Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-03-05

"
or modified her edicts as that the,
ceased TO violate. sne neutral comimerc,
of the United States. Bur the lctt-,
OF Monsieur Champagny left the dc.
crees rs II found ihem up to che Il,
lot. Nnvc mber, and ccnsS qusntlv M
Soshat day it could not, for any thir Q
contained IN that letter, be said thsI
the rights of American conneroe
were 70 longer iniringed by, them. A
prospective proclamation, $thas they
WoeAd cease 20 violate those rights.
mighE pc, haps be Issued bur it could
scarcely have any Substantial operaii.
on, either in favor OF France or TO the
prejudice of England, until the epocl,
to which it looked had arrived.
1 Let 1t be admitted, however, that ali
( physical and legal Obstacles to the is.
suing, before the 1st of Nogeaber. OF
proclamation, to take effect imme-
disteiy, were out of the wav. iinw
would such proceeding fulfil of IT,
sell the expectation that he II. States
you'd, before tie 1sr of November
cause their rights .'to be respected by
the English" in the mode pointed
/ Out 40 taG tester, namely, b. the en-
ioroemeht OF tie non-intercourse law ?
he proclamation - ou;d work no III.
Feet or isnaiediate consequence spainss
England. Three months from i.s
date must pass away before eae moo.
Intercourse law could revive agains,
ner /; and, wien IL did so, the revival
fonio not be The effect oil the nrocla.
elation, but oF the continued adher-
saee OF England to her obnoxious
system. ihus, e;'en if prociamati-
on, eHectual from It's date, had b a..
issu' d by the President on the da
when The French declaration of re-
peal came 20 TIE hands of che Amer.
can miuisteras Patis, the intercourse
between the United STATES and Grea,
Britain woGlh on the 1st ofNovent
ber have renamed In the same Con.
dit'on 10 which II was found in Au
gust. As ALT was weil understcoal
by the government or France, til |
conciusiou is that its minister. pro
Tossing too have the Aa.sr;cap lay
before him, and To expect only wfatl
was coniorm:able with that law. d,dl
not interd 70 require the revival of the
non intercourse against England a, =
coalition TO be performed before the
1st Of November.
It's worthy of reo,ark, AS iatroduc- !
tory TO another view Of this subject
that even they who conclude that the
rePea! OF the Fren.h DEGREES has fail
ed, are not backward to ascribe TO the |
French. declaration a purpose utterl, |
inconsistent with that conclusion.
They SUPPOSE the purpose to hay
been to affect the existing relations
beiwsen America ana England, by the
only means which the declaration
states, the act OF non Intercourse
And It IS certain thar, unless ENGLAND
should abandon particular parts OF her
system, this was the resulr avowedl, |
IN view, aud meant 10 be accomplish |
ed.
But there could be no hope of such
= result without previous eTrctu,Il
reiinquishUeut of the French decr.es.
A case could not othsrwise be mad,
TO exist (as the Duke OF Galore was
.a"sre) for such operation Of the A.
merlcan law. To put the law before
the revocation of The edicts vas IN
possible. With the lazy IN his handI
it would have been nirscuiou, ipoo.
rance not 10 know that IL VS. the *
act reverse OF this with, h bis Dan.r
must propose. Be wo0ld derive This
knowledge, not lrom thst particular
Law only, but from the whole tenure
and spirit Of American PROCEEDINGS i
10 thet pairfol and anomalous diem.
caa, in ,Yhieh G.. Britain aud France
agreeing IN no1hIAg else, had recent.
u combined 20 place ,he mar,timei
Interests of America. He wonlI
collect iron those proceedings that
white those coni citing powers con-
tiOneC e. rival each other ia tb.it
expressions upon neutral riglrs. the
government OF tie q. Sta,es would |
oppose Itself impsrtialIy to bo,h. The |
French declaration then, had q her no |
meaning az all, or il meant 20 AN |
A5ouuce o Gen. Arm uong a posit;v
revocation of the French caicts.