Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-06-22
4 dollars per annum.

| session. he had declared an entire ignorance
OF every thing relating 70 the subject.
| 10 disspate the last shadow of doubt on
the question of the repeal of the French de-
crees, Mr.. Serrurier in his letter of July %,
| 1911, to the Secretary OF State, expires ly de-
clares, that 1.-The ne7v dishositions of our go
| vernment, expressed in the supplementary
| act of the ID March last, having been ofici-
| ally communicated tn his Court his imperial
majesty. as soon as lie was made acq iainted
with them, directed that the American veS-
seis sequestered in the ports of France since
the I'd Of November should be released /; or
ders were at the same time TO be given to
admit american vessels, laden with Ameri-
can producef''
Under these circumstances, whatever diff
terence ofop Mon might exist as to the propri-
ty OF the Presidents proclamation in the first
instance, there could be none as TO its rcvo-
cation. AS soon as it was asCertained, noS
only from theproceedings of her cruizers on
the high seas, but of her courts of law, and
OF her government, that France had acted,
n'afa tide, towards this country, it surely be-
came the duty of the President to recall that
proclamation. He could have no doubt OF
MS constitutional power over the subject,
having already exercised it in a case not dis
similar Erskine's arrangement That
proclamation was the dividing line of our
policy; the root of our present evil. From
that fatal proclamation we are to date our
departurefrom that neutral position to which
we had so long and so tenaciousIy adhered,
and the accomplishment Of the designs Of
France upon us. In issuing it, the President
had yielded to the deceitful overtures of
France; and it was worthy of observation
how different construction had thereby
been put upon the act of non intercourse Gas
it was commonly called) from that of May,
18l0-although the words of the two acts
were the same In the first case, modifi-
cation OF the DEGREES and orders of the bell
ligerents, SO as that they should cease TO vi-
olate our neutral rights, was alone required.
In the second, other matter was blended
with them, although the words of the two
acts were identically the same. This grew
out of the insidious letter of the duke If Ca
dore, the terms of which were accepted, with
the conditions annexed, by the President OF
the United States. These conditions pre-
sented two alternatives: "That England
should revoke her orders In council and abo-
lish those principles of blockade which
France ailedged to be new or that the u. S.,
should cause their flag TO be respected by he
English"-in OTHER words should become
parties to the war on theside of France. In
order TO know what these principles were,
the remuneration of which we were TO req ire
IL
cessaTy to attend to the language of the
| French DEGREES. BY these it would not be
denied that principles, heretofore unhe,.rd
| of, were attempted to be, e" interhoLated i,E-
| 10 the ia7vs Of nations" -Principles diame+
| triCally adverse to those which the govern
ment of the United States had repeatedly re-
| cognised, in their correspondence with fo-
reign powers as well as in their public trca-
| ties, to be legitimate and incontestlbe. The
| French doctrine of blockade being the only
! branch of the subject embraced i'll the duke
| of Cadore's letter of the 5.h of August, 1910,
| would alone be noticed. These required
that the right of blockade should be restrict,
| ed "to fortified ports, invested by sea and
| by land. That it should not extend to the
| mouths of rivers, harbors or places not for
| titled"
Under ouch definition the blockade OF
| May, 1906, otherwise called Mr.. Fox's bloc
kade, stood condemned-but Mr.. Randolph
had no hesitation in affirming that blockade
to have been legal, agreeaby 70 the long es-
| tablished principles of national law, sanCti-
| oned by the United States. In Mr.. Eos er's
| letter of the Sd of July last TO Mr.. Monroe,
he says" the blockade of May, 1906, was
/ notified by Mr.. Secretary Fox on this prin-
| ciple, {" that no blockade can be justfabe
or valid, unless it be supported by an ade-,
! quate force destined TO maintain it and to ex-
! pose to hazard all vessels attempting to e.
(, wade its operation" nor was that blockade
{, announced, until he had satisfied himself by
a communication with the board of Admiral
ty, that the Admiralty possessed the means,
/ and would employ them, of watching the
whole coast from Brest to Elbe and of effec-
tualIy enforcing the blockade.
"The blockade of May, 1906 according
to the doctrine maintained by G.. Britain, was
just and lawful in its origin, because it was
| supported both IN intention and Iact by an
adequate naval force" In Il SUBSEQUENT
part of the same letter it is distinctly averred
that that blockade vas maintained by a suf-
hcIent naval force % and the doctrine Of
| haher Blockade is every where expressly dis
claimed in the correspondence, here as well
as at London. off (says MIR. Foster) the
orders in council should be abrogated, the
Blockade Of May 1906, could not continue IN
der our construction If The iazu of nations,
unless that blockade 8h0Hid be maintained
by a due ahiiHcatioH Of an adequate narqL
force" The same admission will be found
in Marquis Wellesley's correspondence with
| Mr.. Pnkney.
The coast of France from Brest to Calais
is what seamen call an iron-bOudd coast IL
had been blockaded in every war during the
last century, that short period Of the Amc-
| rican war excepted, when England lost the
mastery of the channel. No British minis
ter would be suffered to hold his place who
should fail strictly to watch the OR site
coast on France. Brest, her principal naval
arsenal, prutruded out into the Atlantic o.
cean, confessed the want Of suitable harbors
for ships of war in the channel while rom
Plymouth, Portsmouth and the mouth OF the
|