they repent of the course of policy which led to it, or whether they suffer much distress, from the necessity of continuing to proclaim as a truth, that which, in the eyes of all the world, is but a hollow juggle.* The good citizens of the country, however, feel deeply, the opprobrium of this conduct, as they see the grossness of the fallacy; and among the rest, the authors of the address from Washington.

These thirty-four members of the house of representatives, speak with indignation of the affair, and assert in a body, "that they cannot falsify or conceal their conviction that the French decrees neither have been nor are revoked; that they cannot consent that the peace and prosperity of the country should be sacrificed, in the maintenance of a position, which on no principle of evidence, do they deem tenable." They then proceed to state the general grounds of their opinion, and justify it by a most unanswerable train of reasoning. We have heretofore, in this journal, allotted so much space, to the examination of this question, of the repeal of the French decrees, that we are by no means eager, to renew the discussion. It has, however, from the event of the war, acquired an additional importance, which will warrant us, in quoting some of the arguments, urged on the subject, by the address, and in subjoining to them, certain considerations of our own. We do this the more readily, as it will afford us the best opportunity of showing, without material digression, how deeply the United States have been injured by France, and how unpardonably, the national honour and interests, have been sacrificed to that power.

The authors of the Address, do not deem it necessary to examine, if “the letter of the duke of Cadore of the 5th of August 1810, held forth a revocation good in point of form, and unconditional." They satisfy themselves with proving, that the revocation announced was not that effectual one, for which alone, our act of May authorized the president, to issue his proclamation. Few persons acquainted with the history of our public proceedings, or the nature of our situation, can mistake the kind of revocation, which all branches of our government to preserve even the semblance of a claim to integrity, or common sense,-must have had in view, in their negotiations with the belligerents.

*"Our government," says Mr. Bayard in his speech on the postponement of the war bill, “our government has been pleased to say, what he did not "think, at this time, any man in the nation believed besides themselves; "they have been pleased to say the French decrees are repealed."

It was a substantial, not a merely nominal revocation; it was to entail a cessation of the wrongs, done to the neutral commerce of the United States, under the operation of the decrees; it was, moreover, to replace that commerce upon a fair, and advantageous footing, with the power which accepted our overture. Whoever will be at the pains, to read the correspondence of the department of state, with our foreign ministers, immediately after the enactment of the law of congress of May 1810, will find, that the formal understanding of administration on this point, was just such, as reason entitles us to ascribe, to every intelligent man in this country. Mr. Smith, then secretary of state, in his letter on the subject,-of July 5, 1810,-to Mr. Pinkney, directs the latter, "in case the British ministry should ask for explanations, as to the extent of the repeal of the French decrees, which would be required," to answer, "that the repeal must embrace every part of the French decrees, which violate the neutral rights, guaranteed to us by the law of nations." So far then we stood pledged to the British government;—an additional and imperious reason for accepting nothing less.

Thus we see, that the only revecation in which our executive could justifiably acquiesce, was an effectual one; one which was to embrace every part of the French decrees, which violated our neutral rights. We scarcely need add, that he was bound also, previously to require, and to procure from the French government, the proper evidence of such effectual revocation. Now, in the body of the Milan decree, express authority is given, to French cruizers of every description, to capture our vessels, under the provisions of the decree.-But, as is correctly observed in the Address, the nature of the wrong of which we complained in this case, the unlawful interruption of our trade on the high seas,-principally consisted in the capture of our vessels. The authority to capture, was the essence of the wrong,-of the theoretical violation of our rights. The president should, therefore, have exacted evidence of the revocation of the authority to capture. It was due to the spirit of the law, which gave him power to issue his proclamation, and required by the official assurances made to the British go

vernment.

Nothing, however, can be clearer, than that the letter of the duke of Cadore of the fifth of August, did not, and could not constitute this evidence. Upon the face of it, allowing even the repeal which it promised, to have been unambiguous and unconditional, it was not a document of a nature, to fall under

1

the cognizance of the owners of privateers, or even of the courts of justice. In no country whatever, is a declaration made by a government to a foreign minister, admitted by the courts of justice, to control their proceedings, until officially notified to them, in a formal manner; particularly if the effect be, to arrest in their hands, the operation of an established law of the land. It is indispensable, to the essence of all regular government, that there should exist, a set form for the revocation, as well as the enactment, of general laws, in order to render either, obligatory on, or cognizable by, the subject. It is notorious that in France, there do exist, established forms for this purpose. The Milan decree, which made the authority to capture, a part of a fundamental law of the empire, is an instance of one of them; and it is therefore truly observed by the authors of the Address,-that nothing short either of a similar decree, or an official instruction from the minister of the marine, could annul the authority. That any such decree was issued, until very recently, or any such instruction ever given, cannot be pretended. So far indeed was the French government, from annulling the authority to capture, contemporaneously with the letter of the duke of Cadore, that we find, that authority expressly recognized by it, in the month of December 1810, in the letter of the grand judge, to the president of the court of prizes.*

