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

-. e ..r. fr.4-. h. .
sentiment is expressed in the report Ct the
Munster o. foreign affairs. The decree u
foa.ainb,cau hasing no effect on che high
seas, CANNOT be Brought into this discussion.
1t evidently has 40 connection with ueutrai
1Shts. The lctscr from the Minister III
Justice, TO the President of the Council OF
friles, IS III a different character. 1t relates
~ di:cctterias Co this subjccs, but not in the
aensa IL winch You understand it. After re-
citing he notc from the Duke of Cadorc Of
the ssh August lass, to the American Minis
ter at Earns, which announced The repeal oi
the French DEGREES, and the proclamation of
Tue Fresideae III consequence OF it, it states
that al ca i.cs arising under those DEGREES
ak" TIC Is CT NoycmbcI, which were then
DeiLrc ihc CoNri, on might afterwards be
broaght before il, should not be JUDGED bv
lie principles ri the DEGREES, but be suspen-
dea until tho Cd February, when the Uriccd
states having fulfilled their engagement, the
captures Should be declared void, and the
Vessels AID Their cargoes delivered up to
their owners. MS paper appears to afford
an unc lWvccal evidence of the rcvocat ton of
the DEGREES, SO far as it relates to the Uni
ted states. >5y instractirg the French tri-
bunal to MAKE nc dcci-ion till the 2d CT Fee
Druary, ana then to restore the propcrsy to
the owners, OF particular event Which has
happened, all canse of doubt on Uhst point
seems to be removed. The United States
may Justly complain Ct delay in the rcstitu-
ucn O. the property, but that is an injury
which affects them only. Great Britain HIS
no right to complain of it. She was intcrcs-
tea only IN the revocation of the DEGREES b.
when neutral rights would be secured from
future violation crif she had been inte
ted Ill the delay, it would have afforded no
PretcXt 1cr more than delay IL repeating
her orders, till the I'd of February
that day at farthest the French DEGREES
would cease. AT the same day ought her
orders to have ceased. might add to this
statement, that every communication recei-
we'd from the French Government, either
through our representatives there, or its re-
here, are in accord with the
actual repeal of the Berlin and Milan de-
crees, III relation to the neutral commerce If
me United States. But it will suffice TO re-
marx that the best, and only, adequate evil
dchce o. their ceasing to operate, is the defect
OF evidence that they do operate. 1t is case
Where the want OF proof against the fi;lil-
mcnt OF pledge is proof of the fulfiment.
EVERY case occurring, to which, if the de-
crees were IL force, they would be applied,
and to which they are not applied, is a prooi
that they are net III force. And if these
proofs have not been more multiplied, need
l.
lhe numerous captures under year orders in
which continue to evince the ripor
with which they are enforced, after a fai-
lure OF the basis on which they were suppo-
sed to rest.
But Great Britain contends, as appears by
your last letters, that she ought not to re-
woke her orders in council, until the COM
merce OF the continent is restored to the
state IN which it stood before the Berlin ana
Milan DEGREES issued until the French de-
crees are repealed not only as to the United
states, but 50 as to permit Great Britain to
trade with the continent. Is it then meant
that Great Britain should be allowed to trade
with all the powers with whom she traded
at that epoch Since that time France has
extended her conquestS to the north G raj
sed enemies against Great Britain, where
she then had friends. Is it proposed to trade
with them notwithstanding the change in
their situation Between the enemies Of
one date and those of another, no dlsCrimi-
nation can be made. There is none i'm rea-
son nor can there be any, of right, in prac-
nee. Or Go you maintain the general prin-
;iPle, and contend that Great Britain ought
20 trade with France and her allies Be-
Ween enemies there can be no commerce.
he vessels OF either taken by the other are
liable to confscation and are always ccnts-
y
country which they occupy, cannot affect tie
question. The laws of war govern the re-
alton which subsists between them, which
specially III the circumstance under consi-
icratlon are invariable. They were the
anne III times the most remote that they now
ire. Even II peace had taken place between
Treat Britain and the powers Of the CONT
tent, she could not trade with them without
heir consent. Ordccs Great Britain con-
end, that the United States as a neutral
'cwer, ought TO open the continent to her
commerce., en- such terms as she may desie-
tate On what principle can she set up
uch a claim No example of it can be
ound IN the history of past wars, nor is it
ounoed IN any recognized principle of war,
n Id any semblaEcc of reason or right
lac United States could not maintain such
clam III their own favor, though neutral
when advanced iii favor of an enemy, it
would be the most preposterous and extra
'agant claim ever heard of. Every power
when not restrained by treaty, has right
% regulate it's trade with other nations, in
such manner IS it finds most consistent with
is interest; 70 admit, and on It's own condi-
ions, or to prohibit the importation of such
articles as are necessary to supply the wants,
Or encourage the industry Of its people.-In
what light would Great Britain view an APP
phcation from the United States for the re-
peal OF right OF any act of her Parliament,
which prohibited the importation OF any ar
llcie from Che United States, such as their
hsh or Their oil ? Or which claimed the di-
intuition O the duty on any other, such as
heir TOBACCO on which so great revenue is
raised? In what light would she view a 81
lsars a. = ...st. 49,. II