Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1813-07-19

vernnent ought to have regarded The Sc
cretary OF State is thoroughly satisfied that
this objection is altogether unfounded. 1t
was communicated by the Emperor thro'
MS highest official organ, the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs, to the minister DleniDotent;a
ry of the United States az Paris. 1t is i'm.
possible to conceive an act more formal, au-
thentic or obligatory on the French govern
ment than that alluded to. Does one govern
ment ever ask Or expect from another to Sc
cure the performance of any duty however
important, more than its official pledge, fair
iy and fully expresss d Can better securi-
ty be given for its performance Had there
been any doubt on this subject, the conduct
OF Great Britain herself, in similar cases,
would have completely removed it. The
whole history of her diplomatic intercourse
with other powers, OF the subject ofblock>
abe, IS in accord with this proceeding of the
French government We know thar when
her government institutes "a blockade, the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs announces it to
| the ministers OF other powers at London !; Sc
| that the same form is observed when
they are revoked. Ne. was the aushentici-
| ~ OF either act, thus annvunced, ever uuesti-
oned.
| Had 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 entitled to respect, &
| been respected? BY the usage OF nations
such respect could not have been withheld.
| Ihe arrangement made with MIR. Erskine
Is full proof of the good faith of this go
vernmcnt, and OF its impartality, in its
transactions with both the belligerents. 1t
| was made with that minister OIL the ground
OF his pubic character, ana the confidence
due it: on which basis the non-intercourse
was removed asto England and left in full
force against France. The failure of that
arrangement was imputalJle to the British
| government alone, who, in rejecting it, took
on ltseita high responsibility, not simply, in
regard to the consequences attending it, but
! III disavowing and annulling the act Of its mi
| mister, without shelving that he had exceed
| ed his authority In accepting the declara
ton of the French minister OF foreign af-
fairs, IN proof of the French reEeal. the Uni
ted States gave no proof of improper Gre
| dence to the government of France. On
comparison of both transactions, it will APP
! pear that if a marked confidence and rcs>
! Pect was shewn to either government. it was
10 that OF Great Britain. In accepting the
declaration of the government of France in
the presence OF the Emperor, the United
States stood on more secure ground, than, in
| accepting that of a British minister i'm this
| Couatry.
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 Blyish government
replied, by demanding copy of the orders
issued by the French government for carr
rying ieto effect that repeal demand
without example in the intercourse between
nations. BY this demand it ceased to be
question whether tile French repeal was Of
c.,41r 81
cable conditions. The pledge of the French
government was doubted ; a scrutiny was to
be instituted as to the manner in which it was
to be discharged, ard its faith preserved
not by the subsequent conduct of its cruizers
towards the vessels of the u. States, but by
4 copy Of The orders given to its cruizers
Where you'd this end? If the French govern
r1cnt intended fraud, by It's declaration
OF repeal, announced to the minister of the
Uuiteh States, and afterwards tothis govern
ment, might 1t not likewise commit a fraud
III another communication which it might
maker II credit was refused by the British
governmental the act Of the French govern
mcnt, thus formally announced, is II probable
that it would have been given by it, to any
document Of interior character, directed to
It's own pcople3 Although it was the po-
icy and might be the interest of the British
government to engage the u. States in such
| a controversy with the French government,
1t was far from COMFORTING with their inter-
est TODD il They considered it their duty
TO accept the repeal already made by the
French government, of its decrees, & 10
look 70 its Conduct and TO that Gifts cruizcrs.
sanctioned by the government, for the faith
full performance or violation OF it. The II.
having been injured by both powers, were
! unwilling, in their exertions to obtain JUS
tice OF either, to become the instrument of
the other. They were the less inclined to
1t in the present instance, from the consd-
Grafton, tina t the party making the pressure
on them maintained in full force its unlawful
edicts against the American commerce,
while it could not deny that considerable
advance, at least, had been made BY the
other towards a complete Accommodation,
! it being nantes. 20 the world, not only that
the faith of the French government asood
pledged for the repeal of it's DEGREES, but that
the repeal did take effect on the ist of Nov.
1910, in regard 60 the United States; that
several American vessels taken under them
had been delivered up aud judicial decisions
suspended on all, by is order, and that it
also continued to give the most positive a.
suranccs that the repeal should be faithful
| ly observed.
] 1t has also been urged that the French
! repeal was centitinnal, and for that reason
could not be accepted. This objection, has
already been fully answered. II merits az,
| tention, however, that the acts OF the British
! government relating TO this subject, partjc-