The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-01-21

4 AL Al
seize tor other causes, and ~ CO ,,nt 20
IL IN the case or contiiband OF war. .tni,
the law OF nations one belligercnt has rij,lrl
10 seize neutral property III any case, the
other oeiligercnt mas the same right. Noi
ought TO overlook that the practice OF coun-
ierIei,ing American papers in ENGLAND
which is we'll known 10 the Continent, has,
Dy inpairing the Faith due 70 American dc
cumeh.s, done to the United States essen
tai injury. AGAINST this practice, the MI
MISTER of the United states IL London as
VIII appear ~ reference to his letter to the
marquis OF Wellesley, of tie sd MAY, 1910,
made a formal representation, in pursuance
constructions from MS government, with an
o..cr OF every information possessed b. him
wh!ch might contribute to detect aud sup
press 1t. it is painful to add, that this com.
inunication was entirciv tlisrewarlicd --
mat Great britain should complain CT acts
III France, to which, b. her nerlect. she
was Instrumental, and draw from them proof
IN support of her orders in council, OUGHT
certainly not to have been expected
You remark also that the practice of the
french government 70 grant licenses to Ger
tam American vessels engaged in the trade
between the United states and France, is
rs additiona. proof that the French DEGREES
sun operate in their fullest extent. On
II.
that tact, tits impossii)lcs<f5r me to conceive.
II WAS not the object ofthe Berlin and Nj
IAN DEGREES to prohibitithe. trade between
the United States and France They We're
meant to prohibit the trade of the United
States WIKI q. Britain, which yiolated ou,'
neutral rights, and to prohibirft the trade Of
q, britan with the continent, with which tile
United States have nothing to do. If the
object had been TO prohibit the trade be-
tween the United States and France, Great
britain could never have found in them an,
preteXt'tor complaint. .. And if the idea of
retaiiaaon could, in any respect, have been
applicable, it would have been. by; prohibi-
ting our trade with herself to prohibit it
with France would not have been rctalia-
ton, but cooperation. If, licensing cbv
france, the trade in certain intances, proves
any thing, 1t proves nothing more than that
'he trade with France, in ether instances is
under restraint. 1t seems impossible to ex-
tract from 1T in an, respect, that the Berlin
and Milan DEGREES are in force, so far as
they prohibit the trade between the United
states and England. / might here repeat
that the French practice Of granting licenses
% trade between the United States and
france, may have been intended, in part, at
east as security against the siiasula lated paa
)ers, the forgery of which wa ~ aa,res4
nom these remarks, that tej [esby license.
IS one with which the UntcdfStates are sa-
tisiied. They have the strongest objections
to 1t but these are founded on other prlp-
clpies than those suggested in your nete
1t is cause OF great surprise to the Pre-
sident, that your government has rnt seen
in the correspondence of Mr.. Russeh. which
had the honor to communicate to YOU ON
the 18th of October last, and which has
been lately transmitted to You by your go
vernment, sufiicien: proof of the repeal of
the Berlin ard Milan DEGREES Independent
OF the conclusive evidence OF the fact, which
that correspondence afforded, it was not TO
be presumed from the intimation of the
Marquis of Wellesley, that if it was to be
transmitted toyou, to be taken into conside
ration III the depending discussions, that it
was OF nature to have no weight in these
discussions.
The demand which you now make of
view of the order given by the French 90
vernment to its cruizers, in consequence of
the repeal fthc French DEGREES, is a new
proof OF its indsposition to repeal the or
ierS In Council. The declaration of the
french government was, as has been here
'ofore observed, solemn and obligatory act,
md as such entitled to the notice and res
Pect OF other governments. Il was incp..-
bent on Great Britain, therefore, in ffu,-
nent OF her engagement, to have provided
that her ordersin council should not have,
effect, after thetine fixed for the cessation
OF the French DEGREES. y pretension in &
Britain to keepher orders in force till she
received satisfaction of the practical com
phance OF France, is utterly incompatible
with her pledge A doubt, founded on any
single act, however unauthorized, committed
by French privateer, might, on that prin-
clple, become aknotive for delay and ref,,-
sal. A suspiciof that such acts would be
committed might have the same effect &
In Ike mannerper compliance might DC
withheld as long is the war continued. But
let me here remark, that il there was room
Tor question, whether the French repeal
did or did not take effect at the date an
nounccd by France, and required by the
United states, 1t cannot be aledged that
the DEGREES have lot ceased to operate since
the I'd OF February last, as heretofore OBJ
served And as the actual cessation of the
DEGREES to violate our neutral rights, was
the only essential fact in the case, and has
long been knownto your government, the
orders in Council, from the date of that
knowledge, ought to have ceased, accor-
ling to its own principles and pledges.
Gut the question: whether and when the
rcpeal of the Berlin aud hiilaa,,ccrccs took
effect n relation to inc neutral commerce
OF the u States. is Superseded by the no
vel and extraordinary claim Of Great Bri-
tain to a trade iuiEi1tisa articles, with her
enemy for surprising the repeal to have
taken place, in-,the fullest extent claimed
w the y, > IL cOuU acc Drdintr e., III. ~ cl;,,,