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

against our ehetny; if France is unable 10 or
prcc her DEGREES on the ocean, it is not from
The want Of will, for she cnforces them where
YER she can do 1t, her threats arc only empty
where her power 10 OF no avail.
Ia the view YOU have taken Of the conduct OF |
America in her relations wch the two belligcr-
ents, and in the conclusion YOU draw with re- |
spcct TO the impartiali.y OF Your country AS OK
eaplltisd IN the neutrality-suspicious. law, lament TO
say cannot agree with you That act is di-
rect ncSsurc- against th. British trade, enacted
~ a time when ali the legal authorities in the
United s,atcs appeared ready 10 contest the
statement of repeal OF the French DEGREES, on
Which was founded the Presidents proolan,ati-
on OF November ID, and consequently to dis
pnte the justice of the proclamation itself.
You uigsc, sir, that the British government
promised to proceed paYi passu with France in
| the repeal OF her edicts. It's to be wished YOU
could point cut TO any step France has taken
in the repeal others. G.. Britain has repeated
| ~ declared that she would repeal when the
French did so, and she means To keep to that
| declaration.
| have stated to you that We could not consi-
der the letter of Angus; $, declaring the repeal
ofthe French edicts provided We revoked our
| Orders in Council, or America resented our not
doing so, as step of that nature; and the
French government knew that we could not
| their object was evidently while their system
Il
| persuade the American government that they
! had relaxed from il, and TO induce her TO pro-
! coed in enforcing the submission of G.. Britain
to the inordinatc demands oil France. Il is TO be
| lamcnted that they have but too well succeeded
| for the U. States government appear to have
considered the French declaration in the sense
in which France wished it TO be taken, as an abb
| solutc repeal OF her DEGREES without adyertinr
| 10 the conditional terms which accompanie
it.
| But you assert that no violations OF vouc neu-
trial rights by France occur on the high seas, and
1 that these were all the violations alluded to in
the act of Congress of May 1910. readily be-
lisyc indeed that such cases are rare, but it is
owing to the prepanderance of the British Navy
| that they arc so, when scarce a ship under the
| French Gag can venture to sea without being
taken, 10 Is not extraordinary that they make no
! captures. II such violations alone were within
the purview of your law, there would seem to
| have been no necessity for its enactment. The
| Brush Navy might have been safely trusted for
| the prevention OF this occurrence. But have
always believed, and my government has be-
iieved that the American Legislators had in
view in the provisions ofthcir law IS it respects
| France not only her deeds of violence on the
seas, but all the novel and extraordinary pre-
tensions and practices of her government which
| infringed their neutral rights
| We have had no evidence rs yet of any OF
those prctensions being abandoned. To Che am
| biSuous declaration in Mr.. Cham1agny's note is
| opposed the unambiguous and personal declara-
/ ton OF BonaParte himself You urge that there
| is nothing incompatible with the revocation of
the DEGREES III respect to the u. States In his
expressions to the Deputies from the free cities
OF Hamburg, Bremen and Lubbock, that it is dis
tlnctly stated in that speech thar tie blockade Of
| british Islands shall cease rohen TIE British
| 6lockades cease, and that the French blockade
shall cease in favor of those nations in whose
favor Great Britain revokcs hers, or who sup
port their rights against her pretensions.
| IT is to be inferred from this and the cores
| ponding parts of the declaration alluded to,
that unless o. Britain sacrifices her principles of
| blockade which are those authorised by the es-
tabiished laws OF nations, France will still main
tain her DEGREES of Berlin and Milan, which in
| deed the speech in question declares to be the
| fundamental laws of the French Empire.
! do not, confess, conceive how these avow-
| ais OF the Ruler of France can be said to be
compatible with the repeal of his DEGREES in re-
spect to the U. States. If the United States are
prepared to insist on the sacrifice by G. Britain
OF the ancient and established rules of maritime
war practised by her, then indeed they may a.
void the operation of the French DEGREES, but o.
| therwise, according to this document it is very
| clear that they arc still subjected to them.
The decree of Fohtainbeau is confessedly
| founded on the DEGREES OF Berlin and Milan da-
| ted the 18th October, 1910, and proves their
continued existence. The report of the French
| Minister of December 8, announcing the perse-
veranceof France in her DEGREES is still further
| IN confirmation OF them, and repcrusal of the
letter of the Minister of Justice, the 25th last
December, confirms me IN the inference
drew from II, for Otherwise why should thatmi-
MISTER make the prospective restoration of A.
merican vessels, taken after the 1st November,
| to be a consequence of the non-importation and
not oil the French revocation. II the French
government had been sincere, they would have
ceased infringing on the neutral rights of A.
merica, after the 1st November :--.rhat they
violated them, however, after that period is no
torious.
Your government seemto let it be understood
that an am 'iguous declaration from G.. Britain,
similar to that of the French minister, would
have been acceptable TO them. But, sir, is il
consistent with the dignity Of nation that re-
| spccts itself, TO speak in ambiguous language
The subjects and citizens of eithcr country
WOULD IN the end be the victims, as many are
already, IN all probability who from n miscon.
struction of the meaning Of the French govern
inen', have been led into the most impIudent
4 speculations. Such conduct would not be to
| proceed Pari fdssa witli France in revoking our
| cdlcts, but 10 descend 80 the use Of the peril
aious and Juggling contrivances Of der cabinet
by which she nils her Golfers at the cxpcncc of
| independent nations. 4 similar construction Of
proceeding par bassu, might lead 10 such de-
crcos as those Of RambOuillet or Of Bayonnc, to
the system Of exclusion or Of licences, all mea-
! srres OF France againstthe American commerce,
| IN nothing short Of absolute hostility
! II IS urged that novessel has been condemned
BY the tribunals OF France the principles Of
| her DEGREES since the Isl November. You al
/ low, however, that there have been some dctain-
| ed since that period, and that such part OF the