Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-08-17
VIRGINIA ARGUS.
RI CHI NJ @ Nd:
MONDAY, AUGUST IL, 1919.
BRITISH ARTIFCE;
SIAM REPocATIoN OF 7,HE
ORDERS IN COUNCIL.

By British order of the 23d of June last
the unlawful edicts against neutral com
merce, which have been in force for more
than four years, are declared to be revoked,
The revocation, however, is, in the first
place, conditional ;; and, in the second, the
orders themselves are reUer(ibke.
The conditional part of the order embra
ces two points, viz:
L. The previou, annulmeut of the Anne
rican acts interdicting the waters of the u.
States to British armed vessels
2. The previous repeal ON the part of the
United States, of the non-importation law.
That part of the order of revocation
which renders the orders in Council revert
| Ible, is in these words:
Nothing III the present order (that is.
| the order of the 23d o, June last, Contained
shall be understood to preclude his Rovai
Highness the Prince Regent, if circuustan-
ces so require, from restoring, after rea
snnable notice, the order OF the 9Th of Ian
1907, and Doth Of April, 1909, or any part
thereof, to thei.fuA effect, or from taking
| such other measures OF retaliation against
the enemy, as may ahhear 10 His RovaL
htshHeS me Prince Regent to ne just and
necessary"
The hrst conditional point insisted ON bv
the revocation, to wit: the anulment of the
| Introduction of our waters TO British shiDs of
| VIZ; is one which, we hesitate not C. saw.
q. Britain has no right to couple with the re-
| vocation OF her orders in council. Thar IN
terdicton, 1t is well known, grew out of the
unlawful practice of impressment; out OF
the unlawful lowering of British vessels of
war on our coasts; and out of the murders
OF our citizens and the interruption given to
them i'll the coasting trade. In requiring the
repeal " the introduction, therefore, Great
Britain ought to have profared assurance
that no other British Officer Mould murder
another Pierce; that no future Douglas
should threaten in time of peace to lombard
our towns; and that a mutual agreement
should be entered Into, to prevent the search
ing our vessels for seamen.
The second conditional point of revocation
would be perfectly fair, if it were not con-
nected with that clause ofthe repeating or
der which makes the orders in Council re-
VeTfs6Ie. To understand this head of the
subject distinctly, let US bestow a little CON
sideration upon it.
The act of March 3, 1911, provides. that
in case Great Britain shall so revoke %,
modify her edicts, as that they shall cease
10 violate tie neutral commerce 9TH Unn-
ed States" &c. the nori-intercoufse rest11c-
tons are, IN that event, to cease and be dis
continued i'll relation to her.
The question, then, is does the order Of
June %, 1912, meet this requsition of the
act OF Congress of ID March, 1912! We
presume it does not.
! The act demands that the orders in conn
Gil should "cease;" that IS, become erfinct.
The order Of June %, declares that tbev
may, If cirtRnlStanceS shall so require" De
REsToNED.
whatsoever ceases" exists no longer.
Whatsoever may be restored, does exist.
and, consequently, has not ceased.
But, 1t may be said, the orders will cease
jar me time. Admit that they do, and the
conclusion is, they are not reUoked, they are
only su&ilcnded. And suspended for how
long! Why, just as long as " circu11afaUceo
Shl1H so require" Well; what "c1RcUm-
STANCES" are these! The prince regent
has not deigned TO tell u.s. Nobody can ex
plain nobody knows.
These circumstances" therefore, NAV
be the zOhtm ofthe British ministry; the ca
fi'7ce OF the prince regent the hoicy of Bri-
tain.
And, as NO one can tell 7yhat the d" cir
cHnStaHces" are, SO no one can say zykcn
they are to happen. They may occur to
day, or Tomorrow, or the next week. AT
any rate, they are sure to happen precisely
When It suits the will, and the pleasure. and
the convenience of the British
Ihis SHsfension, of course, has no Ger
tatnty IN it. The French revocation Of the
herlin and Milan DEGREES contained no sucb
cian'e OF neUertibikty. They were repealed
ona day certain; and the emperor claimed
no power TO "reStore" them. Look at the
duke OF Cadore's letter to Gen. Armstrong,
and you will see that il is 50.
Aud what does the prince regent claim
the power of "restoriHg 2'