-r VIT- : i . ..' -i, . FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 11 1. 11 .V'?3r '
&tatr papers.
DOCUMENTS
, .''CCootinued.3
COTIREPONDENCE
Sctvcc Moro Md Mr. rtrr( o tb rabjct ( tk
ORDERS JX COUA'CtL.
P.. FOSTER TO MB. MONROE.
traMbintfrn fuh 16, 18li. '
Sm I had the honor to receive the
Ieter which you addressed to we under
yesterday's date, requesting an explana
tion frofo mu n consequence of my let
ters of the 3d and 14h mit. ol the pre
ciie extent in which a repeal of the
French decrees is by his Majesty's go
tinmen made a condition of the repeal
of the British orders and particularly
whether ihe condition embraces the sei
zure of vessels and merchandize enter
ing French ports in contravention of the
French regulations, as well as the cap
ture on the high seas of neutral vessels
and their cargoes, on the mere allega
tion that ihey arc bound toor from British
ports, or ibttbey have on board British
productions or' manufactures ; as also,
stating that in your view of thd French
decrees they compromise regulations
essentially different in "iheir principles,
some of them violatingthc neutral rights
of the TJ. States, others operating against
C. Britain without any such violation.
You will permit tnr, sir, for the pur
pose of anwering your qucsiionsas dear
ly and concisely as possible, to bring in
to view the French decrees themselves.
together with the official declarations of
the French Minister which accompanied
trura.
In the body of those decrees, and in
the declarations alluded to, you will find,
sir, express avowals that the principles
n which thev were founded, and the i
I
minemles contained in them, are whollv
new. unbrcctdented. and in direct oppo-
aition to all idcasof iusrice and the prin.
dptes and usjges of all civilized nations.
The French gTeroraen; did Dot pre
tend to say that any one of the regula
tions contained in these decrees was a
regulation. which France hid ever been
in the previous practice of. V
Thry were conieqoently to be consi
dered, & were indeed allowed by France
herself io belj of them, parts of a new
tys'teoYcf warfare, unauthorised by the
established laws of nations. :
1: is in ihii light in which France her
self has placed her decrees, that Great
Britain is obliged to consider them.
The submission of neutrals to any re
gulations madr oy France, authorised by
the laws of nations and practised in for
mer wars, will never be complained of
by Great Britain ; but the rcgultins
of the Berlin and Milan decrees do and
are declared to violate the laws of na
tions and the rights of neutrals, for the
purpose of attacking thro' thrm the re
sources of Great Britain. The ruler of
France has drawn no distinction between
any of them, nor has he declared the
cessation of any one of thm in the
speech which he so lately addressed to
he deputation from the free imperial
llanse .Towns, wmch was on the con
trary a conSrmation of them all.
No until the French. decrees, there,
fore, shall be effectually repealed, and
thereby neutral commerce be restored
to the situation in which it stood previ
ously to their promulgation,can his Roy
al Highness conceive himself justified,
consistently with what he owes to the
safety and honor of Great-Britain, in
foregoing the juU measures of retalia
tion which His Majesty, in his defence,
was necessitated to adopt against them.
1 trust, sir that this explanation in
answer to your enquiries will be consi-J
dcred by you sufhrientljr satisfactory ;
shou'.d you require any furthtr, Ic which
it may be in my power to give, 1 1 shall
with the greatest cheerfulness afibrd it.
I sincerely hope, however, that no
further d'lay will be thought necessary
by he PreWent in restoring the rela
tions of amity which should eveV subsist
bewen America and Great Britain; as
the delusions attempted by the govern
ment of France' have now been made
manifest, and the perfidious plans of i's
ruler exposed ; by which be adds toa d
aggravates his system of violence agains
neutral trade, he endeavors to throw all
the odium of 'his acts upon Great Bri
tain, with a view to engender discord
between the neutral countries and the
only power which stands up as a bul
wark against his efforts at universal ty
ntAny and oppression
Excuse rae, sir, if I express my wish
as carlr as po&ible to dispatch His M.
tesry'a Packet boat with the result, of
our 'communications, as nis majesty s
tioTernment will necessarily oe racai
anxious to hear from me. Any short
period of time, however, which may ap
pear to you to be reasonable, I will not
hesitate to detain her.
