Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1812-01-18

y 4, m4f;cicnt to remark on the first point,
that on whatever ground the repeal OF the nom
importation act is required, the United States
are justified in adhering to it, by the refusal
of TIN British government to repeal Its orders
in council I'D ifa distinction is thus produc-
ed between Great-Britain and the other belll-
gerent, it must be referred to the difference
in the conduct of the two parties.
= On the second point have to observe, that
the explanation given cannot be satisfactory,
because it does not meet the case now exist
iag. France did, it is true, declare blockade
of ENGLAND, against the trade of the United
States, and prohibit all trade in English artl-
cles, on the high seas I; but this blockade and
prohibition, longer exist 1t is also true,
that a part of those DEGREES did prohibit trade
in English articles, within her territorial Ju-
riseliction but this prohibition violates no ma
tional right or neutral commerce OF the Unit
ed States. Still your blockade and prohibition
are continued in violation of the national and
neutral rights of the United States, on pre-
text OF retaliation, which, if ever applicable,
could ONLY beapplled to the former, and not to
the latter nterdcts and it is required that
France shall change her internal regulations
against English trade, before England will
change her external regulations against the
trade OF the United States.
But YOU still insist, that the French DEGREES
are unrevoked, and urge, In proof OF it, fact
drawn from her RussePs correspondence, that
some American vessels have been taken since
the first of November in their route to Eng
land 1t is satisfactory answer to this re-
mark, that it appears by the same correspon-
dence that every American vessel which had
been aiken in that trade, the seizure OF which
rested OH the Berlin and Milan DEGREES only,
were, as soon as that fact Was ascertained, de-
livered upto their owners. Might there not
be other ground also on which seizures might
be made? Great-Rritain claims right TO
seize for other causes, and all nations admit
it in the case of contraband OF war. 1t by the
law of nations one belligerent has right to
seize neutral property in any case, the other
belligerent ha. the same right. Nor ought
to overlook that the pracuce OF countertelting
American papers in England, which is well
known to the continent, has, by inpairing 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 let
ter to the marquis of Wellesley, of the Sd
May, 1910, made q formal representation, In
pursuance ofinslructions from his government,
with an offer Of every Information possessed
by him, which might contribute to detect and
suppress it. 1t is painful to add, that this COM
muncaton was entirely dsregarded. That
Great-Britain should complain of acts in
icb I,,,h er
strumental, and draw from them proof IN sup
port of her orders in council, ought certainly
not to have been expected.
You remark also that the practice OF the
French government to grant licenses to certain
American vessels engaged In the trade be-
tween the United States and France, is an adj
dtional proof that the French DEGREES still o.
perate in their fullest extent. On what prln-
ciple this Inference is drawn, from that fact,
it is impossible for me to conceive. 1t was
not the object of the Berlin and Milan de-
crees to prohibit the, trade between the u
nited States and France. They were meant
to prohibit the trade of the United States
with Great Britain, which violated our neu-
trail 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, Greet
Britain could never have found in them any
pretext for complaint. And if the idea Off
taliation could, in any respect, have been ap-
plicable, it woald have been by prohibiting
our trade with herself; to prohibit it with
France would not have been a retaliation, but
a cooperation. If licensing by France, the
trade in certain instances, proves any thing,
it proves nothing more than that the trade
with France, In other instances, is under re-
straint 1t seems impossible to extract from
it in any respect that the Berlin and Milan de-
crees are in force, SO far as they prohibit the
trade between the United States and England.
might here repeat that the French practice