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

trOfefSy III u manner Tue UiOSl ucNOrdDlc e
| herself. France had yielded TO her the
| ground on a condition with which she hat
| declare d her Willingness to comply. Had
she complied, the non importation ac'
would not have been carried into effect, roi
could the French DEGREES have been revi-
we'd. By refusing 20 comply, she has made
herself responsible for ell that has since fol.
lowed.
! BY the decree OF the 28th April, 1871, the
DEGREES of Berlin and, Milan were said to be
deinisivcly repealed and the execution 0!
the non>importatirn act aga,nstfG. Britain
was declared 70 be the ground OF that re-
| peal. The repeal announced by the declar-
| alton of the 5th August, 1910, WAS absolute
and final, except as to the condition suisse
qucnt attached 70 il. This latter decree
! acknowledges that that condition had been
performed, and oisclaims the right 10 re-
vive it. in consequence of that performance
ard, extending back To the first of Novem-
Der, confirms III every circumstance the pre-
ceding repeal. The latter act, therefore.
as ~ the repeal is nothing more than a
confirmation of the former. 1t IS in this sense
that those two acts are to be understood in
France. 1t is in the same sense that they
are to be regarded by other powers.
In repeating the orders in council on the
pretext of the French decree of the 28;h
April, 1911. the British government has con-
celed that it ought to have repealed them
or the declaration of the 5th of August, 1910.
II is impossible to Disseminate between the
two acts, CT tn sepcrate them from each
other, so as to justify, on sound and consist
ent principles, tue repeal of the orders in
codncil on the ground of one act, and the re.
fusal to repeal them on that of the other
The second act makes the repeal dehnitivc !;
but for wl,a: reasons Because the non-im-
portation act had been put III force against
Grcat-Eritain, in compliance with The con-
tlitioh subsequent attached to the former ro>
peal. and her refusual TO perform it. That
act being still in force, and the decree of the
2s,h April, 1911, being expressly founded
on it, Great Britain repeats her orders in
Council on the oasis of this latter dccree.--
The conclusion is, therefore, ir,esis,ible,
that BY this repeal, under all the circum-
stances attending it. the British government
has acknowledged the justice OF the claim,
OF the United States to a repeal On the for
mer occasion. BY accepting the latter re-
peal, it has sanctioned the preceding one !;
it has sanctioned also the conduct CT this go
vernment in carrying into effect the non-ini-
portation act against Great Britain, found
ed on the preceding repeal.
Other impo. taat consequences result from
this repeal of the British Government. BY
fair sud obvious construction II. acceptance
of the decree of the 2Sth April, 1911, as the
ground of the repeal of orders in council,
ought 20 be construed TO extend back to the
1st Nov. 1910, the day on which the proceed
ing repeal took effect. The Secretary of
State has full confidence, that if the question
could be submitted 10 the judgment Of an
impartial judicial tribunal, such would be
its decision. lie has equal confidence that
such will be the judgment pronounced ON i,
BY the enlightend ard impartial world. If,
however, these two acts could he separated
from each other, so as that the latter might
be made the basis of the repeal CT the or
ders in council distinct from the former, it
follows that bearing date on the oath Apyil,
1911, the repeal ought 20 have relation to
that date. IN legal construction, between
nations as well as individuals, acts, are to be
respected from the time they begin to cpe-
rate. and, where they impose a moral or po-
ltlcal obligation on another party, thai ob-
legation commences with the commencement
OF the act. But 1t has b,en urged that the
French decree was not promulgated, or
made known to the British government. un-
til year after It's date. This obiecti-
on has no force. BY accepting an act bear
ing date a year before it was promulgated,
1T is admitted that III the interval nothing
was done repugnant to it. 1t cannot be pre-
sumed that any government would accept
from another, as the basis on which it was
to found important measures, IN act of ante.
rior and remote date. pledgng itself 70 q
certain course of conduct which that govern
ment had in the interval departed from and
violated. If any government had violated an
act the iDjunctions of which il was bound 20
observe by anterior one, in relation to IA third
party, & which it protested 10 have Observed,
before its acceptance by the other, il could
not be presumed that il would cease to vio-
late it after the acceptance. The corclusi-
ON is irresistible, that il the other govern
mept did accept such act with knowledge
OF its antccedent violation, az tine foundation
OF any measure on its own part, that such
act must have been tie oteusibie only, and
not the real motive OF such measure.
The declaration of the Prince Regent of
the 2lst April 1911. IS in full confirmation of
these remarks. by this act of The British go
vernment it is formally announced, or the
authority OF q report OF the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs to the Conservative Senate
of France, that the French DEGREES were
still in force, and that the orders In council
should not be repealed. 1t cannot fail to ex
cite considerable surprize that the british
government should Immediately afterwards,
,hat is, On the 2Sd June, repeal It's orders in
council, on the ground Of the French decree
OF the 2Sth April 1911. BY this proceeding
the British government has involved itselfin
manifest Inconsistency. 1t has maintained