Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-01-20
To The Hon
James Monroe, &c. 6
Mr.. MONROE 10 MR.. FOSTER.
Dctarfment Of Ssare,
January "A, 1912.
AUG. J. FOSTER.


DcfQrfnent of Ssc!e,
SIR,
have had the homer 70 receive YOUR letter
OF December 18th, and embrace the first mo-
ment that could command, to make the oh SER
vations which it suggests.
1t would have afforded great satisfaction to
the President, to have found i'm the eommunica-
ton, some proof Of disposition i'm the British
government to put sn end TO the differences sub
sisting between our countries. l am sorry tn
NC obliged 10 state, that it presents ne W proof
only OF ITS determination to adhere to the poii-
CIV, tn which they are imputable.
You complain that the import of your former
letters has been misunderstood in two impor
tans circumstances that YOU have been rep
resented to have demanded of the tinted States
a law for the introduction OF British goods into
their ports, and that they should also undertake
to force France to receive British manufactures
into her harbors .r.
You state that on the first point, it was YOUR
intention only to demonstrate against the nom
importation act, as partial in its operation, and
nniriendy to Great Britain, on which account
ITS repeal was claimed, and to- intimate that if
L was pcrseycrcd in, Great Britain would be
| compelled To retaliate, on the commerce of the
United States by similar restrictions on her
part. And on the second point, that YOU nten-
de'l only TO urge, that in consequence of the
extraordinary blockade OF England, your govern
| merit had been obliged to blockade France and
| 10 grohibit all trade in French articles, in re-
turn for the prohibition by France OF all trade
in English articles.
II is sufficient to remark on the first point
| that on whatever ground the repeal of the nom
| importation act is required, the United States
arc justified in adhering to- it, by the refusal of
| the British government to- repeal its orders in
council; and it distinction is thus produced
between Great Britain and the other belligcr-
cnt, it must be referred TO the difference in The
conduct of the two parties.
On the second point, 1 have to observe that
| the explanation given cannot be satisfactory,
because 1t docs not meet the case now existing
France did, it is true, declare blockade of
England, against the trade of the inited States
and prohibit all trade in English articles on the
high seas, but this blockade and prohibition no
longer exist 1t is true also, that part of those
DEGREES, did prohibit trade in English articles
within her territorial jurisdiction but this pro-
hlbtion violates no national rights, or neutral
commerce, of the United States Still your
blockade and prohibition are continued. in yio
lation of the national and neutral rights of the
United States, on pretext of retaliation, which.
if even applicable, could only be applied to the
former, and not to the latter interdicts and it
| is required that France shall change her inter-
nal regulations against English trade, before
England Will change her external regulations n
gainst the trade ofthe U States.
unrevoked, and urge in proof of it, a fact drawn
from Mr.. Russeli's correspondence, that some
American vessels have been taken since the first
| ct November, in their route to England II is
satisfactory answer to t.is remark, that it ar-
pears by the same correspondence, that every
American vessel which bad been taken in that
! trade, the seizure of which rested on the Her
lin and Milan DEGREES only, were, as soon as tha.
fact was ascertained, delivered up TO their ow-
ners. Might there not be other ground also on
which seizures might be made Great Britain
claims right to seize for other causes, and all
other nations admit it in the case ofcsntraband
OF war. Ii by the law Of IONS one bellieerent
has right to seize neutral property in any case,
| the other belligerent has the same right Nor
| ought to overlook that the practice of coun.
terieItng American papers in England which
J is well known TO the continent has by Irapairine
the faith due to American documents, done to
the United States essential injury. Against this
practice the Minister of the United States at
London, as will appear by reference to his letter
| to the Marquis Wellesley of the 3rd Of Nav
| 1910, made formal representation, in pursu-
| ance OF instructions from his government, with
an offer of every information possessed by him.
| which might contribute to detect and suppress
1t. 1t is painful to add that this communicate
| on was entirely disrsgarded That g. Britain
should complain Of acts in France, to which by
| her neglect, she was instrumental, and draw
| from them proof III support of her orders in
council, ought certainly not to have been ex-
pected.
Your remark also, that the practice of the
french government to grant licences to certain
| american vessels, engaged in the trade between
| the United States and France, is an additional
proof that the French DEGREES still operate in
their fullest extent. On what principle this in
| ference is drawn from that fact it IS imposs-
| bic Tor me TO conceive. 1t was not the object
| OF the Berlin and Milan DEGREES to prohibit the
trade between the United States and France
| They were meant to prohibit the trade of the
United States with Great Britain which violated
our neutral rights, and TO prohibit the trade of
| Great Britain with the continent, with which
the United States have nothing to do. If the
| object had been to prohibit the trade between
| the United States and France, Great Britain
could never have found in them any pretext for
complaint. And If the idea Of retaliation
| could IN any respect have been applicable, it
! would have been by prohibiting our trade with
| herself To prohibit it with France, would not
! have been retaliation--but corporation. If
licenclng by France tho trade ia certain instan
ces, prove aRy thing, it proves nothing more
than that the trade with France in other in
stances, ~ under restraint. IT. seems imposs-
BILE TO extract from il in any respect, that the
Berlin aud Milan DEGREES are in force, SO Ger as
they prohibit the trade between the L. States
and England. might here repeat that tic
! French practice OF granting licences to trade
between the United States and France NAV
have been intended in part, at lehst rs = sccuri
ty against the simulated papers---the forging Of
which was not suppressed IN England. Il is not
to be Inferred from these remarks, that 4 trade
by licence, is ono with which the United states
are satisfied. They have the strongest obiec-
tons TO it. but these are founded ON other
principles, than those suggested IN your note
| II is q cause Of great surr,riqa fo tho pres;-