Alexandria gazette, commercial and political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1812-1817, 1813-08-07

Dy bDS uSaSN "a udtlOnS SuCu tSSPSS'
could nor have been Withheld"
And, by turning to the report, the Sc
crelary will be found laboring through
four successive paragraphs, To prove
that, by "the usage Of nations" when a
government communicates any fact Off
cially, through its proper organ, it is mo-
competent for any other power to doubt
it or call in question its correctness. Ii
this te so, then should be glad to know
on what pre.ence j, is that Mr.. Monroe
can reconcile lis conduct with regard 10
Great Britain, in refusing to credit her
whole proclamation, with his general
doctrine thus laid down! In principle
I defy him to distinguish the 1--WE cases:
except thar, in point OF fact, Great Bril-
tain comes more precisely within his
rule the repeal Of the orders having
been communicated as fact through
the governments highest official organ
while OF the part Of France, the minis
ter Of the Emperor communicated, not
a repeal of the DEGREES. bot only his
masters word 10 repeal them at future
day; not fact, but premise. and this
promise dependant on proviso, troOid-
ed, however, that certain condition, not
very exactly defined, nor very easily un-
derstood, should be complied with on
our part. Now. Mr.. Secretary, will you
contescerd t. tell the insulted people Of
the United States, Why in The case OF
the former power, its nfficia! declarations
are liable to be doub.ed, nay, roundly
contradicted, while, in the case OF the
latter, the same declarations are to be
held sacred, and above all question!
But we have not done with this topic:
the Secretary has furnished another ar
gument and he shall furnish another
answer TO it, from his own report. HIS
sc cond argument to shew That the Brl
fish orders were not repealed IN conse.
Quence of the French revocation, is, be-
cause, the Brush government delayed
to repeal the orders, so long after the
Information of the April revocation OF
the Berlin and Milan DEGREES Nh Rus
sell, he SAYS. communicated his note to.
Lord Castlereagh on the 10th OF May,
and received reply on the 23d, but that
the repeal of the orders did not take
effect until the 23d Of June, more than
month after the French decree had
been laid before the British government,
delay indicating, IN itself, at a period
so momentous and critical, not merely
neglect, but disregard of the French de-
cree:" (sach are his own words).-
Courteous reader, do me the favor once
more, | bescech thee, to accompany me
to another somewhat remote part Of our
own honest Secretary's report, and l
will exhibit to thy wondering optics,
passage which l pray thee to take and
place beside the one just quoted, and
then see how they lock together. Let US
go then to the next column, where the
Secretary has occasion to speak OF the
same facts and dates. but in style some-
whs, different, having a different rnr-'
pose 10 answer. We shall find he here
totally forge,s the chain OF reasoning
which he had adopted, and on which he
had triue Shant!y placed so much dePen-
dence in the column preceding.
The Secretary here expresses himself
thus:
"The declaration Of the Prince Re-
gent Of the. 2lst April, 1919, is in inll
confirmation of these rema ks. ;ir this
act of the British government 1t IS for
mailv announced, 90 the authority OF i
report Of the Sec tary Of -Forc1gn Al
fairs to the Conservative Senate OF
France, tina. the French DEGREES were
still in force, & that the orders IN cnun-
Gil should not be repealed. It cannot
fail to excite considerable surprize that
the British government should immed,.
ately afterwards, that is on the 23d June,
repeat its orders in council, Oh the
GROUND of the French decree OF the 2Ssh
April 1914"
Here in order 10 show that the British
government repealed their orders IN
council so soon after their denial ct the
revocation of the French DEGREES, that
it cannot be presumed that the one had
any relation TO the other, or that the tor
mer sas the consequence OF the latter,
the Secretary tells US that The 23d ct
June, comes Immediately" alter the
2ls, Of April; whereas. III his argument
first adduced, to prove the same thing,
that the repeal OF the orders had ne con-
neciioD with the revocation ct the de-
crees, he says that between the goth OF
May and the 2sd of June, there was such
:" a deiav as indicated in ITSELF not mere
m a neglect 6nt q disregard u the Freach
decree" Thus, when. one purpose Is to
be answered, two months are made to
mean the same period of time without
interval, and when another purpose Is
TO be answered, one month is made to
mean Az important. delay, and the sane
Inference is then drawn from both cir
cun.tances. The repeal OF the orders
in council, he tells US, could not be the
.s,.,.nc~ ftbe French fevOkIng de