Martinsburgh gazette. [volume] (Martinsburgh, Va. [W. Va.]) 1810-1825, 1813-08-06
WAsHINoroS CITY, July IA.
OUR RELLTY0NS WITH FRANCE.
REpORT

REPORT
Of the Secretary Of State, whom referred sess
raj revolutions Of the Hoase IF Representatives. 81
she 2lst at requessirg Information certain Poins
relating 90 thsErensh decree Of the 2Sth efLpf lSla
1coScLuDxp1
To the demand made by the United States of the |
repeal of the British orders in council founded on
the basis OF the French repeal, of August 5, 1910,
the British government replied, by demanding
copy of the orders issued BY the French government
for carrying into effect that repeal; demand with
out example in the intercourse between nations
By this demand it ceased to be aques ion WHISTLER
the French repeal was 6f sWfsvierE syteni. ea sTas
founded on justifiable conditions. The pledge Of
the French government doubted scrutiny
was to be instituted "a to the manner in which it
was to be discharged, and its faith preserved, not
by the subsequent conduct of its cruizers towars
the vessels OF the IT, States but by copy of the
orders given to its cruizers Where would this
end II the French government Intended fraud,
by its declaration ofrepeal. announced to the minis
ter of the United States, and afterwards TO this
government, might it not likewise commit fraud
in any other communication which it might make
If credit refused by the British government to
the act of the French government thus formally
| nounced, is 1t probable that it would have been
given by it, to any document of inferior character
directed to its own people Although it was the
policy and might be the interest of the British 60
vernment to engage the u States in such contre-
versy with the French government, it was far from
COMFORTING with their interest to do it. They
sidered it their duty to accept the repeal already
! made by the French government, OF its DEGREES,
and to look to its conduct and to that of cruzers
sanctioned by the government, for the fathfh per-
/ Torrance violation of it. The u. S. having been
I injured BY both powers, were unwilling, in their
exertons TO obtain justice of either, to become the
| instrument OF the other They were the lees
cned to it IN the present instance, from the eonsi-
| derstion, that the party making the pressure on
| them maintained in full force its unlawful edcts
against the American commerce, while it could not
deny that considerable advance, least, had been
| made by the other towards complete accommod2-
ton, it being manifest the world, not only that
! the faith OF the French government stood pledged
for the repeal of its decrees but that the repeal did
take effect the 1st of November, 1910, in regard
to the y. States that several American vessels la
! ken under them had been delivered up, and iudi-
csl decisions suspended ALL by its ORDER and that
II also continued to give the most positive assu-
raHces that the repeal should be faithfully observed
IL mas also been urged that the French repeal
was conditional, and for that reason could not be
accepted. This objection has already been fully
answered. 1t merits attention. however, that the
acts OF the British government relating TO this sub
Ject particularly the declaration of the 2lst April
1912, and the repeal of the 23d June of the same
year, are equally and in like manner conditional
1t 10 not little surprising that the British govern
ment should have objected to a measure in another
government to which it has itself given sanction
by its own acts. 1t is proper, however, to remark
that this objection has been completely waved and
given up BY the acceptance ofhe decree of the 28th
] April, 1911
The British government has urged also, that il
could not contide in the faithful performance by the
French government of any engagement it might en-
ter into relative to the repeal OF its DEGREES This
objection would be equally applicable to any other
compact to be entered into with France While
maintained it would be bar to any treaty, even to
| treaty OF peace, between them. But it also has
been admitted to be unfounded by the acceptance
OF the decree OF the 28th April, 1911.
The Secretary of State prcsumes that these facts
and explanations. supported they are by authen-
TIC documents, prove first, that the repeal of the
British orders in council be ascribed to the
French decree bearing date on the 18th April 1917
and secondly that in making that decree the basis
OF their repeal. the British government has conce-
ded that 1t ought TO have repealed them on the
ground Of thedeclaration of the French government
OF 5th August 1910, to take effect on the lst
November following To what cause the repeal
OF the British orders in council was Justly attribute
| bic, there cannot now remain doubt with any,
VINO have marked with Just discemment the
course OF events II must afford great consolation
to the good people OF these states, to know that
they have not submitted to privations in vain
Inc discussion OF other wrongs particularly that
relating to lmpressment, had been closed some time
I before the period alluded to. II was unworthy OF
the character OF the United States to pursue the
discussion on that difference, when it was evident
that no advantage could be derived from it. The
right WAS reserved. to be brought forward and urg-
| ed again, when il might be done with effect In
the mean time the practice of impressment was per-
| severed in with vgor.
At the time when war was declared AGAINST c.
britain, no satisfactory arrangement was offered,
or likely to be obtained, respecting impressment,
and nothing was more remote from the expectation
OF tins government, than the repeal of the orders
! IN council Every circumstance which had occur
req tending 20 illustrate the policy and views of the
British government, rendered such an event alto
gether improbable. From the commencement of
that system OF hostility, which c. Britain had adopt
ed against the u. States, her pretensons had gra
dnaiiy increased. at least become more fully I'M
folded 81 he