MR. MOHBOI TO MR. FOSTER.
Department efJSiatt, July 23, 1811,
Sir I have submiued to the Presi
dent your several letters of the 3d and
16 h of this month relative to the Bri
tish orders In council and the b!ock2de
of May, 1806, and I have now the hon
or to communicate to you his sentiments
on the view which yoif have presented
of those measures of your government.
It was hoped that your communica
tion would have led to an immediate ac
commodation of the differences subsis
ting between our countries, on the
ground, on which alone it is possible to
meet you. It is regretted that you have
confined yourself to a vindication of the
measures which produced some of them
The United States are as little dispo
sed now as heretofore to enter into the
question concerning the priority of ag
gression by the two bclugeients, which
could not be juslifi-d by either, by the
priority of those of the other - But as
you biing forward that plea in support
of the orders in council, I must' be per
mitted to remark that you have yourself
furnished a conclusive answer to it, by
admi ting that the blockadeof May 1 806,
which was prior to the nrst of the rrench
decrees, would not be legal, unless sup
ported through the whole extent of the
coast, from the Elbe to Brest, by an ad
equate naval force. That such a naval
force was actually applied and continued
in the requisite strictness until that bloc
kade was comprised in and superceded
I . . A .
y e orders oi ovrmuci oi nt
c frl-
Mowing year, or even until the French
decree of the same year, will not I pre-
sume be alledged
But waving this question of priority,
can it be seen without both surprise and
regret, that it is still contended, that the
orders in council are justified by the
principle of retaliation, and that tfyis
principle is strengthened by the inability
of France to enforce her decrees. A
retaliation i in its name, and its essen
tial. character, a returning like for like.
Is the deadly blow of the orders in coun
cil against one half of our commerce, a
return of like for like to an empty threat
in the French decrees, against the other
half ? .It may be a vindicative hostility,
as far as its effects fall on the enemy.
But when falling on a neutral who on
no pretext can be liable far more than
the measure of injury received through
such neutral, it would not e a retalia
tion, but a. positive wrong, by the plea
on which it is founded. ' '
It is to be further temarked that the
orders in council went even beyond the
plea, such at this has appeared to be,' in
rxtending its operation against the trade
like Rutia hid not adopted the Fench
decrees, and with all nations which had
merely excluded the British flag ; an
exclusion resulting as rnatter of course
with respect to whatever nation G. Bri
tain migh happen to be at war.- .
I am far from viewing the modifica
tion originaUy contained in these orders,
which , permits neutrals to prosecute
their trade with the continent, through
Great Britain, in the favorable light in
which you represent it. It is impossi
ble to proceed to notice the effect of this
modification without expressing our as
tonishment at the extravagance of the
political pretension set up by it ; a pre
tension which is utterly incompatible
with the sovereignty. and independence
of other states. In a commercial view
it is r ot less objectionable, as it cannot
fail to prove destructive to neutral com
merce. As an enemy, G. Britain can
not trade with France. Nor does France
oermit a neutral to come into her ports
from G.' Britain. The attempt of G.
Britain to force our trade through her
ports,: would have therefore the com
mercial effect of depriving the U. States
altogether of the market of her enemy
fof thcir productions, and ordestioying
their value in her market by a surcharge
of it. Heretofore it has been the usage
of belligerent nations to . carry on Jheir
trade through the intervention of neu
trals ; and this bad the beneficial effect
of extending to the former the advanta
ges of peace, while suffering under the
calamities of war ' To reverse the rule,
and to extend to naliona at peactthe Ga
llamities of war, Fsa change as novel &
extraordinary as tt is at variance with
justice and public law. ' !
Against this unjust system, the Unit
ed States entered, at an early period,
their solemn protesU They consider
ed it their drr.v to evince to the world
their high disapprobation of it, and theyt
nave aone so by such acts as were aeemr
ed most consistent with the rights' and
polics . of the nation. Remote from ihe
contentious scene which desolates Eu-
rope, it has been their uniform object to
avoid becoming a potty to the war.
