Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1813-08-12

| Milan DEGREES, which II declarede If il was
then it is obvious that there was no obligation
on MIR. Madison to demand any further eyi
dence In arsweri t tie question. we nat
| urdlly ask ourselves, what is nS.dL on such
occa,ions in the int change between nations
We believe that diplomatic history does Lot
furnish an instance where the assurance o.
"a fact. officially made i'm writing, by the FIRST
| minister Of a sovereign. has been rejected as
spurious Ambassadors at a distance from
the court of The monarch, under an allegati
ON ct having mistaken their instructions.
have been dIsavowed. aud their acts have
been pu,iiled. But where is the record of a
Case. of "a sOyereign's having disclaimed the
declaration ct prime minister made in his
own presence
IL has been remarked by writer in the
opposition, that the assurance of minister
Is no guaranty for the nc; of the so, ereiens:
aud toe observation has been illustrated bv
asking, whether the declaration of a Brit sh
Secretary would be accepted as securitv for
tue enactment of a law by Parliame.,, p
Both the remark and the illustration are i,-
relevant. The Constitution of the French
monarchy is different from that of G. Brit.
am. Napoleon Is an absolute prince; & his
single will is, in relation to his maritime de
crees, the legislative power Of his empire
4 he explicit avCwa of his first minister of
state, therefore, when made in his presence
Is equal To an act of the British legislature
which includes king, lords and Commons
but why Is an argument raised as to the i'm
propriety OF placing reliance on the letter Of
the duke ut Cadore, when subseuuent rren,s
have demonstrated that the reliance was
we'll foupdedl The duke declared that the
DEGREES ct Berlin and Milan were to cease
on the hrst of November ISIO-the decree
OF April 2S:h, 1911, considers them as not
having existed from that date: Where, then.
Is the dapliclty! Where lis the cheat. Was
tia wicked creduiity to believe what time
has verified o. does one document of 70.
peal discredit another document of repeal.
when both documents establish the same
fact III every particular?
In all the discussions Of this subject, the
opposition orators arc very tender I'm touch
lag upon the provisions Of the act of Con
SreS, at the first Of May 1910: And vet thar
act Is the only rule OF conduct which Mr..
Madison was under any obligau n to follow.
lit prescribcs, that "in case either Great
. Britain or France shall, before the third
=" day Of March next [lSl1l so reuoke or
" modify her edicts IS that they SHAH cease
" 10 violate the neutral Commerce Of the q.
" States, which face the President sh all de
" Clare Dy proclamation, and il the other
nation shall not within three months there
= after, so reveke or modify her edicts in
ike manner then the non inoorta-
ton law was To be revi' ed against the delin-
qusnt nation. Now, here is nothing about
a repeating decree, absolute or conShiSnai:
here is noinjunction on the President TO pro-
cure particular sort of document to prove
the revocation of the Berlin ard Milan de-
creeS; here is no reserva ton for c.. Britain
To reject customary modes of proof there
IS no2 even an exclusive requisition to re-
poke: modification, according 10 the Act
OF Congress, would answer lust as well as
a revocation.
All this, we shall be told, is very true, and
would DC very satisfactory, if the revocation
OF the DEGREES had not been afforded with a
coalition precedent. This condition hrece
dent is the club of Hercules for opposition
with which the whole administration is to be
destroyed. And yet, II is nothing but bull
rush IN the hands OF pigulies Taking eli
thcr the letter OF the duke of Galore Of Au.
gust 5th, or the decree of the 2Sth OF April,
for the criterion, when were the Berlin and
Milan DEGREES revoked Certainly ON the
first day OF November 1910. And when. A..
greeably to the Presidents proc amation
did the non importation law 20 into opera
tion against Great Britain? As Certainly on
the I'd day OF February 1911. Need We say
that 1911 is subsequent TO 1902 Or, is it
necessary TO shew by logical deduction, that
one measure, which took effIct three
months after another measure, was, never
theless, precedent TO that other measure ?
Asto the interlocatory instructions which
Napoleon may have addressed To his jsIi.
cial tr!bunasl, FROM time to time, it sutIices
that they donot cohradict the assurance Civ
en- IN due duke OF Cadnre's letter ofthc 5th of
August. Every one OF those nterlocutory in
strocrions demonstrated that the assurance
was IN the progress OF fdlhlmea7. Il Suspen-
sion OF condemnations IN prize cases. with re
gard to the United States, was directed.
with special reference TO the FIRST dav of
November 1910; and instruction succeeding
instruction TIL the French courts and Gus
tom houses cease To- take cognizance OF
| American vessels under the provisions of
the DEGREES of Berlin and Milan. The non
importation law was, it istrue, by this time
in fuIl operation against Great Britain,
whencc some writers have affirmed that
the non Importation law was a substitute
for the Berlin and Milan DEGREES. But this
| operation corresponded with the Injunction
Of the act of May I, 1910; FOR that act only
requires. in order to the revi, al Of the non
| importation law, that the obnoxious DEGREES
! should be " so revoked or modified rs that
that they shaH cease to violate the neutral
commerce of the United States" aud not
that they shall hare ceased. And il the
law Of non-importajion was substitute Cor
] the edicts of Berlin aud Milan, why did
| Great Britain finally repeal her orders whilst
/ haf lutu in, f,.rr rufR Ia.g Ia.