Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-04-20

which operated equally ag. rs, C.. Britain anG
France IN loO9, by non-ntercourse, and in
1917, by nOn-lmportation act of unlimited ex-
tent, which, tho she made equally applicable
to both powers, was, IN consequence oi the I'M
accommodating and hostile spirit OF Great -Bri-
tain, carried into effect against her only
By the act OF May 1st, 1910, the United
States offered to both the bclligerents, that it
either would revoke its unlawful cdicts agains,
our neutral trade and the other should refuse to
follow the example, they would execute the
non-iinportatlon against the latter. France &C
cepted tins offer Great Britain rejected it
and hence the difference which we now see in
the relations of the United States with those.
powers.
The various pretexts under which G.. Britain
has eludcd the demand made on her by the u
States, to revoke her orders in council, would
have done honor, in point of ingenuity and re-
hnement, TO the most subtle of the Italian
states, III the sixteenth century. While it
seemed probable, that the French government
would maintain in full rigor the blockade of
the British Islands, that blockade was urged,
as the sole preteXt for maintaining in force the
orders in Council. But rs the circumstances
changed, the British government shifted its
ground, accommodating the argument to the
pressure made. When France revoked her
DEGREES the fact itself was denied and that
Plea has been INCREASINGLY urged since, altho'
not single case has occurred, cvincng their
operation, and many practical examples have
Deen adduced TO prove their repeal The Bril-
fish government demanded in the next instance,
that British manufactures should be admitted
into France, and that American vessels should
cary them there, and lastly, when the poll
cy AM injustice were proved, we have seen il
openly a,owcd in Parliament by those best ac-
quanted VIII the views and policy OF that GO
vernment, that n restraint on the commerce of
France was not the s.le object of the orders in
council; ;hat the Unitet, States were the III
walls of En- gland, and that it 62mported with
her interest, to check their prosperity and
growth.
1t has been the uniform object of the United
States, III every stage ofthis systematic attack
on their neutral commerce, while they asscr-
ted with tirmness their rights, to obtain, If
possible, an honorable accommodation with
both the belligerents: or with either, if itcould
not be had with both. They have invariably OF
tered equal terms to both. The non-inter-
course III 1869, procured the arrangement
with Mr. Erskine, which was disavowed aud
rejected by his government. TIE non-impor-
tation of 1910, procured that with France. The
United States would have executed the former, r
as they have done the latter, with perfectfid
ty.
The United States, then, hold at this time.
IN respect to the belligerents, high and com
mandng ground. If they united and firm.
they cannot fail to maintain it.
How that ground may be maintained, in a.
manner worthy of our character and consistent
with the resolution we have taken to resist the
manifold aggressions on our rights, is properly
a subject OF distinct consideration, on which we.
snail IN our next paper, freely speak our sem
timens.