Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-07-25

'Ns<>, SSNsNisS II II htINlN NCSS,DsS tOf TINS
court to possess that distinct and certain in
totmatioa os'he facts towhich alone such e<-
traordhnary rules were Justly applicable. j; |
waited, therefore, TOR the communication os !
The facts: I, waited likewise for the pY>cnul- !
CATION of the rules hat were to be ,,ras.-
cally applied. For the state might have
though, ht to act up to the extremity os its
rights on this extraordinary occasion: IL
might, from motives of fos'bearancc, or even
Of policy unmixed with any injustice to other
states, have adopted a mere indulSent rule
than the law Of nations would authorize.
though it is not at liberty even to apply a
harsher rule than that law warrants. In the
case OF the Swedish CONVOY. which has been
alluded to, no order or instruction whatever
was issued; ana the court therefore was
lets to ind its way to that legal conclusion
which its judgment OF the principles OF ;hc
! law le5 it to adopt. But certainly if the state
had issued an order ,.a, rule Of less sever;-
~ should be applied, this court would no,
have considered 1t as any departure from its
G"sy to act upon the milder rule which the
prudence or the state was content TO sul,sti-
tute IN saPpers os its own rights. In the
present case 1t waited for the communication
Oh inc tact and the PRONUNCIATION Of the rule
| AZ Is ats duty IN like manner to wait for the
notification of the fact that these orders arc
revoked in consequence of a change In the
conduct of the enemy.
Inc cdicts OF the enemy themselves OBJ
scnre, and ambiguous in their usual language.
and most notoriously and frequently contra
o.ceed b. his practice, would hardly afford
1t a satisfactory evidence of any such chance
having actually and sincerely taken nlacs
nus state has pledged Itself to make such a
notihcation when the fact Happens: I, is
pledged so to do by its public declarations
oy ITS acknowledged interpretations of the
Jaw CT naticns-by every act which can ex-
cite an Universal expectation and demand
.hat II snail redeem such pledge. Is such
an expectation peculiar.to this court most
unquestionably not 1t is .univers;llv fejt s.
universally expressed. What are the eynec-
tations signifed by the American government
IN the pubic correspondence referred tn
not that these orders would become silently
exsinct underline interpretations of this court
PM that the state would rescind and revoke
them. What is the expectation expressed
II the numerous private letters exhibited to
the court amongst the papers found on hoard
this class ofveSselss Not that the British or
ders had expired of themselves, but that
.hey would be removed and repealed by pub.
nc authority. If took upon myself to ami
hiiate them by Interpretation, / should act
IN opposition to the apprehension and iudg-
msht OF all parties concerned-of individuals
whose property IS In question, and of the A.
merlcan government itself which is boupd IN
protect them.
Ailusion has been made to two .r three
cases in which this court are said 70 have ex-
ercised power of qualifying and modera
ing the general terms Of an order in coun-
Gil, as IN the case Of the lucy, TAYLOR. in
winch the general terms of the order. sub
Jected TO confscation all ships transferred by-
the enemy to neutrais during the war. and
yet this court held that these general ,err,s
Old not extend to prize ships so transfer
RED oy the enemy. But what was IN,
ground OF that Interpretation. 1t was this.
ne rule itself was adopted from the rule Of
He enemy, and upon principle OF exact re-
,aiiatioil forit was declared in the espress
.ernis OF the preamble OF the order, that il
wasjust to apply the same rule to the snerny
which he was in the habit of aprlyins- 10 t;,;s
country. And when the COURT found ,,non
SATISFACTORY evidence, that the enemy did not
apply any such rule to prize ships, bnt spe-
cially exempted them, ii would have nro-
nouuced, in direct contradiction TO the avn,v-
ed principle CT the order itself. If II had not
followed the enemy in this Acknowledged
distinction. 1t has likewise been urged thai
cases may be found in which the court has
presumed a revocation, though no such revo- |
cation mas been promuiged. And it is GER |
.anily true that where an essential change
N tIe circumstances that occasioned the Or |
Ger mas IN effect, extinguished its subject |
matter, and that change Of circurns,ance re-
been publicly declared by the state. the court |
has not thought it necessary to wait for
formal revocation itself In the case of the |
nait'c order, by which in compliance with |
llie wishes OF its allies in the war, the govern
lient OF THIS country granted an immunitv
rom the molestaticn of capture in that sra.
he court held that order to be revoked When
The state had declared that most IF thesa
states 20 whose applications, as allies that
indulgence had been granted, had CHANGED
ne character of allies for that of enemies |
Il was quite unnecessary TO wait for sucb.I
'peeial revocation, when by the general de-
ciaration OF war, hcstilities had been author
scd against them.
Aulnnt.ins' however, that there may be ca
" presumed revocation, does il follow
LA, . uiio Is WIN any propriety, to be consid-
hese orders in council-the maenitndc-t,be
extraordinary nature of tI,e
acts to which they owe their origin: The az
cntion which they called for and excited
'otn az nome and abroad--the pledges given
Y TINS state and accepted by other state.
VI disqualify this Court from taking upon Il,
eli TO apply presumed revocation in any
Snpposing however, that the court fell ;,se,sl
y liberty to accept as satisfactory otLcr -.
'ideDce OF sincere retraction of The Fre,ct
ecrees, what is the amount of the evidence
neted! no edict--no public declaration oil
ne repeai--no reference to cases In which
ne Courts OF that country have acted mon
ny y sach revocation. The only case men