed revo-
alton in any sach case. - {
Surprising. however, that'the Court felt
itself at libesY to accept as satisfactory o.
Their evidence vt a sincere retraetation of the
French DEGREES, what is the amount of the
evidence offered s-No edic,-no public de-
ciaration of repeal-no reference to cases
in which the courts of that country have ac-
ted upon any suchrevocation.--T only
case mentioned vas that of the New Orleans
Packet. and it was brought forward in such
way, SO void of all authenticity, and of all
accurate detail of particulars, as to make
1t hardly possible tor me to allude to itwith
any .propriety and much less with any legal
effect. What the circumstances of that case
were, i'll what form. & under what authority,
& on what account. released did not at all ap-
pear whether at all applicable to the present
question, whether "a mere irregularity, or
what was its real character the Court could
not learn. This, however. is matter of no.
toriety, that these DEGREES are pronounced
| fundamental laws of the French Empire---
That they were declared so in their original
tormation--and that they have been since to
declared repeatedly receutly--'lcng since
the date Of the present, transac ion. The
declaration OF the person styling himself
Duke de Galore, imports no revocation, for
that declaration imports only "a conditional
retract0fion and this upon conditions knewn
to'b impossible to be complied with. Is'has
| been urged that the American Government
has considered il otherwise, and has so de.
clared 1t ior the regulation ofrhe-conduct OF
| the people ef tina; country, IF such is the
fact,it is not tor me to lose sight of that res
| pect which is due TO the acts of foreign
government sofar as to question the proprie
ty of any Interpretation which they may have
given 10 such an instrument. But when the
effect of such an instrument is pressed upon
me for the purpose of calling for my decis-
ion,i must be allowed to interpret it for my
self. and to act upon that interpretations
And to me 1t appears, that the declaration,
ciogSed as it is with stipulations known to be
| beyond the reach of all rational hope of any
| possible compliance, is in effect renunci-
alton OF any serious purpose of repeating
| those DEGREES. ] think might invoke the
| authority Of the government of the u. S. for
| denying to this French declaration the Effect
| of an absolute repeal, when / observe that
the period which they have allowed to the
Britioh government for revoking ourorde rs in
council extends to the Cd of February-an
allowance which cosld hardly have been
| made,ifthe revocation on the part ofFrance
had really taken place at the time to which
| that declaration pnrports to refer.
| In the absence of any declaration of the
| British government 10 such an effect, there
is total failure of all other evidence, Gf the
Court were at liberty to accept other evil
uence as satisfactory that the French de i.
crees had been revoked. IF we're driven
to decide upon that evidence, independent
of all evidence to be regularly furnished by
the government under whose authority I sit,
I think am bound to pronounce that no
such revocation has taken place. &c there
| fore that the orders in council subsist i'm per
| feet justice as well as in complete authority.
| 1t is incumbent upon me, think, to take
notice Of an objection of Dr.. Herbert's, to
the existence of the Orders in Council
namely, that British subjects are, notwith
standing permitted 20 trade with France,
and that blockade, which excludes the
subjects of all other Countries from trading
\ with ports of the enemy, & at the same time
permits any access to those ports to the sub
jects Of, the state which imposes it, is ire
guiar, illegal and null. And agree to the
proposition. that blockade imposed for
the purpose of obtaining a commercial mo
uopoiy for the private advantage of the
state which lays on such blockade, is ille-
gal and void on the very principle upon
which it is founded. But in the first place,
(though that is matter of inferior considers
tion) am not aware that any such trade
between the subjects of this country and
France is generally permitted. Licences
have been granted certainly in no incon slider
able numbers but it never has been. argu-
ed, that particular licences would violate q
blockade. VI it were material in the ORE
sent case, it might be observed, that many
tmore Of these licences had be en- granted to
foreign ships than TO British ships, to go
from this country to France, and to return
here FROM thence with cargoes, but.
J secondly, what still more clearly and gene
rally takes this mater out OF the reach Of the
, ELECTION, is the PARTICULAR nature and cha
raCter OF this blockade of France, if il is 50
). to be characterized Itis not an original
independent act OF blockade, to be govern
ed by the common rules that belong simply
to that operation of war 1t is 10 this IN