Alexandria gazette, commercial and political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1812-1817, 1813-07-16

AIRY OF StatS uas 1oH @oi'huS :,
me question could be Submitted to Inc
Judgment of an impartial judicial triou-
,ai. such would be its decision. he has
soual confidence shat such viii be Tao
Judgment pronounced on it by the en-
| iirhl ened aud impartial world II, how,
| ever. these two acts could be separated
from each other, so as that the latter
! nigh, be made the basis OF the repeal OF
| ,he orders in council, distinct from the
| former. it follows that. bearing date on
the 9sth April. 1911, the repeal oughito
| have relation TO that date. 10 legal Coo
! struction, between nations as well as IN
| dividuals. acts, are to be respected rom
the time they begin TO operate. ahd,
| where thai impose moral or poliiica'
| obligation on another party, that o5ilga-
| ton commences VI. = the commencement
of the act. En-, il bias been urged tnat
| the French decree was not promulgated
or made known to the British govern
ment, until year after its date. lbs
ob;cstinn r.. no force b. accepting
an &C, hearing. da:e year before 1t WAS
promulgated. il is admitted that In the
in,er,a nothing was done rePugnan' to
| il. 1t cabnot be presumed that ans &C.
| vernment would accept from another: as
| the basis On which il was 10 found al
| ialpo tant measure, an act OF asieroT
AID remote dale, piedging nseii Is CO.
| tin course VI conduct which ,hai go
\ i. -.
from and viciated. II any government
! had violated al act the injnnctloas OF
which il rss bound {, observe by ali an-
,erio- one, in relation to third party,
aid which i, p blessed 10 have observed,
b. fore lis .ccep,snce by the other, 1t
| could not b. presumed that 1t would
cease 10 violate ii after the acceptance
| The conclusion Is irresistible, that II
The other government, did accept such
ac, with kno ledge of its antecedeBi
violation, as Tic foundation OF any mea-
sure on its own part, that such act must
have been TIE ostensible only, and not
| lie rea! motive of such measure.
The declaration of the Prince Regent
of the 2lst April, 1911, is in full COLI
! Grmstion of these remarks. BY this aci
Of the British government it is formally
announced, on the authority OF a report
! o. The Secretary Of Fore ~ Affairs TO
the Conservative Senate OF France, that
the French DEGREES we're still in force,
! and that the orders in council should not
be repealed. 1t cannot Tail TO excite
| considerable surpr,ze that the British
government should Immediately after
wards, that is, on the Esd Juhe, repeal
4! its order. in ccUncii, on the grocnd OF
| the French decree Of Tie 18th April.
1911. By this proceeding the British
government las involved ltseli III maui
| Test Inconsistency. !: has nain;aineG
| by cne act. that the French DEGREES were
| in fell force. and by another tina; they
| we're repealed during TIE same space ct
time. |, admits also, thai by nc act Of
| Ire French government CT lis cruizers,
| had any violation ofinc repeal anrouBc-
ed BIZ the declaration of Ike French GO
! ycrhment Of the 5th August, 1910, been
committed, or al least. ia, such viola
ton had not had sufficient weight to pre-
vent the repeal of-the orders IN council.
1t was objected tia, the declaration o.
the Frencf, government OF the 5th OF
August. 1910, was not such an &C. as
the British government ought to have
reea ded The Secretary Of State is tho
roughly satisfied that this objection Is
altogether unioupted. 1t was commu-
nicated by the Emperor through his
highes. official organ. the Secretary ct
For eign AEairs. to the Minister PleDi-
potcntiarv IF the United States at Paris.
| II is Impossible to conceive an act more
formal, suthentic or obligatory on the
French government, than that alluded
to. Does one government ever ask or
| expect from, another 10 secure the per-
Torrance Of any duty, however import
ant, more than IFS official pledge, fairly
and fsliy expressed Can better secu-
rity be given for It's performance ? Had
there been any doubt on this subject the
! conduct Of Great BTitsin herself. in 81.
nilar cases, would have completely re-
| moved it. The whole history Of her
diplomatic intercourse with other pow
ers, on the subject of blockade, is in ac'
cord with this proceeding of the French
| government. We know that when her
government institutes a blockade. the
] secretary OF foreign affairs announces IT
TO the ministers Of other powers at Lon
| don ard that the same form is observ.>
ed when they are revoked. Nor was the
authenticity of either act, thus announc-
ed, ever questioned.
| Had a similar declaration been made
by the minister OF France in the United
States to this government, by the order
| Of his own, would it not have been enti-
tied to respect, aud been respected BY
The usage of nations such respect could
not have been withheld. Tie arrange