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

permitted TO remark that you have Yourself
furnished a conclusive answer to il, by adj
uniting that the blockade of May 1906, which
was prior to the first of the French DEGREES,
would not be legal, unless supported through
the whole extent of the coast, from the Elbe
to Brest, by an adequate naval force That
such naval force was actually applied and
continued in the requisite stIictncss until that
blockade was comprised in and superseded
by the orders OF November of the following.
year, or even until the French decree of the
same year, will not presume be alleged.
But waving this Guestioir-of priority, can
it be seen without both surprise and regret.
that it is still contended, that the orders in
Council are justified by the principle of reta-
liaticn, and that this principle is strengthen
ed bk the inability of France to enforce her
DEGREES. A retaliation is mits name, and its
essential character, a returning like for like.
Is the deadly blow of the orders in council
against one half of our commerce, a return
OF Ike for Ike t. IA .enipss threat in the
French DEGREES, agains'fs.s other halff 1t
may De vind'calye hostility rs far as its eff
tects falls on the enemy. But when falling
on neutral who on no pretext can be la
bic Tor more than the measure of injury re-
ccived through such neutral, it would not be
a retaliation, but positive wrong, by the
plea on which it is founded
1t is to be further remarked that the or
ders III Council went even beyond the plea,
| such as this has appeared TO be, in extend
ing its operation against the ,rade Of the u
| nited States, with nations winch, like Russia
had not adopted the French decrees. sntl With
all nations which had merely exciFt.a<l the
British flag; an exclusion resulting as matter
| OF Course with respect to Whatever nation
Great Britain might happen TO be at war.
| am far from viewing the modification o.
| rginally contained inthese orders, which per-
/ inlts neutrals to prosecute their trade with
! the continent, through Great Britain in the.
favorable light in which you represent it. 1t
| is impossible to proceed to notice the effect OF
| this modification without expressing our as
| constituent at the extravaganza OF the politi-
cal pretenson setup by it: prctensionwhich
] is utterly incompatible with the Sovereignty
| and independence or other states. In COM
mercial view it is not less Objectionable as it
cannot fail to prove destructive to neutral
| commerce. AS anenenly Great Britain can
| not trade with France. Nor does France
| permit neutral to come into her ports from
Great Britain The attempt of Great Brit
| ain to force our trade through her ports,
4 would have therefore the commercial effect
OF deprlving the United States altogether of
the market of her enemy for their producti-
l
ket by surcharge of it. Heretofore it has
been the usage ofbeligerent nations to Garry
ontheir trade through the intervention ofneu-
trails; and tls'a had the beneficial effect ofex-
tending to thS..ormer disadvantages ofpeace,
while suffering under the calamities or war.
To reverse the rule, and to- extend to nations
at peace the calamities of war, is change
as novel and extraordinary as il is at yari-
ance with justice and public law.
Against this unjust system, the T. States
entered, at an early period, their solemn pro-
test. They considered it their duty 10 evince
to the world their high disapprobation of it,
and they have done 50 by such acts as were
deemed most consistent with the rights and
the policy of the nation. Remote from the
contentious scene which desolates Europe, it
has been their uniform object to avoid beco-
ming party to the war. With this view
they have endeavored to cultivate friendship
with both parties by a system Of conduct
/ which ought to have produced that effect
| They have done justice to each party in eve
ny transaction III which they have been sepa-
rately engaged with it. They have observ-
ed the impartiality which was due to both as
belligerents standing on equal ground, hav-
ing in no instance given a preference to eli
Their at the expense the other. They have
borne too with equal indulgence injuries from
both being willing while it was possible to
impute them to casualties inseparable from
a cause of war, and not to deliberate inten-
ton to violate their rights, and even when
that intention could not be mistaken, they
have not lost sight Of the ultimate object of
! their policy. In the measures to which they
| have been compelled to resort, they have in
all respects maintained pacific relations with
both parties. The alternative presented By
/ their late acts, was offered equally to both.
/ and could operate on neither, TO longer than
it should persevere III its aggressions OH our
neutral rights. The embargo and non-inter-
course, were peaceful measures The regu-
latuns which they imposed on our trade were
such as any nation might adopt in peace or
war, without offence to any other nation
| The nOn-importation is of the same charac-
| ter, and if it makes distinction at this time.
| in its operation between the bellgcrents, It
necessarily results from a compliance of one
| with the offer made to both, and which is still
| open 70 the compliance Of the other.
In the discussions which have taken place
| on the subject of the orders in council and
blockade Of May 1906, the British govern
ment in conformity to the principle on which
| the orders in council are said to be founded,
| declared that they should cease to operate as
soon as France revoked her edicts It was
stated also thatthe British government would
| proceed fa,7 faSsn, withthe government Of
| France, in the revocation of her edicts.
will proceed TO shew that the obligation ON
| Great Britain to revoke her orders is com
plete, according toher own engagement, and
that the revocation ought not to be longer de-
laycd.
BY the act Of May 1st, 1910, It is provid-
cd That il either Great Britain or France