With this view they nave endeavored to j merely in the enforcement ot tne non
culiivate friendship with both parties by 1 importation act against G. Bntain, in
a system of conduct which ought to have
produced that effect. They have done
justice to each party in evcy transac
tion -in which they have been separat'ly
engaeed with it. They havr observed
ihe impartiality which was due to both
as belligerents standing on equal ground,
having in no instance given a prefer
ence to either at the expence of the o-
ther. They have borne too with equal
indulgence injuricfrbm both, being
willing while u was possible to impute
them to casualities inseparable from a
cauc of war, and not to a deliberate in-
tention to violate their rights, and even
when that intention could not be mista-
k-n, they have not lost sight of the ul-
timate o'jicct of their policy. In the
measures to which they have been com
pelted to resort, they have in all respects
maintained pacific relations with both
parties. The alternative presented by
their late acts, wa3 offered equally to
both, and could operate on neither, no
longer than it should persevere in its
aggressions on our neutral rights. 1 he
embargo 5c non-intercourse,w.Te peace
ful measures. The regulations which
they impostdon our trade were such as
any nation might adopt in peace or war,
wunoui ouence io any omcr nauon.-
1 he non-importation is of the same cha
racter, and if it makes a distinction at
this time, in its operation between the
belligerents, it necessarily results from
a comniiance oi one witn ine oner m iae
to both, and which is still open to the
compliance of the other.
In ihe discussions which have taken
place ori the subject cf the Orders in
Council and blockade of May 1806, the
British government in conformity to the I
principle on which the Orders in Coun-1
cil are said to be founded, declared that
they should cease to operaie as soon as
France revoked her edicts. It Was
sated also, that the British govern-
ment would proceed pari passu, wi Ii
the government of Fi ance, in the revor I
cation of her edicts. I will proceedUo
anew that the obligation on Great-Bri-
tain to revoke her Orders is complete,
according to her own engagements, and I
that the revocation ought not to be Ion-
trer delayed. II
Rv the act of Mav 1st, 1810, it is pro-
vided, " That if either Great Britain or
France should cease to violate the neu-
tral commerce of the U. States, which
fact the President should declare by
proclamation, & the other party should f
not within three months thereafter re
voke or .modify its edicts in like manner ;
that then certain, sections In a former
act interdicting the commercial inter
course hetween the U. States and G.
Britain and France and their dependen
cies, should from and after the expos
ition of three months from the date of
the proclamation, be revived ahd have
fu l force against the former, its colonies
and dependencies, and against all arti
cles the growth, produce, or manufac
ture of the same."
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 U. States and the
British dominions, that France had vio
lated! the neutral rights of the U. States,
by her blockading edicts. , It waswuli
the trade of France and. heialljes jthat
G. Britain had committed, Similar vibla
lions by similar edicts. It was the rt
location of those edicts, so far asthey
committed such violations, .which the
U. Slates had in view, when they passed
the law bf-May 1st, 1810. Oathe 5th
of August, -l 8 10, the French minister
of Foreign'; Affairs addressed a note to
the Minister Plenipotentiary of the U.j
States at Paris, informing htm that the
decrees of "Berlin and Milan were re
voked, the revocation fo take effect on
the 1st NvvemJcr following: that the
measure had been taken. by his govern-'
merit in confidence that tbt Britisty go
vernment would .revoke T(s Onlersj and
renounce its new principles of blockade,
or that the U, 6 tales would causa their I
rights'tobe respected, conformably to
Ihe 'sct of MayiUt, j I
j This measuri olthe French govern
ment was founded "on theflaw of'May
1 St, 1 8 1 d, as is expressly declared in
the letter of the ,'Uuke ot Laaore ,an
nouncing it.
Tedicts of G. Britain,
the revocation of which - were expected
I States should cause heir rights
II respected, in case iGJ Britain should not
revoke her edicts, i were -Iikewjstto pe
fDund in the same ict. . They consisted
that unexpected ahd improbable contm-
ttency. i
1 heletter.of the 5th August, w men
announced the revocation of the French
decrees was communicated to mis go
verriment, in consequence of which the
President issued a proclamation on the
2d of Nov. the day after that' ort which
the repeal of the French decrees wis to
Mtake tffect,un which he declared, I that
11 all the restrictions .imposed by the act of
I May Jst, 18 10, should cease and bedis
continued in relation to France and her
I ( dependencies. It was a necessary con
f sequence of this proclamation, also, that
if G. Britain did not revoke her; edicts,
the noft-importatiori act would operate
Ion her at the end of three months. This
actually took place. She declined the
revocation, and on the 2d Feb'y last that
I iw took effect. In confirmation of the
proclamation, an act of Congress was
passed on the 2d .of March following.
G. Bntain still declines to revoke her
edicts on the pretension that France has
not revoked hers. Under that impres-
; sion she infers that the United States
have done her injustice by carrying in-
to effect the nonimportation against her
The U. States maintain that France
has revoked ber edicts so far as they vio
lated their neutral rights, and were con
templated by the law of May 1st, 1810,
and have on that ground particularly
II claimed and do expect of G. Britain a
ii simuar revocation.
The revocation announced officially
?y the French Minister of Foreign Af-
fjirs to the Minister Plenipotentiary of
tne u. states at rans, on inejstn ot
August, 1810, was in itself sufficient to
jusiify the claim of the U. States to'a
correspondent measure ft om.G. Britain.
Ijbhr had declared that she would. proceed
IIwi passu in the repeal with France
nd the iay being fixed when there
Leal of the French decrees should take
L ffct, it was reasonable to conclude that
G.Britain would fix the same day for the
repeal of her prders.' . Had this been
done, the proclamation of the President
would have announced the revocation of
the edicts of both powers at the same
him:, and in consequence thereof the
non-importation would have gone into
operation against neither. Such too is
the natural course of proceeding in trans
actions be'tyc independent states, and
such the conduct which they generany
observe towards each other. In all corn-
pacts between nations it is the ;duty of
each to perform what it stipulates, and to
presume pn the good faith of the other
for a like performance. The Uf States
having made a proposal to both bellige
rents were bound to accept a com pi i-
nce from either, and it was no objection.
to the French compliance that it was in
a form , to take effect 'at a future day,
.bat being a form not unusual 'in laws
and other public acts. Even when na
tions are at war and make, peace, this
obligation cf neutral confidence exists
and is respected.. In treaties pt com
merce by which their-future inter
course is to be governed, the obligation
is the same. If distrust and jealousy
are allowed to prevail, the moral tie that
binds nations together, in all their rela
tions, in war as well as in peace, is bro
ken. ... j! '
What would ,G. Britain have; hazard
ed bya prompt c!ompliance in themanv
n er Suggested iJi She had declarethat :
she hid adopted the restraints jimposed
by jief orders in council with reluctance,
because of rieir distressing "efiect on
neutral' powers. Here then was HI favor
able opportunity presented to her to witn
draw from thV- measure with honori be
the conduct of France afterwards What It
mights Had.GBritain rokld hpr or
ders, ahrance failed tdful) her4en-
gigement, 3be woud have.:air4ed !.credi.
at the expence of Franijetjanrl could have-
sustained no i injury bjritbetause'the J
lauure oi r ranee? -io naioiam per iaiin
would iave replicerl di B the point
from which she had deMHcdTrTsay that
a disaprwintedTtliae 'p& the good faitii.;
1 ' mrni rrmrn i n rrnri r f i-iTiaMMiTM--itr-iiinniwiiMiiMr-ii r tr nr mnirtnmiimnmwirnmmn ir nw mm ifj iwi.nr nff iiwii nr jiaii i -tw iMMTi-TMriiiw-i nrwnii i i mhi nnr-ii
fbf her etiy! wpud; have repr$ached
ner loresignc, wouiu oc w.'.f iwgne
value on- that, quality than on cpnsisten
cy and good faith, rand would -sacrifice
to iWmere suspition' towards an enemy
the plaioljligafioris of jisdcepwi rirls ja
:S Cnreat Britain thas declined proceeding
pan passu with Frapce itif the reyotibu!
of their respective edicts, i She has htld
alof, ari!d flaiipf tte raes propt cot!
only that France'; has revoked her de-
crees, but that she continues to act in
conformity with the-revocation. f
To; she w tha'tthe repeal is - respected
it is deemed sufBcient to state that not
one vessel has been'" condemned by
French tribunals, op the principles of
those decrees since the'first of Novem
ber last. The Newrleaps Packet frotn
Gibraltar to Bordeaux was' detained but
never ' condemned. The. G race Ann
Green, frpm the same-'british V01 t0
Marseilles, was likewise detained but af
iervar3s delivered up uncondit iqo ally to
the owner, as was suclf part of the cargo
of the N.. O Packet as consisted 6t the
produceof the U. S. ; Both these ves
sels proceeding from a British pprt car
ried cargoes, some artitlesf Which in
each, were prohibited by e laws of
France, 'ot admissible by the sanction of
the govern ment, alone I( docs not ap
pear that their detention waW imputable
to any other cause Jf imputable tpthp
circumstance of passing from a British -to
a French port, or on account of any
part of their cargoes, it affords ?ro cause
of complaint toG. Britain as a violatipn
of bur neutral rights. No such cause
would be afforded, even in a case of con
demnation. The nght of complaint
would have belonged to the U. States.
In denying the revocation of uthe de
crees, so far as it is a proper' subject of
discussion between us, it might reason
ably be expected that .you vpuld prd
duce some examples bifVcssels taken at
sea, in voyageslb British ports or on
their return home, and condemn td un- .
der them by a French tribunal. fJone
such has been afforded by you. None
such are known to this government, j
You urge only as an eyidenc that tite
decrees. are not repealed, the Sjieech of
the Emperor of France to the. Deputies
from the free citits of. Hamburg, Bee
men and Lubeck ; ther Imperial, Edict
dated a.t Fontainbleau on the,19ih Oct.
1810 ; the report, of the French Minis
ter of Foreign affairs dated in 'Decem
ber Lst,,ahd abetter ofr the Minister bf
Justice to! the President of: theXouncil
oi frizes, ot tne atn oi tnat moiun. MiMZ
papers incompatible with the Veyocation 1
States, t It is distinctly declared by the
Emperor in his Spech-to he Deputies
r;f the Hahse Towns, that the blockade
of the British Islands shall cease whn
the British blockades, jcease ; and that
the Stench blockade shall cease in favor
of those nations in whr se favor G. Bri
tain revokes hers, or who support their
ights against her pretension, as France
admifsfthe U. States will, do by enlor
cing the non-importatibnctlThe same
sentiment is expressed in the report of
the Minister of Foreign affairs. The
decree of Fontainbleau having no'effrct
on the hieh seas, cannot be brought in io.
thisHiscussioruttevidentlv has.no codec
--.l -A .llr -t-l rJ - i
lion wiin neuirai ngnistc leucr irom!
the Minister of Justice, to the President
vof t he Council of Prizes, is of a difTerent
character " It relates in direct terms to .
this subject, but nots in the sense! , hi
which : you understand iU After reci
ting the. noje from, the DuKe'of Cadore
of the $th Aug.' lasf, to he'Aroerican
Minister at Marisi which 'announced the'
repeal of the French decreets, 'and j the
pi oclamation of the President in'-conse'
quence pfit, it states lhat'all causes a
rising undfer those decrees, after the : st"
of November, whichrwere then btfote
the coprt, or mighty afterwards be bro't
before it,, should not be judged pyHtyz (
priricipiearpf the decrees, but b suspen
ded tihUfthe February, when"tbe jU.
S. having tulfiUd, their engagmentt,
tbe.captures should be declared void, Hr
the.essehand Uheir cargoes delivered
r'dti'to';heit owflrs" This 'Derpfiears
to aitord an unequivocal evidence pt ihe
revocation of the decreesv so far as re- .
lates tq the-U. Statesyf Bjr instructing''.
thei French tribunal tp make no deeisHrn
till the, 2d ofjjfebruaryi and then t'orc-"
store the; property to the.; ownersy bnl i
particular event, which has happened, tlt i
causeof doubt on that point seems to, ba .
rerapved. The U Stnay "justly cptli-
plain 'o&layjnhcl
"V
I
... i
1
11
: '4'
i r
14..,
i -
4$
Hi
A