ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

vate friendship with both parties, by a system of conduct which ought to have produced that effect. They have done justice to each party in every transaction in which they have been separately engaged with it. They have observed the impartiality which was due to both, as belligerents, standing on equal ground, having in no instance given a preference to either at the expense of the other. They have borne, too, with equal indulgence, injuries from both, being willing while it was possible, to impute them to casualties inseparable from a cause of war, and not to a deliberate intention to violate their rights; and even when that intention could not be mistaken, they have not lost sight of the ultimate object of their policy. In the measures to which they have been compelled to resort, they have in all respects maintained pacific relations with both parties. The alter native presented by their late acts, was offered equally to both, and could operate on neither, no longer than it should persevere in its aggressions on our neutral rights. The embargo and non-intercourse, were peaceful measures. The regulations which they imposed on our trade were such as any nation might adopt in peace or war, without offence to any other nation. The non-importation is of the same character, and if it makes a distinction at this time, in its operation between the belligerents, it necessarily results from a compliance of one with the offer made to both, and which is still open to the compliance of the other.

In the discussions which have taken place on the subject of the Orders in Council and blockade of May, 1806, the British government in conformity to the principle on which the Orders in Council are said to be founded, declared that they should cease to operate as soon as France revoked her Edicts. It was stated also, that the British government would proceed pari passu, with the government of France, in the revocation of her Edicts. I will proceed to shew that the obligation on Great Britain to revoke her Orders is complete, according to her own engagements, and that the revocation ought not to be longer delayed.

By the act of May 1st, 1810, it is provided, That if either Great-Britain or France should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the President should declare by proclamation, and the other party should not within three months thereafter revoke or modify

its Edicts in like manner, that then certain sections in a former act interdicting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great-Britain and France and their dependencies, should from and after the expiration of three months from the date of the proclamation, be revived and have full force against the former, its colonies and dependencies, and against all articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of the same.'

[ocr errors]

The violations of neutral commerce alluded to in this act, were such as were committed on the high seas. It was in the trade between the United States and the British dominions, that France had violated the neutral rights of the United States by her blockading Edicts. It was with the trade of France and her allies that Great-Britain had committed similar violations by similar Edicts. It was the revocation of those Edicts, so far as they committed such violations, which the United States had in view, when they passed the law of May 1st, 1810. On the 5th of August, 1810, the French minister of foreign affairs addressed a note to the minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, informing him that the Decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked; the revocation to take effect on the Ist of November following: that the measure had been taken by his government in confidence that the British government would revoke its Orders, and renounce its new principles of blockade, or that the United States would cause their rights to be respected, conformably to the act of May 1st, 1810.

This measure of the French government was founded on the law of May 1st, 1810, as is expressly declared in the letter of the Duke of Cadore announcing it. The Edicts of Great-Britain, the revocation of which were expected by France, were those alluded to in that act; and the means by which the United States should cause their rights to be respected, in case Great-Britain should not revoke her Edicts, were likewise to be found in the same act. They consisted merely in the enforcement of the non-importation act against Great-Britain, in that unexpected and improbable contingency.

The letter of the 5th of August, which announced the revocation of the French Decrees, was communicated to this government, in consequence of which the President issued

a proclamation on the 2d of November, the day after that on which the repeal of the French Decrees was to take effect in which he declared that all restrictions imposed by the act of May 1st, 1810, should cease and be discontinued in relation to France and her dependencies. It was a necessary consequence of this proclamation, also, that if Great-Britain did not revoke her Edicts, the non-importation would operate on her, at the end of three months. This actually took place. She declined the revocation, and on the 2d of February last, that law took effect. In confirmation of the proclamation, an act of Congress was passed on the 2d of March following.

Great-Britain still declines to revoke her Ediets, on the pretension that France has not revoked hers. Under that impression she infers that the United States have done her injustice by carrying into effect the non-importation against her.

The United States maintain that France has revoked her Edicts, so far as they violated their neutral rights, and were contemplated by the law of May 1st, 1810, and have on that ground particularly claimed and do expect of GreatBritain a similar revocation.

