Winchester gazette. [volume] (Winchester, Va.) 18??-1826, 1813-07-24

ton act against q. Britain was deciar-
ed to be the ground of that repeal.
The repeal announced by the declara-
lion Of the 9Th August. 1910, was alb
solute and final, except as to the condi-
ton subsequent attached to it. This
latter decree acknowledges that that
had been performed, and dis
claims the right to revive it, in con
sequence of that performance, and,
extending hack TO the ist of Nov. con-
firms in every circumstance the proceed
ing repeal. The latter act, therefore,
as to the repeal. is nothing more than
u confirmation Of the former.---It is in
this sense that those two acts are to be
understood in France. 1t is in the
same senrs that they are TO be regard
ed by other powers.
In repeating the orders in council on
the pretext Of the French decree Of the
esth April, 1914, the British govern
ment has conceded that it ought to
have repealed them on the declaration
of the 9TH OF August, 1910. 1t is i'm
possible TO discriminate between the
two acts, or to separate them from
each other, SO as 10 justify, oil sound
and consistent principles. the repeal of
the orders in council on the ground of
one act, and the refusal to repeal them
on that Of the other. The second act
makes the repeal definiiive but for
what reason Because thenon-impor-
tation act had been put in force against
Great Britain, in compliance with the
condition subsequent attached TO the
former repeal. and her refusal to per-
form it. That act being still in fierce,
and the decree of the 2sth April, 1871.
being expressly founded on it. G.. Bri.
tain repeats her orders in council on
the basis of this latter decree. The
conclusion is, therefore, irresistible,
that by this repeal, under all the cir
attending il. the British go
vernment has acknowledged the justice
OF the claim OF the u. States to d re-
peal on the former occasion. By ac-
cepring the latter repeal, it has sane
toned the preceding one il has sane
toned also the conduct of this govern.
ment in carrying into effect the non
act asaint G.. Britain,
founded on the preceding repeal.
Other important consequences result
from this repeai of the Rritish govern
ment. By fair and obvious construe-
ton the acceptance of the decree ofthe
2Sth April, iSu. as the ground of the
repeal of the orders in council, ought
to he construed to extend back to the
1st November fslo,t the day on which
the preceding repeal toek effect. The
Secretary of State has full confidence.
that If the question could be submitted
to the Judgment of an impartial judicial
tribunal, such would he its decision
He has equal confidence that such will
be the Judgment pronounced OH il by
the enlightened and impartial world.
III, however. these two acts could be
separated from each other, so as that
the latter might be made the basis of
the repeal of the orders in council, dis
tinct from the former, it follows that,
bearing date on the 2sth April, 1914.
the repeal ought to have relation TO
that date. In legal construction, be-
tween nations as we'll as individuals.
acts, are TO be respected from the time
they begin to operate. and. where they
impose moral or political obligation
on another party, that obligation COM
mences with the commencement of the
act. But it has been urged that the
French decree was not promulgated,
or made known to the British govern
mcnt, until year after its date This
objection has po force. BY accepting
an act bearing date year before il
was promulgated. it is admitted that in
the interval nothing was done repus-
nant to it. 1t cannot be presumed that
any government would accept from aBo-
ther, as the basis on which Il was to
found an important measure, an act Of
auteriour and remote date, pledSinS it.
self to a certain course of conduct
which that government had in the in
tervai departed from aud violated. Ii
any government had violated an act the
injunctions Of which 1t wa bound to
observe by an anterieur one, III relation
TO third party, and which it profess
sed TO have observed. before its accep-
lance by the other, ii could not be pre-
sumed that it would cease TO violate II
after the acceptance. The conclusion
is irresistible. that If the other govern
ment did accept such act with know
ledge Of its antecedent violation, as the
foundation of any measure on its owl
part, that such act must have been tn;
ostensibIe only, and not the real motivt
Iof such measure.
The declaration Of the prince regen
81 4ha Os-s Ap-,i sot4 = -, c,il ron