We cannot suppose it possible, any individual will contend, that the French decrees were effectually revoked, while the French cruizers continued to capture indiscriminately, and the French courts to condemn our vessels, under those decrees-particuluarly as it is impossible to imagine, that this could have been done for any length of time, in opposition to the will of the French government. We hold this proposition, moreover to be self-evident, that even had our executive been privileged, to admit the letter of the duke of Cadore, as evidence of the revocation of the French decrees, sufficient to warrant him in issuing his proclamation, yet, if he afterwards discovered, that the conduct of the French government, ren

* On application of general Armstrong, the court of prizes refused to stay their proceedings, with respect to vessels libelled under the decrees, alleging, that they had received no regular notification of their repeal. Mr. Russel states, in his correspondence, that, on the 11th July, he learned at the council of prizes, that no new order had been received there as to the captured vessels.-He adds, with respect to a brig taken under the decrees, which as the duke of Bassano announced to him, was to be referred to the jurisdiction of the council of prizes-"Wishing to rescue this case from this inauspicious mode of proceeding, I again addressed him,” &c. &c.

dered that revocation ineffectual,-illusory, he was bound" to retrace his steps," and no longer entitled to press on Great Britain, the example of her adversary, as a ground for the repeal of her orders.

Had Great Britain declared to our minister in London, that her orders would be withdrawn on a certain day, and her cruizers had nevertheless, after that day, continued without interruption, to capture, and her courts to condemn our vessels, under them, would our administration, or any one of their adherents, have regarded or proclaimed this, as an effectual revocation? Would it have been admitted, that these orders had ceased to violate our neutral rights, although some few of the vessels thus captured, might have been liberated, by virtue of a special order of the king in council, bottomed on special motives? Would we not, all of us, have been ready to apply to the British orders, the language used by the Address, under precisely the same circumstances, mutatis mutandis, with respect to the French decrees?" Had any repeal or modification of those decrees, in truth taken place, it must have been communicated to the prize-courts; and would have been evidenced by some variation either in their rules, or in their principles of decision. If the decrees were effectively revoked, there would be no captures; or if any were made, liberation would be a matter of course, and of general right; instead of being an affair of particular favor or caprice."

The fact, that at all times, since the 2d of November, the French cruizers have continued to capture, and the Parisian prize courts to condemn American vessels, on the principles of the Berlin and Milan decrees, is too notorious to be ques tioned. Abundant evidence to this effect, is to be found in the confessions of our public agents at Paris, in the columns of our newspapers, and in the official lists of captures and condemnations lodged in the department of state. There is no instance, indeed, of an American vessel, bound to any other than a port of France, having been encountered by a French cruizer of any description, without being, either captured or destroyed. The indiscriminating depredations committed on our trade, by French privateers, in the Narrow Seas, particularly in the Baltic, the transmission thence of the papers of the vessels captured, to Paris, their trial there, and even condemnation by special decrees of the Emperor, still under the shadow of the Berlin and Milan decrees, are fresh in the public memory, and speak too clear a language, to require any comment. "No acVOL. IV.

F

quittal," says the address, "has ever been had in any of the French prize-courts, upon the ground that the Berlin and Milan decrees had ceased, even as it respects the United States. On the contrary, the evidence is decisive, that they are considered by the French courts as existing."-What the nature of this evidence, and how complete, our readers will judge by the following extract.

"There are many cases corroborative of our position. It is enough to state only two, which appear in the official reports. The American ship Julian was captured by a French privateer, on the fourth of July, 1811, and on the 10th of September 1811, the vessel and cargo were condemned by the council of prizes at Paris, among other reasons, because she was visited by several English vessels. On the same day the Hercules, an American ship was condemned by the imperial court of prizes, alleging that it was impossible that she was not visited by the enemy's ships of war.' So familiar to them was the existence of the decrees, and such their eagerness to give them effect against our commerce, that they feigned a visitation to have taken place, and that, notwithstanding the express declaration of the captain, and the crew to the contrary.'

6

Let the reader who wishes to be further assured, of the efficiency of the repeal,-on the 2d of November, 1810,-of every part of the French decrees, that violated our neutral rights, recollect that all American vessels, arriving under whatever circumstances in the ports of France, between that date and the 2d of February, were, by a general order, put under sequestration, and that it was not until the ensuing May, that the cargoes, even of a portion of these vessels, were admitted: Let him advert to the list, transmitted in the same month, by Mr. Russel to the duke of Bassano, of the American vessels captured by French privateers, since the 2d of November,* and then dwell upon the following passages from the correspondence of that agent; the first from a letter, dated 8th May, 1811; the second from another of the 15th July, 1811.-" It may not

* This list specifies five vessels laden with native produce, and captured in the direct voyage between this country, and Great Britain. Is it not matter of admiration, that, notwithstanding such testimony, given to the American public, from the department of state itself, we should find the following phrase in one of the letters of Mr. Monroe to Mr. Barlow." It is understood that the blockade of the British isles is revoked. The revocation having been officially declared, and no vessel trading to them having been condemned, or taken on the high seas, that we know of, it is fair to conclude the measure is relinquished.'