The revocation announced officially by the French minister of foreign affairs, to the minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, on the 5th of August, 1810, was in itself sufficient to justify the claim of the United States to a correspondent measure from Great-Britain. She had declared that she would proceed pari passu in the repeal with France, and the day being fixed when the repeal of the French Decrees should take effect, it was reasonable to conclude that Great-Britain would fix the same day for the repeal of her Orders Had this been done, the proclamation of the President would have announced the revocation of the Edicts of both powers at the same time, and in consequence thereof the non-importation would have gone into operation against neither.-Such, too, is the natural course of proceeding in transactions between independent states; and such the conduct which they generally observe towards each other. In all compacts between nations, it is the duty of each to perform what it stipulates, and to presume on the good faith of the other for a like performance. The United States having made a proposal to both belligerents were

bound to accept a compliance from either, and it was no objection to the French compliance, that it was in a form to take effect at a future day; that being a form not unusual in other public acts; even when nations are at war and make peace, this obligation of neutral confidence exists and is respected. In treaties of commerce, by which their future intercourse is to be governed, the obligation is the same. If distrust and jealousy are allowed to prevail, the moral tie, which binds nations together in all their relations, in war, as well as in peace, is broken.

What would Great-Britain have hazarded by a prompt compliance in the manner suggested? She had declared that she had adopted the restraints imposed by her Orders in Council with reluctance, because of their distressing effect on neutral powers. Here then was a favorable opportunity presented to her, to withdraw from that measure with honor, be the conduct of France, afterwards, what it might. Had Great-Britain revoked her Orders, and France failed to fulfil her engagement, she would have gained credit at the expense of France, and could have sustained no injury by it, because the failure of France to maintain her faith would have replaced Great-Britain at the point from which she had departed. To say that a disappointed reliance on the good faith of her enemy, would have reproached her foresight, would be to set a higher value on that quality, than on consistency and good faith, and would sacrifice to a mere suspicion towards an enemy, the plain obligations of justice towards a friendly power.

Great-Britain has declined proceeding pari passu with France in the revocation of their respective Edicts. She has held aloof, and claims of the United States, proof, not only that France has revoked her Decrees, but that she continues to act in conformity with the revocation.

To shew that the repeal is respected, it is deemed sufficient to state, that not one vessel has been condemned by French tribunals, on the principles of those Decrees, sincé the 1st of November last.--The New-Orleans packet from Gibraltar to Bordeaux, was detained but never condemned. The Grace-Ann-Green, from the same British port, to Marseilles, was likewise detained, but afterwards delivered up unconditionally to the owner, as was such part of the cargo of the New-Orleans packet as consisted of the produce of

the United States. Both these vessels proceeding from a British port, carried cargoes, some articles of which in each, were prohibited by the laws of France, or admissible by the sanction of the government alone. It does not appear that their detention was imputable to any other cause. If impu table to the circumstance of passing from a British to a French port, or on account of any part of their cargoes, it affords no cause of complaint in Great-Britain, as a violation of her neutral rights. No such cause would be afforded, even in a case of condemnation. The right of complaint, would have belonged to the United States.

In denying the revocation of the Decrees, so far as it is a proper subject of discussion between us, it might reasonably be expected that you would produce some examples of vessels taken at sea, in voyages to British ports, or on their return home, and condemned under them by a French tribural, None such has been afforded by you. None such are known to this government.

You urge only as an evideuce that the Decrees are not repealed, the speech of the Emperor of France to the deputies from the free cities of Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck; the Imperial Edict dated at Fontainbleau on the 19th of Oct. 1810; the report of the French minister of foreign affairs, dated in December last, and a letter of the minister of Justice to the President of the Council of prizes of the 25th of that month.

There is nothing in the first of these papers incompatible with the revocation of the Decrees, in respect to the United States. It is distinctly declared by the Emperor in his speech to the deputies of the Hanse Towns, that the blockade of the British Islands shall cease when the British blockades cease; and that the French blockade shall cease in favor of those nations in whose favor Great Britain revokes hers, or who support their rights against her pretension, as France admits the United States will do, by enforcing the non-importation act. The same sentiment is expressed in the report of the ministers of foreign affairs.-The Decree of Fontainbleau having no effect on the high seas, cannot be brought into this discussion. It evidently has no connection with neutral rights. The letter from the minister of justice, to the President of the Council of prizes, Is of a different character. It relates in direct terms to this

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »