The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1813-07-29

SsaW VI thc Ohittu States 10 re peal on tie former
occasion. Dy accepting the latter repeal, Il has
sanctioned the preceding one has sanctioneh also
the conduct OF this government in carrying into ct
tect the non-mportation act against Great Britain,
founded on. the preceding repeal.
Other important consequences result from this re-
peal OF the British government BY fair and obvious
construction the acceptance Of the decree of the 28h
April, ISL, as the ground OF the repeal OF the or.
ders in council, ought to be construed TO extend
back 10 tie LIST November, 1910, the day on which
the preceding repeal took effect The Secretary OF
State has full confidence that f the question could
be submitted to the judgment of an impartial Judi
cial tribunal, such would be its decision Tie has
equal confidence that such viii be the judgmentpro
nounced on by the enlightened and impartial world
II, however, these two acts could be separated from
each other, that the latter might be made the
basis OF the epeal Of the orders in council distinct
from the former, II follows that bearing date on the
26th April 1871. the repeal ought have relation
10 that date In legal construction, between nations
as we'll 40 individuals, acts, are 10 be respected
from the time they begin 20 operate, and, where
they impose moral or political obligation sno,a-
er party, that obligation commences with the COM
mencement of the act. Bnt il has been urged that
the French decree was not promulgated, or made
known to the British government, until year after
its date. This objection has no force By accepting
AN art bearing date year before 1t promulgat-
ed, It is admitted that in the interval nothing was
done repugnant To It. IL cannot be presumed that
any government would accept from another, as the
basis on which it was to found important measure,
All act of anterior and remote date, pledging isef
10 certain course of conduct which that govern.
ment had in the interval departed from AN! violated
Ii any government had violated IN act the injunc-
lions of which it was bound to observe by AN anter-
or one, in relation TO third party, and which pro-
esscd to have observed, before its acceptance by
the other, it could not be presumed that il would
cease to violate il after the acceptance. The con-
clus'on is irresistabe that f the other government
.ss-k ~. -.
d. mt violation, the foundation of any measure ON
ats own part, that such act must have been the
tensiblc only and not the real motive of such measure
the declaration of the Prince Regent of the 2lst
April, 1872 is in full confirmation OF these remarks
BY tIis act VI the British government it is formally
announced. on the authority OF report of the Sc
cretary OF Foreign Affairs 10 the Conservative Sen
ate Of France, that the French decrees still in
torce, and that the orders in council should be
repeated. II cannot fail to excite considerable sur
prize that the Briish government should Immediate
y afterwards. that il, ON the 23d June, repeal its
orders in council, on the ground of the French de-
cree of the 2otn April. 1914. BY this proceeding
the British government has involved itself in mani
fest Inconsistency. Il has maintained by one act,
that the French DEGREES were in full force and by
another that they were repealed during the same
space Of time II admits alss that by no act of the
French government its cruizers, had any viola.
ton Of the repeal announced by the declaration Of
the French government OF the 5th August, 1910,
coRsmitted. or tleas, that such violation had
not had sufficient weight to prevent the repeal ofthe
orders in council
1t was objected that the declaration of the French
government Of the 9Th of Augilst. 1910, was not
such act the British government ought 20 have
regarded The secretary OF State is thoroughly
satisfied that this objection is altoget ther untounded
1t was communicated by the Emperor through his
highest official organ, the Secretary OF Foreign At
fairs, to the minister penipten,iary Of the United
States at Paris 1t is impossible TO conceive an act
more formal, authentic obligatory ON the French
government than that alluded to Does one govern,
mcnt ever ask expec, from another TO secure the
performance Of any duty, however important, more
than its official pledge, f,rly and fully expressed
Can better security be given for its performance
Had there been any doubt on this subject, the
duct Of Great Britain herself in similar cases. would
have completely removed il. The whole history Of
her diplomatic intercourse with other powers, on
the subject # blockade, Is in accord with this pro.
cecding Of the French government. We know that
when her government Institutes a blockade, the Sc.
cretary of Foreign Affairs announces it to the NM
listers Of other powers London; and that the same
form is observed when they revoked. Nor was
the authenticity Of either act, thus announced,
Questioned.
ter Of France in he United States to this govern
men<, by the order Of his own, would it not have
been entitled to respect, and been respected by
the usage of nations sdch respect could not have
been withheld The arrangcmeM made with MIR.
Erskine is full proof Of the good faith VI this go.
vernment and Of its mpsrtisy, IN It's transactions
with both the belligerents. II was made with that
minister the ground Of his public character, and
che confidence due TO il which basis the non.ln-
tercourse was reuoved England and left in full
force against France The failure Of that arrange
ment imputabIe 10 the British government alone,
who, IN rejecting il. took On itself high response
bty. not simply, in regard TO the consequences at
tending it, bui in disavowIng and annuing the ACT
Of its minister, without shelving that ne had exceed
ed bis authority. In accepting the declaration of
the French minister Of foreign affairs, in proof Of
the French repeal. the United states gave proof
of improper credence to the government Of France.
On a comparison Of both transactions, IL will appear
that If marked confidence and respect was shewn
to either government, it that Of Great Britain.
In accepting the declaration af the government Of
France in the presence Of the Emperor, the United
states stood on more ground than in accept
ing that of a Brn,sh minister in this country.