Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1812-06-20
(cOPy)
MR: MONROE 40 Mr.. FoSTE2.7


letter Of the 4th inst. The receipt OF that OF
| Nav 3oth has already been acknowledged
As these letters relate to the same subject,
the Orders in Council, shall fake both into
view in this reply.
/ am not disposed to make any unnecessary
difficulty, on account of the informally OF the
document alluded to in the last letter II the
declaration of the Prince Regent was such AS
}oaAord the satisfaction desired, 1t would be
received, in any form entitled to credit, with
great interest, as a token Of just and friendly
sentiments in your government towards the
United States. But nothing is seen IN that
act, Of the character which you impute to It.
Without removing single objection to the
nrinc;nle on which the Ordessin Council were
issued, and have been maintained, 1t affords a
complete justification of the demand hereto
fore made on your government fer their re-
peal.
The British government has complained
that the United States demanded the repeal OF
the Orders in Council on conditional repeal
of the French DEGREES, although The french
condition required nothing OF Great britain
which she ought not TO have consented to !;
and was, moreover, condition subsequent,
and not precedent and it NOW proposes to re-
neal the Orders in Council condluonalAy also,
with this difference, that the condition on
which their repeal is to be made, is eondl-
ton precedent and not subsequent, and Is
likewise one which G. Britain nas 10 right TIC
claim.
This condition requires that the French de-
crees shall be absolutely and Internationally
repealed, that is, that they shall be repealed
according to explanations given, not only as
they related to the United States, but as 70 all
other neutral nations; and also as they pro-
hibited commerce in British manufactures,
with the enemies of G. Britain.
So far as the French DEGREES violated the
neutral commerce of the y. States, we had
richt to demand a repeal of them. 10 that
extent we did demand their repeal, and 90
tanned it. The repeal was declared by an au-
tbentic and formal act Of the French govern
rnent, and communicated to this government
BY the minister plenipotentlary at london and
has moreover been officially published within
the United States. The authenticity OF the
repeal was placed beyond ali controversy, and
the official manner in whichit was conTnuni-
Gated TO your government ought to have been
satisfactory to it. A general repeal OF the
French DEGREES in favor of all neutral nations,
and of such parts of them as prohibited
trade with France and the countries under her
controul, in British manufactures, the United
States have not demanded, because they had
no right to demand it.
The United States have required of Great
Britain no more than they required OF France;
namely, that her unlawful edicts should be
repealed so Far as they related to. us. 10
compliance with this demand your government
has prescribed conditions, the mere recital OF
which is sufficientto shew their injustice
The United States can never suffer their
rights to be violated by Great Britain because
the commerce Of her enemy is not regulated
to suit her interest and policy.
If the Duke Of Bassano's report to the Con
sentative Senate of France, published IN
French newspaper, be sufficient evidence that
the French DEGREES are now In force, 1t is not
perceived on what ground the high evidence
which has been afforded Of their repeal could
have been resisted.
1t is further made condition of the pro-
posed repeal, by the declaration oft the Prince
Regent, that it shall take effect at future un-
certain day and that the orders in council
should be again in force on any contingency,
of which the British government is to be the
sole Judge. IF this were a ground on which
the United States could call upon France to
repeal her DEGREES, in case they were still in
force as to them, surely the French repeal, to
take effect on future specified day, and
whose revival was not provided for on any
contingency whatever, was ground on which
their call on Great Britain to repeal her or
ders in council in respect to the United States,
ought not to have been received.
In reply to your insinuation, that the demand
made on your government to repeal its edicts
which violate the neutral rights of the United