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

1t may be & indicative hostility, as far as
its effect falls un The enemy. Eut when
falling on neutral who on no prctcxt can be
h.bie i,r mvre ,nan The measure ot injury
received tnro' such neutral 1t, would rot be d
retaliation, but positive wrong, by the plea
ON which il is founded.
1t is to be further remarked that the or
ders in council went even be, ond the plea,
such as this has appeared to be, in cXtcnd-
ing ITS operation against the trade OF the u.
States, with nations which, like Russia, had
not adopted the French DEGREES, ana with
ali nations which had merely cXc,udcd the
british rag am Exclusion resulting as mat
ter CT course with respect 20 whatever nation
" Is. might happen t. be at war.
am far from viewing the modlEcation ORR
glnai.y contained III these orders, which per-
iniss heueraIs 10 prosecute their trade with
the Contineat, through g.. Britain, in the ia
vorabie right in which you represent it. 1t
IS Impossible to proceed to notice the effect
q tbs mcdihcat,on without expressing cur
astohiSameht at the extravaganza o. the no
iticii pietenson set up by it a pretcnsion
Which IS utterly Incompatible with the soyc-
reignty and independence Of other states-
In commercial view it is net less obiecti-
enable as 1t Cannot tail TO prove destructive
TO neutral commerce. AS an enemy, G. Bii-
tam cannot trade with France. Nor does
ports from q. Britain. The attempt of G..
Sritaint ~ force cur trade through her ports.
Would nave therefore tic commercial effect Of
aePrNlhg the Y. states altogether CT the
market OF her enemy for their productions.
ehd OF DESTROYING their value in her market
o. surcharge Of it. Heretofore it has
Deen the usage Ct bcllgerent nations to car
on their trade thro' the intervention Of
'.c'SEais and this had the beneficial effect
extending to the former the advantages Of
eace, While suffering under the calamties
Oh war. 10 reverse the rule, * to extend
20 NATIONS at peace the calamities of war, is
Il change as novel and extraordinary as it is
i variance with justice and public law.
Against this unjust system, the u. States
entered, at an early period, their solemn pro-
eest. lney considered it their duty to G.
NICE to the world their high Misrepresentation
'Nit, and they have done so bv such acts as
were deemed most consistent with the rights
an the policy OF the nation. Remote from
'he contentious scene which desolates Eu-
IoPe, II mas beeil their uniform object to "a
yoid becoming party to the way. With
.nis view they have endcavored to cultivate
friendship with both parties BY a system of
conduct which ought to have produced that
eHec. hey have done justice to each par
III every transaction in which they have
'eeh separately engaged with it. They
nave observed the impartiality which was
'iue to both as beliigerents standing on equal
ground, having in no instance given a pre-
ference to either at the expence of the other.
ney nave borne too with equal indulgence
INJURIES from both, being willing while it was
Fossioie 20 hnpute them to casualties inse-
3araDle IRON cause of war, and not to a
deliberate intention to violate their rights.
and even when that intention could not be
mistaken they have not lost sight of the ulti-
mate object OF their policy. In the mea-
sures 70 winch they have compelled to resort,
they have in all respects maintained pacific
Citations with both parties. The alterna-
tive presented by their late acts, was offer
ed equally to both, and could operate on nei-
'her' no longer than 1t should pcrsevere in
lts aSgressions on our neutral rights. The
embargo and non-intercourse, were peaceful
'io"e"re"' The regulations which thoy i'm
Poseu ON our traue were such as any nation
might adopt peace or war, without offence
to any other nation The Instrumentation
is OF the same character, and if it makes a
distinction at this time, in its operation be-
tween the belligerents, it necessarily results
rom compliance of one with the offer
nate TO Doth, and which is still open to the
compliance of the other.
In the discussions which have taken Mace
n the subject of the Orders in Council and
blockade OF May 1906, the British govern
nent IN conformity to the principle on which
me Orders In Council are said to be founded
eclared that they should cease to operate
as soon as France revoked her edicts. it was
stated also, that the British government
would proceed hari hasSu, with the govern
inent OF France, in the revocation Of her G.
diets. will proceed to shew that the OBJ
ilgatIon on Great Britain to revoke her Or
ders is complete, according to her own en-
gagements, and that the revocation ought
not to be longer DELAYED.
BY the act of May LIST 1910, it is provided
That if either G.. B. or France shonld cease
to violate the neutral commerce of the Uni
ted States, which fact the President should
declare by proclamation, and the other par
ty should not within three months thereafter
revoke or modify its ediCts in like manner
that then certain sections in a former act in
terdlcting the commercial intercourse be-
tween the United States and Great Britain
and France & their dependencies, should
from and after the expiration of three months
from the date OF the proclamation, be revi-
we'd q havefull force against the former. its CO.
ZONES and dependencies, and against all ar
tlcics the growth, produce, OF manufacture
of the same.
The violations of neutral commerce allu-
ded to IN this act were such as were commit
ted on the high seas. 1t was in the trade be-
tween the United States and the British do
minions, that France had violated the neu
trial rights of the United States by her block
aiding edicts. It was with the trade ofl
France and her allies that Great Britain had