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

ny ietier OF INC Ia IA INST octCre proceed To
make any conlincnts on YOUR answer.
have the honor TO b., with distinguished |
SIR, Your most obcdient humble |
servant,
AUG. J. POSTER.
Mr. FoS7ER 70 MR. MONROE.
Washington, Jul, 20, 1911.
have had the honor to receive YOUR letter
OF July % IN answer to Iaine OF the 3 and 14th
instant, which YOU will permit me to say were
notuerely relative to Ills Majcstys orders in
council, and the blockade os May 1896. but nj
SO to the Presidents proclamation of last Nov.
and to the consequent act OF Congress of March
2, as Well as to the just complaints which lis
Royal iiighness the Prince Regent had com
ms'ideu me TO make to Your government with
respect to the proclamation and to that act;
1; The uaited States governments had expect
cd that ishoald have made communications
which would have enabled them to come to an
accommodation with G. Britain en- the ground
on which alone you say it was possible to meet
us, and hat YOU mean by that expression o de-
parture from our system of defence against the
new Kind OF warfare still practiced by France, I
am at g loss to discover from what source they
could have derived those expectations, certain
y not from the correspondence between the
Marquis Wellesle, and Mr.. Pinkncy.
Before proceed to reply to the arguments
which are brought forward BY YOU to slew that
the dccrecs of Berlin and Milan are repealed,
must first enter into IN explanation upon some
ports on which you have evidently nisappre-
hcnded, for vii! not suppose YOU could have
wished to nisinterpret my meaning.
Anc first IN regard to the blockade of Nav
1906, must avow that am wholly at 4 loss 10
Ind out from what part of my letter it is that
the President has drawn the unqualified infer
ence that should the orders in council of 1897
be revoked, the blockade of Nav 1906, would
ceafe with them. Its most material that on
THIS point no mistake should exist between US
from your letter 1t would appear as If ON the
question OF blockade which America bad so
unexpectedly connected with her demand for a
repeal OF our orders in council, Great Britain
had made the Concession required of her; as if,
alter all Ina; has passed on the subject, after
the 2stoni3hncnt and regret of His Maiesty's
government at the United States having taken
up the view which the French government pre-
sented of orr just and legitimate principles OF
blockade which are exenplifed in the blockade
OF May 1896, the whole ground taken by His
Al&lestys government WAS at once abandoned.
When had the honor 10 exhibit to YOU my IN
structions, and to drawup rs 1 conceived sccor-
cl:lS 10 gclr wishes and those of the President
statement OF the mode in which that blockade
would probably disappear, never TO au-
thorise such q conclusion, and now beg most
unequiyocally TO dsclsim IT, The block.de of
Nay, 1906, win not continue after the repeal of
the Orders IN Council, unless His bIaiesty's 60
YernIncEt shall think FIT TO sustain it by the spe-
cal application Of sufficient naval force, and
the fact OF its Being so continued or not, will be
notified at the time. II in this view of the mat
ter, which IS certainly presented in eoncilia-
tory spirit, one OF the obstacles TO q complete
understanding between our countries can be re-
moved BY the United States government waving
Thar IL
can be justified in asking repeal Of the Or
ders, and may communicate this to my govern
ment, It will undoubtedly be very satisfactory
but beg distinctly TO disavow having made
any acknowledgment that the blockade would
cease merely In consequence OF revocation of
the Orders in Council; whenever it does cease,
twill cease because there will be no adequate
force applied to maintain il.
On another very material point sir, YOU ap-
pear to have misconstrued nv words for in no
one passage ofmy letter can discover any men
ton OF innovations on the part Of Great Britain
such IS you say excited painful surprise in
your government. There is no new pretension
set up BY His Majestys government. In an
swerto questions ofyours 10 what were the
DEGREES OF regulations OF France which Great
Britain complained of, and against which she
directs her retaliatory measures, brought dis
tinctly into your view the Berlin and Milan De-
crees, and you have not denied, because, in
deed, you could not, that the provisions of those
DEGREES were new measures of war on the part
Of France, acknowledged as such by her ruler,
aud contrary 20 the principles and usages of CT
vilizcd nations. That the present war has been
oppressive beyond example by its duration, ard
the desolation it adstlrongh Europe / will
lingly agree with you, but the United States
cannot surely mean TO attribute the cause to G.
Britain. The question between Great Britain
and France, u that OF an honorable struggle a
gainst the lawless efforts of an ambitious tvrsnt
and America can but have the wish of every IN
dependent nation as to It's rcsat.
On third point, SIR, have also % regret that
my meshing should have been mistaken. G..
Britain never contendedthat British merchant
vessels should be allowed to trade with her enc
uies, or that British property should be allowed
| entry INTO their ports, as you would infer such
| u prctension would indeed be preposterous but
| Great Britain docs contend against the system
| OF terror put in practice by France, by which,
| usurplng authority wherever her arms or the
timidity ofnatioiis will enable her to extend her
| influence, she makea il a crime to neutral coun-
| tries rs we'll as individuals that they should
| possess articles however acquired which may
have been once tte produce OF English industry
I or OF the British soil. Against such an sboini-
| nable and c1travSgant prctcnsion every feeling
must revolt, and tle honor no less than the il,-
terest of Great Britain engages her 20 oppose
| il.
Turning 20 the course Of argument contained
| in your letter, allow me to express nv surprize
| at the conclusion you draw in considering the
question Of priority relative to the French dc.
crees or British Orders in Council IL was
clearly proved that the blockade Of May 1906
was maintained by an adequate naval force, and
therefore was 4 blockade founded on Just and
legitimate principles, and have not heard tina,
! wsss considered in a contrary light when no